Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at Dr. Judith Curry’s always excellent blog, she has a post headlined by a question, viz:
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?
Let me start by saying that this is a horribly phrased question. Consider a parallel question:
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?
I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.
For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?
Here’s another example. Over say the last 50 years the incremental temperature rise at the Poles has been generally greater than in the tropics. This reduces the equatorial-polar “delta-T” (∆T), the temperature difference between the two. But wind speed is generally some function of ∆T, so less ∆T means less wind. And evaporation is linearly proportional to the wind speed, so this would tend to amplify warming from whatever cause by reducing evaporation … and where is the “source of heat” for that wind-related amplification of warming?
With that as a preface, let me start by giving you an overview of our understanding of the historical climate. Be forewarned, it’s depressing. Here we go.
Nobody knows why the Roman times were generally warmer than times prior to that, or why it generally cooled after the Roman Era.
Nobody knows why it then warmed again up to the Medieval period.
Nobody knows why the warmer Medieval times were followed by fairly rapid cooling to the Little Ice Age of the 1600s-1700s.
There’s more. Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t turn into a real ice age. Certainly, the orbital parameters were there for us to slip into a glacial period … but it didn’t happen. Why? We don’t know.
Instead, and again for reasons nobody understands, rather than continuing to cool, the planet started warming, at about a half a degree per century for the last few centuries, right up to the present.
(Please note that “nobody knows” doesn’t mean “nobody claims to know”. I can find ten scientists tomorrow who all claim they know why the Little Ice Age came about … the problem is, they all have different answers. But the truth is … nobody knows.)
And as far as we can tell … none of those gradual temperature changes were caused by variations in CO2.
Given all of that, it is a giant and unsupported leap to think that we can say either that a) there’s been an increase in some kind of heat source, or b) whatever might have caused that increase in the heat source, it has in turn been the cause of the recent years of incremental warming.
I gotta say, the hubris of climate scientists is beyond all bounds. Despite not being able to explain the past, they claim that they can predict the future out a hundred years … pull the other leg, it has bells on it …
But heck, let’s pretend for a moment that in some mysterious fashion we’ve been able to establish firmly that the change in surface temperature is indeed caused by a corresponding increase in radiation absorbed by the surface. Here’s a graph of the anomalies in total absorbed radiation at the surface (longwave plus shortwave, blue) along with the total absorbed solar radiation anomaly (shortwave only, red).
I’m sure that you can see the problem. The change in just absorbed solar radiation alone is more than enough to explain the entire change in total absorbed radiation at the surface …
So per this particular individual analysis of the CERES data, the source of energy for the incremental change in temperature is … the sun. No need to invoke CO2 or GHGs of any kind. The sun alone provided enough additional heat to completely explain the total increase in absorbed radiation.
Now, does this show that the sun is indeed the cause of the gradual warming? ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are plenty of forces at play in even this restricted subset of climate variables, and the fact that a couple of them line up does NOT mean that one is causing the other.
Part of the problem is our childlike insistence that there is some kind of simple cause-and-effect going on in the climate. I describe it instead as a “circular chain of effects”. Here’s an example. The sun warms the ocean. The warmer ocean generates more and earlier daily clouds. The clouds cut down the sun. Less sun makes the ocean cooler. The cooler ocean produces fewer and later daily clouds … you see the circle, you see the problem.
There’s an insightful Sufi teaching story about this question. Hussein asked the Mulla Nasruddin:
“Well, then, how do you account for cause and effect?”
Nasruddin pointed to a passing procession carrying a coffin and said:
“They are taking a hanged man, convicted of killing another man, from the gallows to the grave. Is this the result of his stealing the knife from the butcher, or of using the knife to murder his enemy, or of being caught by the police, or of his being prosecuted by the magistrate, or of being found guilty by the judge, or of being hanged at the gallows? Which event can you point to and say ‘This is the moment in time that caused him to meet his fate’?”
But then, as Nasruddin was wont to say, “Only a fool or a child looks for both cause and effect in the same story” …
Anyhow, in answer to Dr. Judith’s question, I fear that all we can say with certainty is …“Nobody knows”.
My best to everyone on a lovely winter night,
w.
PS—As usual, I politely request that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all understand what you are discussing. Please note that although the request is polite, if you ignore it, I may not be … I’m tired of picking random unsourced uncited unreferenced spitballs off the wall.
PPS—In addition to the always-fascinating scientific give-and-take here, let me invite you all to contribute to the ongoing discussions of a more political and personal nature at my own blog, Skating Under The Ice, or to follow me on Twitter, @WEschenbach.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bravo Willis for your article and comments.
Willis,
A small point:
Dr. Curry did not pose the question you are objecting to. They were asked by US District Court Judge Alsup.
Here is a summary of the questions asked by the judge: http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180306_docket-317-cv-06011_order.pdf
Will we be able to evaluate Judge Alsup’s probable understanding of each side’s tutorial presentation by seeing how much time passes before his eyes glaze over?
It’s a very frustrating experience when you’ve made the effort to write something interesting, and someone ignores the ideas to nitpick about the language. Happily, the comments got back on track, so I’ll comment on the language question. English is not Latin, or Spanish: the question of number is not one of rigid rules, but of sense. Try this: “A group of teenagers was / were walking along the road.” The head noun is singular, but who cares? A group doesn’t walk, people do, so it’s “were”. “The team has won the championship; the team are very happy.” A team as a unit wins, but it’s the team members who are happy.
“It’s the Sun, stupid.” And the natural variability in natural water vapour heating, if real, DWARFS any CO2 effect even the most biased models can justify for their grants. But there is another effect that varies by +/- 15% pa and is ignored. ++ Ned Nikolov’s planetary science can account for our atmospheric temperature anomaly using graviational pressure and adiabatic heating alone. No greenhouses required, that science is a flawed 19th Century theory that simply doesn’t stand scrutiny using what we now know about planetary atmospheres elsewhere, as he describes it. The science never was settled.
Thank you. Great article. I’m reminded of Hume’s treatment of causality as constant conjunction as we go through life imagining causes. Doubtless an ancient hominid or more recent neanderthal finally made the causal connection between having sex and a birth nine months later and storks no longer got the blame for the pain; it was all the fertility god’s fault.
I don’t know. I’ve been told repeatedly that the science is settled and the debate is over. 😉
I will be talking about my work at the 2018 Sun-Climate Symposium, after which I will report on both.
“LASP SORCE TSI, the CDR, and Historical Solar and TSI data were analyzed to determine that the increasing trend in solar irradiance over 400 years, from the sun’s long low activity of the Maunder Minimum to it’s equally long Modern Maximum 70-year high sunspot activity period, was the primary source of energy responsible for the increase in ocean temperature since the Little Ice Age.
Oceans Warm Under Rising Solar Activity or Insolation over any duration- a week, month, year, solar cycle, or many strong cycles such as during the late 20th century.
Equatorial ocean heat content and temperatures are observed as sensitive to and linear-lagged with daily TSI-insolation variation, from upwelled heat accumulation of sub-surface solar penetration from prior clear sky high insolation as observed in every solar cycle onset El Nino event over solar cycles 19-24, and/or rising or high TSI.
Decadal scale ocean warming and post-solar maximum El Nino events are determined to occur after solar activity rises above a long-term average of 120 sfu F10.7cm, equivalent to 94 v2 SSN and 1361.25 W/m2 SORCE TSI.
HadSST3 is found to be linearly sensitive to the annual change in SORCE TSI at a rate of 0.5°C/W/year.
An empirical F10.7-TSI-SST model was made combining a F10.7cm-SORCE TSI correlation and regression model and the HadSST3-TSI sensitivity factor, predicated on the SWPC Solar Cycle 24 panel 2016 F10.7cm flux forecast.
The author used this model in December of 2015 to uniquely and successfully predict the 2016 HadSST3 temperature fall to within 3% error.
Solar minimum La Nina events result from insufficient TSI over time, driving less equatorial evaporation, less cloud cover and precipitation, causing drought. Drought is now expected for the US 2018-20 from low solar minimum TSI.
The Solar Cycle Influence is the accumulated terrestrial temperature effect from all solar cycle activity, which varies with solar cycle magnetic field evolution, is herein found to be the primary energy source forcing net ocean warming or cooling, tropical evaporation, and subsequent extreme precipitation events or droughts.
Solar warmed oceans drove 20th century climate change, driven by higher than average sunspot cycles and TSI, higher than the determined 1361.25 W/m2 warming level.”
Solar cycle 24 has set a record: the earliest lowest average level of sunspot activity of all 24 cycles.
What are the implications and what are the implications of two such similar solar cycles?
What would happen if your furnace shut down and stayed in its minimal state for several years?
What will happen at the top of the next solar cycle? Does solar science know enough yet to know the timing of a solar maximum? I’d sure like to know. If I find someone else who knows I’ll let you know, otherwise accurate climate forecasting is only as good as our grasp of the strength and timing of the next solar cycle(s).
“Only a fool or a child looks for both cause and effect in the same story” …
=======
hadn’t heard that quote. so many problems in science disappear. with one simple yet profound insight. starting with the chicken and egg question. it cannot be answered because cause and effect are combined in the same story. very interesting.
Ferd, if you don’t know about it, you might be interested in “Granger Causality”. There are three possibilities for two phenomena, A and B:
1) A “Granger-causes” B.
2) B “Granger-causes” A.
3) Both A and B each “Granger-cause” the other one.
From Wiki:
There’s a good description of how to use R to do Granger-tests here
w.
PS—Let me append two relevant quotations:
Billy the Bard of Avon
and
JBS Haldane
ferdberple – March 10, 2018 at 4:20 pm
During my adolescent/teenage years I was probably so gullible as to believe that the “chicken and egg” question could not be answered, …… but that was then, …… this is now, …… to wit:
Samuel
That is a good answer. Under certain directed radiation the reptilian eggs mutated to birds’ eggs. But now with the reptilians: what came first the reptilian or the egg?
Henryp March 11, 2018 at 7:35 am
Samuel
That is a good answer. Under certain directed radiation the reptilian eggs mutated to birds’ eggs. But now with the reptilians: what came first the reptilian or the egg?
I would say the egg since the evolution of the amniote from the amphibians was what allowed reproduction on land without the need to return to water. Occurred about 315 Mya.
Nah. Dont think that is right. Anyway, how would you know? You still believe in man made global warming?
Henryp,
Me thinks that sexual reproduction in multicellular animals always involves an egg (ovum) and the “short” definition of evolution is “descent with modification” meaning random beneficial mutations. Thus, me thinks it is correct to say “the egg always comes first”, …… with one (1) important exception one has to consider, …… to wit:
The Cambrian Explosion, approximately 541 million years ago, was the period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record.
Personally, I do not believe it was possible for evolution via “descent with modification via random mutations in the developing embryo” to produce the extreme variations in the major animal phyla that exists today, thus, it is my learned opinion that “horizontal gene transfer” was primarily responsible for said Cambrian Explosion.
NOTE: Asexual reproduction occurs in multicellular animals via fission, budding, fragmentation, and parthenogenesis via an unfertilized egg.
once the egg or embryo exists, mutations are possible.
When man directs such radiation it is usually chaos. Think of Hiroshima and all the deformed babies that were born,
When God directs the universe to blast earth with some unusual radiation there is usually the sudden development of new species.
Henryp, …. iffen that is what “turns your crank”, …… then so be it.
It is not surprising to me that most religious fanatics have been nurtured to avert their eyes and their mind to the literal facts about the natural world they live in.
Henryp, …. iffen you actually believe that “what man directs is usually chaos”, then consider the fact that 90+-% of the food that you have been eating all of your life is the result of man directing their growth and development.
Henryp, …. was there any new species development after your God directed the universe to blast Sodom and Gomorrah?
Samuel
true.
It seems that you know your bible stories. Why do bad things happen to good people? it is the same thing that Job was wondering about when bad things happened to him. In fact a very bad thing happened to me today. Perhaps God is saying: would you still love me when things are going bad and I take away your most precious possession? [which is in fact what happened to me today]
Samuel,did your faith go on the side line when things were going bad? That is pity.
yet, without faith it is impossible to enter the realm of eternity.
In fact, everything points us that God is not Superman but that He is in fact our Father who wants us to join hands with Him to solve the chaos in the world, as I have proven many times,
e.g
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hsl5zot99abizen/Jesus%20is%20God.DOC?dl=0
chapter 3
Let there be Light
Here ya go, Henryp, …. ponder this excerpted commentary, to wit:
A need for religious beliefs arises.
As the individuals within these groups (of early humans) became more intelligent and knowledgeable of their environment they began to question those things they were subjected to that they didn’t understand, including thunder, lightning, the seasons and their own origins.
And when such questions arose in social groups of humans their leader(s) were queried for an answer to them. But their leaders didn’t have a clue, ….. or no longer had any memories of, …… or no access to any of the alien explorers that originally created humans, ….. to nurture/educate them on their origins, or any historical records that would explain things to them. Therefore, the leaders and/or oldest members of these isolated groups were forced to use their imagination to create acceptable “reasons” for said origins in order to appease the curiosity of the individuals in said group.
Thus, Gods and Goddesses were thought up to “explain the unexplainable”. And the isolation of the different groups of humans resulted in differences in their imagined “reasons”, otherwise known as “religious beliefs”. Our knowledge of said religious beliefs are recorded in both the archeological and historical records of past cultural groups, of which some are the root source of most all present-day Religions.
A per say, ….. Religious belief decent with modifications, ….. from the polytheism worshipping of the past to the monotheism worshipping of the present.
Cheers
So what cane first
The reptilian or the egg?
Neither one.
The prokaryotes came long, long, long before reptilians or eggs.
Henryp, a question for you …….
How much was Jesus Christ paying the scribes and reporters that were following him around 24-7 and writing down EXACTLY whatever he was saying and preaching so that all those “quotes” attributed to Jesus could be included in your Bible when it was 1st published 325 years after JC was crucified?
Proka what?
[Proka dots get paid for their talent, Amateur polka dots merely dance around their circle for the fun of it. .mod]
Sam
I will answer your question with another question. Read the first chapter of my book and i ask you: how is it possible that so many prophecies from the OT came true during JC life on earth and on His way to the cross?
NO, ….. NO, ….. NO, ….. Henryp, …… I answered your questions, …. now you answer my question.
I am not going to play your silly arsed game of “ask-a-question-to-answer-a-question” that you apparently employ to bedazzle, amaze and confuse the learning disabled, miseducated, clueless and/or highly gullible emotionally handicapped individuals that are basically “scared of living and afraid of dying” simply because of their adolescently nurtured beliefs in/of a God of Creation and the Christian religion.
You need to read up on the First Council of Nicea that convened in 325 AD ….. which was where your Biblical contents were 1st being chosen, composed, edited, rewritten, etc, etc,. that resulted in the Bible you have today.
Faith without works is pointless. Perhaps even bad. Matthew 25: judgement day.
Willis, did my fart last week, or last decade lead to global warming?
Mr.Trenberth has noticed that TOA LW radiation to space has increased in the CERES data rather than decreased according to greenhouse theory. He now opines that extra absorption of shortwave makes up the difference.
Dr. Trenberth is correct about the LW, although the trend is not statistically significant.
However, as I pointed out above, the putative “cause” of this or any change in the status quo ante is very difficult to discern.
w.
Applying the Granger-test I discussed above to TOA longwave and surface solar (shortwave) gives us the following results (p-values in bold):
This says that surface net shortwave Granger-causes change in TOA longwave. Here’s the other direction:
And this, in turn, says that TOA upwelling longwave Granger-causes changes in surface shortwave absorption.
This is a clear example of the problem I pointed out in the head post. Rather than just one of them Granger causing the other one and not the opposite, in fact each of them Granger-causes the other one.
w.
Isn’t it more like C(louds) causing both A and B?
The nino effect is more apparent when yearly averages are used rather than subtracting the seasonal component.
The nino effect is generally more pronounced in LW outward flux than SW, and for some reason, the 2015-16 nino did not seem to increase SW reflectance (outward flux).
Since TOA incoming SW is constant to within a fraction of a W/M2, outward SW plus LW flux should equal the net inward flux. Close but no cigar.
Willis Eschenbach: a “circular chain of effects”
WR: A great way to describe shortly what is happening. The quote above surpasses simplistic views like ‘cause and effect’ and ‘feedback or forcing’.
If we would talk about ‘one of many possible chains of effects’ we would even be closer to reality and ‘uncertainty’ would get the place it deserves.
dr curry is one smart cookie
I have great respect for Dr. Judith, she’s one of my heroes … and heroes are in short supply these days.
w.
Willis wrote: Part of the problem is our childlike insistence that there is some kind of simple cause-and-effect going on in the climate. I describe it instead as a “circular chain of effects”.”
There IS a simple cause-and-effect going on in climate, obscured by chaos. The simple cause and effect is due to the law of conservation of energy: Temperature change depends on the net difference between incoming and outgoing energy fluxes across the TOA. You and many other skeptics lose sight of this simplicity by focusing on surface energy balance. (Though today’s alarmists don’t want to admit it, every scientist who considered CO2 before the 1960’s made the same mistake of focusing on the surface energy balance.) Fluid fluxes CHAOTICALLY REDISTRIBUTE heat within the climate system (atmosphere, surface and ocean), but the total amount of heat to be distributed is determined by the TOA imbalance.
For example, evaporation is a complicated phenomena proportional to surface wind speed and undersaturation of the atmosphere immediately above the ocean. Nevertheless, until the latent heat of evaporation is carried aloft, released as precipitation and escapes to space as LWR, increased atmospheric humidity provides a negative feedback that suppresses evaporation. By focusing on the TOA imbalance (and not internal redistribution), one doesn’t need to be concerned with the complicated phenomena of evaporation.
Neither net SURFACE SWR nor net SURFACE SWR+LWR is what one needs to know. When these quantities began to rise around 2013, surface temperature was also rising and negating some of that downward flux. Presumably neither surface LWR nor surface SWR are observed quantities; they are calculated from some model. TSI and albedo ARE observed, but about 1/3 of non-reflected SWR is absorbed between the TOA and the surface.
Chaos is more complicated than a “circular chain of effects”. With chaos, some chains of apparent cause and effect can appear, disappear or change in periodicity, while others may persist.
Frank March 11, 2018 at 8:31 am
Frank, do you see the part in the head post there that says:
What you just posted about me “and many other skeptics” is just such an unsourced uncited unreferenced spitball. It’s a random accusation that you are throwing against the wall to see if it will stick. It won’t.
In fact, I’ve written extensively on the TOA radiation (im)balance here on WUWT, including recently. See e.g. “Temperature and TOA Forcing“. Your statement is either a very stupid mistake caused by not doing your homework before uncapping your electronic pen, or it’s a lie … and being a generous man, I’m provisionally going with the former. My rule of thumb, which I try to follow, is “Never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity”, so I’ll go with that here.
Folks, don’t even try this kind of “throw it at the wall” nonsense. It will not work with me, and you’ll end up looking as foolish as Frank. QUOTE WHAT IT IS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
TIA,
w.
Willis: When I wrote the passage below I didn’t mean any offense, as long what I believe is a mistake that was unintentional:
?w=720&h=682
“You and many other skeptics lose sight of this simplicity by focusing on surface energy balance. (Though today’s alarmists don’t want to admit it, every scientist who considered CO2 before the 1960’s made the same mistake of focusing on the surface energy balance.)”
Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar are among the illustrious scientists who made the mistake of focusing on surface energy balance, so it shouldn’t be an insult to be included in their company. Gavin Schmidt and others like to pretend that the scientific basis for the enhanced GHE has been properly understood and roughly approximated for two centuries, but this is false; no one did calculations at the TOA before Manabe and Wetherald in the 1960s. (Nor was the build up of carbon dioxide properly characterized until Keeling). Mis-direction by alarmists has obscured the difficulties of using a surface energy balance perspective and the advantages of the TOA perspective.
The problem with a surface energy balance perspective is that upward convective fluxes can’t be calculated from first principles – and in the long run those fluxes are limited by the outward LWR flux (or the TOA balance if you prefer). I’m somewhat frustrated because we’ve discussed these issues before, but perhaps I have been less clear or persuasive than I thought. (Aren’t we all?) The TOA perspective is far simpler, because all fluxes are radiative and we know how to calculate those (given temperature and composition).
The figure below from the post you linked shows the net TOA imbalance, which you describe below. This older Figure 2 and your words then provide a very different (and more accurate) message about what controls temperature (in the long run after chaos averages out).
“We can also take a look at the amazing stability of the net TOA radiation over time. Figure 2 shows the month-by-month changes in the global net TOA radiation.”
Willis: When one considers a surface energy balance perspective, one quickly runs into the following dilemma. If latent heat flux from the surface rises with warming at the same rate as saturation vapor pressure (7%/K), that would be 7%/K * -80 W/m2 = -5.6 W/m2/K of additional heat that must be radiated from the upper atmosphere to space with each K of surface warming. (If it doesn’t, convection slows, humidity builds up in the lower atmosphere and evaporation slows. The surface and TOA flux change with warming must be the same in the long run: -? W/m2/K.)
However, for a climate sensitivity of 3.7, 1.85. or 1.2 K/doubling, only -1, -2, or -3 W/m2/K of increase net flux across the TOA develops. From a surface energy balance perspective, climate sensitivity depends on how much the hydraulic cycle slows as the planet warms. A warming causes a slowing of the hydraulic cycle???? Very counterintuitive. Convection and precipitation can’t be calculated from first principles and GCMs can be parameterized to give a variety of answers. GCMs predict only a 2%/K increase in precipitation with surface warming and therefore a significant slow down in the hydraulic cycle. With even 1 K of warming, -5.6 W/m2/K is bigger than the forcing from doubled CO2; it is a huge number. All attempts to think simply about surface energy balance flounder on the problems of convection and precipitation related to this huge number. Things are much simpler at the TOA.
The change in the net flux at the TOA with surface warming depends on the change in TOA OLR and reflected SWR (sometimes called OSR). Reflected SWR totals 100 W/m2, so a 1 W/m2/K change in SWR is about a 1%/K change in reflection. That is a big change when you consider that it was 5 K colder at the LGM. So most of the -5.6 W/m2/K calculated above can’t be compensated for by a change in OSR.
Frank March 11, 2018 at 12:54 pm
I didn’t “take offense”, I simply asked you to QUOTE WHATEVER THE HELL IT IS YOU ARE BABBLING ABOUT.
Since you haven’t done so despite two clear requests, I’m sorry, but I have no interest in reading further. Talk to the hand, the head ain’t listening … I’m not interested in your uncited, unreferenced, unquoted babble.
Sorry, but you were warned …
w.
Willis wrote: “Part of the problem is our childlike insistence that there is some kind of simple cause-and-effect going on in the climate. I describe it instead as a “circular chain of effects”.”
?w=557&h=546
I omitted the first quotation mark, but otherwise copied and pasted your words from THIS POST exactly.
Since the Figure below copied from this post includes no information about outgoing heat and refers only to surface fluxes, it only confuses the simple cause-and-effect producing climate change.
Since the third graph in the next Figure below from the post you linked above includes both incoming and outgoing heat as measured at the TOA, it might illustrate the SIMPLE CAUSE of climate change, the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation. To see how well that explanation works, we would need some temperature data – warming RATE, not just temperature.
Then we could have a conversation about what temperature data to use (most of the heat goes into the ocean, so ARGO would be best), about how chaos, average period, and data limitations might still make it hard to see the simple cause-and-effect that must be controlling our climate: The law of conservation of energy.
Thanks, Frank. I look forward to the results of your analysis, it sounds interesting.
w.
Willis wrote: “Thanks, Frank. I look forward to the results of your analysis, it sounds interesting.”
Touche (and thanks for the reply).
Actually, the analysis is already complete. There is perfect agreement between the imbalance at the TOA and the flux of energy entering the ocean. The instruments on CERES can’t measure in difference between incoming and outgoing radiation fluxes (about 240 W/m2) accurately enough properly quantify the 0.7 W/m2 (0.3% of 240 W/m2) flux of heat that is entering the ocean. So the scientists who compile the CERES EBAG data set have included a fudge factor so that the long term radiative imbalance they report is equal to the flux of heat entering the ocean according to ARGO. It should have an average imbalance of +0.7 W/m2. (I’m not sure which version of he data you plotted in your graph, but it doesn’t look like it is EBAG.
When climate scientists adjust data like this, it is obvious that their experiments/instruments are inadequate for the job. (Actually, the changes in the imbalance are supposed to be useful, even if the absolute magnitude is off.)
Nevertheless, the analysis was complete when the law of conservation of energy was accepted. That is why I said that there is a simple cause and effect going on in climate. Either you believe the law of conservation of energy applies to our climate system or you don’t.
<George Daddis March 10, 2018 at 6:43 am
<I’m afraid you guys missed Santa’s sarcasm. I believe St Nick is repeating Michael Crichton’s <example of reverse logic, i.e. “wet streets cause rain”.
It's because true "street wetting" has not been tried on a large enough scale. Then you will get the Amazon Effect, where it creates Its own weather.
Betty Pfeiffer March 11, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Betty, if you are truly too ignorant to know the difference between a “comment” in Nature and a peer-reviewed “Brief Communications Arising”, you should stop commenting entirely. Google is your friend, look up the instructions for authors on the Nature website.
I will also note that the NEW ideas I presented in the Brief Communications Arising were confirmed nearly a decade later by someone who found the same thing I’d found, had their peer-reviewed ideas published in Nature, and cited my prior work on the question.
So yes, saying “my scientific ideas” is perfectly appropriate. I have over 60 citations in scientific journals to my published scientific ideas, and my scientific work has been quoted from the New York Times to the Sydney Morning Herald … how about you? Were your ideas ever peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals as mine have been? Have you been quoted in major newspapers?
Man, the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” is on display in full force today … sour grapes much?
w.
PS—Just for fun, I did something I almost never do. I googled my name on Google Scholar. It finds 136 results … and for “Betty Pfeiffer”?
… um … er … well … zero.
Medico, cura te ipsum …
Willis says: “Betty, if you are truly too ignorant to know the difference between a “comment” in Nature and a peer-reviewed “Brief Communications Arising”, you should stop commenting entirely.”
…
Betty is correct: “Comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a Reply from the original Nature authors.” https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/bca
…
That’s from the BCA website buddy……note the word: COMMENTS (first word in sentence.)
Keith, I fear your logic is faulty. Yes, a comment can become a “Brief Communication Arising”, just as a child can become an adult.
However, that doesn’t mean that a BCA is a comment, any more than it means that an adult is a child.
Please note also that my BCA was cited by a later author of a scientific paper on the subject as being correct … but comments are NEVER cited in scientific papers.
What is it with you guys? You spend all your energy trying to drag down successful people. What kind of pathetic life is that? Lead, follow, or get out of the damn way. How many times have YOUR words been peer-reviewed and published in Nature?
w.
Your “comment” was directed at the work of O’Reilly, Alin, Plisnier et al. You critiqued their work. Hardly your scientific ideas. Betty was right, you stretch the truth. She said: “Writing a comment about the work of other scientists is not a “scientific idea.”
Willis says: ” As such, I truly don’t care what you think.”
…
Keith repeats his previous assertion: “I don’t have to ask, you care a lot, proven by your inability to let this go.”
Oh, do come on! Of course it is, what else is science if it isn’t – at the the very least – the sentient* re-cognising sentience!
Willis mentioned one of his heroes and one of mine is Emilie du Châtelet (1706-1749).
Du Châtelet was arguably the leading interpreter of modern physics in Europe as well as a master of mathematics, linguistics; and the art of courtship!
She was at least as well read as her lover Voltaire – correcting him and improving on Newton – essentially through literary review.
Without her we would not have the “squared” in E=MC! There are books about the evolution of that famous equation and it was her interest in “Energy” that connected the work of other scientists, improving on Voltaire’s mv1 to show that multiplying an object’s mass by the square of its velocity (mv2) was a more useful indicator of its energy!
Again to be clear, it was her acute awareness of the current scientific literature of the time that gave the world a breakthrough. And that makes me wonder further about the “acausal” chain of events that Willis has spoken about so intelligently in his post!
*Why? Because logic is akin to sentience it is a-priori of all study or knowledge.
Keith, I feel sorry for you. All you are doing is trying to denigrate the work of another, which is a sick, pathetic way to waste your precious time on this lovely planet. I’m sure that NOTHING I could do would impress you … now ask me if I care.
w.
I am not denigrating your work. What I am doing is pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you actually did. You post: “Nature magazine thought enough of my scientific ideas…” which as Betty said is stretching the truth. You were commenting on the scientific ideas of the original authors. They weren’t your ideas in the first place. Then you get all wound up when someone calls you out puffing up your credentials.
PS, you should also apologize to Betty. When you post: “.. if you are truly too ignorant to know the difference…… you should stop commenting entirely.” you seemed to miss the fact that she was right on the money.
Keith, what I said is that I had my ideas peer-reviewed and published as a “Brief Communications Arising”. There is nothing “puffed up” with that, it is a FACT, a fact that obviously you are doing your pathetic best to minimize and denigrate.
Seriously, is this the best use of your god-given gifts, to try to deny the undeniable fact that my ideas were peer-reviewed and published in Nature, in order to make me look bad?
w.
PS—While I was commenting on the ideas of others, I also added my own ideas, which is why they published it—because it contained new ideas.
From your perspective, I’m sure you’d say that Einstein was just “commenting on the scientific ideas of Newton” … and no, before you start huffing, I’m NOT comparing myself to Einstein. I’m commenting on the inanity of your argument.
Keith Sketchley March 11, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Sorry, I don’t deal with people taking second-hand offense on behalf of someone else. If Betty wants an apology that’s her business, not yours.
When it comes to apologies, my invariable rule is to deal only with the organ-grinder, and never with the monkey.
w.
Wills posts: ” now ask me if I care”
…
I don’t have to ask, you care a lot, proven by your inability to let this go.
Keith Sketchley March 11, 2018 at 4:08 pm
Ah, my dear fellow, I see the problem. You misunderstand what is going on here.
I write for the lurkers. I’m not writing to convince you of anything. You are so sunk in your bitterness and your dislike of me and your bile that you are untouchable. As such, I truly don’t care what you think.
I do care, however, about the opinions of the lurkers, many of whom have not made up their minds. I don’t want them to get infected by your desire to denigrate other peoples’ accomplishments. So I continue to point out that given the choice to lead, follow, or get out of the way, instead you want to bite my ankles. No shame in that, given that it’s as far up as you can reach—I just don’t want others to get fooled into following your unpleasant lead.
And as for me, I have great trust in the lurkers to fairly judge for themselves just who is who here …
I’ll leave it at that and gladly give you the final word … rage on …
w.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/09/the-source-of-the-heat/comment-page-1/#comment-2763011
PS—Just for fun, I did something I almost never do. I googled my name on Google Scholar. It finds 136 results
I don’t believe there is a cure for an ego this big
PS—Just for fun, I did something I almost never do. I googled my name on Google Scholar. It finds 136 results … and for “Betty Pfeiffer”?
… um … er … well … zero.
Wow! Just wow!
Betty. Consider it a badge of honor to be denigrated by an individual whose sole scientific credentials include a BA in psychology and a California Massage Certificate.
Thank you skepticgonewild. Both you and Gibo zeroed in on one of this guy’s defining personality characteristic. I still get a laugh watching him try to make his “comment” in Communications Arising into a major scientific publication.
Betty, I NEVER said it was a “major scientific publication”, that’s your sick fantasy. I said it was a Brief Communication Arising, which it was. I made NO claim further than that, other than to point out that your claim that it was a “comment” was a joke. Her’s a protip for the next time you get confused on the matter—you can distinguish the two because Brief Communications Arising are peer-reviewed, and comments are not. You’re welcome.
Other than that I made no claims as to its importance, that’s just the voices in your head.
Best wishes,
w.
How many times do we have to repeat this Willis? How many times before you “get it?”
…
https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/bca
…
“Comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a Reply from the original Nature authors.”
…
What is the first word in that quote?
Betty Pfeiffer March 12, 2018 at 9:40 am Edit
Thanks, Betty. It appears you mised what I said above when Keith made the same stupid allegation:
I’d note also that my submission was NEVER a comment, nor was it ever submitted as one. It was submitted and accepted as a Brief Communication Arising, it never went through the comment stage.
Seriously, Betty, you are wasting your talents and your time on this mindless attack. My work speaks for itself, my words can’t make it better, and your words can’t make it worse.
w.
Willis, you are wrong when you say: ” However, that doesn’t mean that a BCA is a comment.” That is all they are.
.
Your “submission” (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02689) was a COMMENT: Arising from: C. M. O’Reilly, S. R. Alin, P. -D. Plisnier, A. S. Cohen & B. A. McKee Nature 424, 766–768 (2003); The authors REPLIED to your comment here; https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02737
…
Betty is corret
Keith Sketchley March 12, 2018 at 10:22 am Edit
Keith, why do you suppose they have different names? Why is one called a “Brief Communications Arising” and the other a comment?
And no, it’s not a brief COMMENT arising, as you claim. Either that is a lie or you cannot read. It is a Brief Communication Arising, viz:
The word “COMMENT” doesn’t appear in there anywhere as you falsely claim.
The differences are clear. Here’s a field guide to assist you in distinguishing them:
A BCA is peer-reviewed. A comment is not.
A BCA is allowed two graphics. A comment is not allowed any graphics
BCAs are limited to 1200 words, and can have up to 15 references. Comments are limited to 300 words.
BCAs require a “competing financial interests statement” and an “author contributions statement”. Comments do not require either
Comments are classed as “Letters to the Editor”, viz:
A BCA, on the other hand, is published in its own section of the magazine, not in “Letters to the Editor”.
Finally, I said my work was submitted as a Brief Communications Arising,which it was. I never said it was a major scientific breakthrough or anything like that, I made no false claims at all. I see that you don’t like and don’t understand that it was a BCA … but that’s what it was, and I never claimed it was more than that.
Like I said … surely you have better things to do than to vainly try to besmirch my name …
w.
Willis, your submission says: “Arising from:…” followed by the article in Nature you are commenting on.
..
Next you say: “it’s not a brief COMMENT arising”…. However you still ignore this: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/bca WHERE IT SAYS: ““Comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a Reply from the original Nature authors.”…
…
Now you are ignoring this further on down in the link I provided:
..
“Brief Communications Arising are exceptionally interesting and timely scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in Nature. Comments should ideally be based on knowledge contemporaneous with the original paper, rather than subsequent scientific developments.”
…
The ONLY thing BCA are comments on previously published papers, with a reply from the orginal authors.
…
All you did was comment on C. M. O’Reilly, S. R. Alin, P. -D. Plisnier, et. al’s work, and they replied.
…
PS: ” now ask me if I care” obviously you do.
…
PPS: “I’ll leave it at that and gladly give you the final word.” guess that one is out the window.
[??? .mod]
Betty did not use any ad hominem attacks on Willis, yet Willis calls her ignorant, stupid, mindless, hearing voices in her head, sick.
If Willis can’t take criticism, maybe he should not be posting articles on WUWT.
And furthermore, Willis does NOT have any “scientific work” published.
Willis says: “Comments are limited to 300 words”
No Willis. The 300 word limit is for “Correspondence Items”. These are described as follows:
“These items are ‘letters to the Editor’: short comments on topical issues of public and political interest, anecdotal material, or readers’ reactions to informal material published in Nature (for example, Editorials, News, News Features, Books & Arts reviews and Comment pieces).”
Note that Correspondence pieces are not technical comments on peer-reviewed research papers. Please submit these instead to Brief Communications Arising.”
We have THREE places which define BCA’s as “comments”:
1. “Comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising”
Hello! Comments may be published online as Brief Communications Arising. How much clearer can you get?
2. “Brief Communications Arising are exceptionally interesting and timely scientific comments”
3. “Please submit these [ referring to ‘technical comments on peer-reviewed research papers’ in the previous sentence] instead to Brief Communications Arising”
Willis says: “Comments are classed as “Letters to the Editor”
NO. Nature specifically says Correspondences are classified as Letters to the Editor.
Willis says: “A BCA is peer-reviewed. A comment is not”
WRONG. Naure specifically states, “Correspondence submissions are not usually peer-reviewed and so should not contain primary research data.”
Willis says: “A BCA is allowed two graphics. A comment is not allowed any graphics”
NOT TRUE. Nature says, “Correspondence items should be no longer than 300 words. They do not usually have figures, tables or more than three references.” In Nature, under the BCA tab, BCA submissions are further defined as “manuscripts”, which are then referred to as “comments and replies”.
Willis says: “BCAs require a ‘competing financial interests statement’ and an ‘author contributions statement’. Comments do not require either”
NOT TRUE. As noted above, Nature defines BCA’s as comments. Correspondence items do not require the financial statements and author contribution statement.
Everything Willis has stated about BCA’s not being comments is not true, He has twisted and redefined terms to his own liking.
Years ago I became fascinated with the biology of deep water thermal vents. We know that the Earth has been cooling since it was created but it is not a steady rate of cooling. The amount of cooling fluctuates. We also know the largest geological feature on Earth is the Mid-Ocean ridge where many thermal vents exist. I have seen estimates of one thermal vent for every 2 to 20 kilometers. So I asked myself what effects do all the deepwater thermal vents have on the oceans and are they one mechanism that is cooling the Earth. I tried to communicate with a couple of researchers on the subject and they just blew me off saying there were not enough thermal vents in the deep ocean to matter. Then someone sent me an item anonymously, several scientists were monitor (I believe it) five very large vents in deepwater off the SW tip of South America. The estimated flow rate was several time larger than the Amazon River’s rate of flow. We are talking about vent water temperature upwards of 464 degrees C (867 degrees F.)
Please consider, that an increased surface radiation (as measured by a satellite) can NEVER be due to GHGs! GHGs, so the theory, would block surface emissions and thus increase surface temperatures. In fact surface temperatures would go up just to compensate for the increased opaqueness of the atmosphere with regard to IR. Emissions, ceteris paribus, will stay exactly the same.
Arguing that increased surface emissions would be proving a GHG induced global warming is a logical contradiction on its own.
My suggestion for the Judge would be the following:
If I were the Judge, I’d ask the climate alarmists to show that their claims meet all of those five criteria … good luck with that.
w.
“Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t turn into a real ice age.” Going on what seems to have happened for the past half a million years, rather than gradual its a very variable climate with a small -0.06° per millennium trend. Why that is the case might be unknown but that we have another 80 000 to get to the minimum was expected.
I can only say there is much about the sun and its emanations we know nothing about, there appears to be a force that enter the earth in the polar regions and most comes out in the tropical regions.
It would appear it stirs up the interior of our world keeping it molten and causing volcanoes and earthquakes, the mood the sun is in seems to create these happenings. History and the solar record tends to correspond, the extra heat or lack of could be from the suns moods and the forces we know very little,or nothing of.
Maybe we need to think outside the square and do much more real science before we can even begin to comprehend how our planets and the sun actually works.
At the surface, the absorbed solar radiation ASRS is balanced by the sum of the net fluxes of LW radiation, latent heat LH, sensible heat SH and ocean heat content OH.
Surface Balance:ASRS= Netflux (LW+LH+SH+OH)
CERES data: OH is balanced , OH=0.
CERES 4.0 trends 2001-2016
ASRS W/m²; 0.70; +/- ;0.22
LW W/m²; 0.12; +/- ;0.38
SH+LH W/m²; 0.58; +/- ;0.65
The unit of the trend is W/m² per Decade
Willis,
As we are talking about concepts has someone ever tried to lay all the known cycles together adding them up like it is done with sound when you make a wave synthesis?
then i am talking about ENSO PDO IOD solar cycles etc etc, in short all cycles that are known and then make a running sum of these factors.
i would not be surprised to see global temperature fit in this ensemble as the outcoming wave synthesis or “sound”
Of course: unlike as in sound creation where you chose waveform and amplitude and frequency, we do not know “the amplitude” of each cycle, to reach the resulting “sound” we see, Let it be that amplitude is the defining factor of your outcome.
but i do somehow believe that as a concept it might reveal something. How the resultant of all these driving forces looks like and how all known drivers do interact leaving room for all what is unknown… I can’t help but it’s the logic i use to approach all these cycles, and it is how i try to see them fit the big picture of the current warm episode.,Perhaps a bizarre concept due to my 24 years as sound engeneer, but when i hear talking about cycles i can’t help to approach the matter as a “sound wave”…..
Thanks, Frank. The problem is that although things like the planets have unvarying cycles, natural climate datasets don’t. Instead they have what I call “pseudocycles”. What happens is that some cycle, say a five year cycle, will appear in the data and last for three or four cycles … and then it will fade away and be replaced by something else, maybe a nine year cycle. That cycle in turn might just last for a couple of cycles, and then it fades away and there is no cycle at all for a while … let me see what I can find to show this …
OK, here’s the Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (CEEMD) analysis of 150 years of El Nino 3.4 data …
Look at empirical mode 5 … you can see how there is a signal, but as I described above, it fades out and changes. A look at a Fourier periodogram shows what is going on …
Checking out empirical mode 5, you can see that there are two different signals going on, one at about 20 years and another at about 30 years.
So I fear that while your idea would work for things with actual cycles, say sound which you use as an example, climate datasets typically don’t have actual cycles, they have pseudocycles which make your idea inoperable.
My best to you,
w.
PS—For more information on CEEMD, see my post on “Noise Assisted Data Analysis” …
w.
I also discuss CEEMD in “CEEMD and Sunspots” …
w.
Without a doubt, theories and speculations what causes rise Earth’s temperatures will continue.
Below, I present my theory on 2 (two) aspects of that issue being hotly discussed both in scientific community and media.
1. Overall rise of Earth temperatures being observed.
The rise in Earth temperatures is caused mainly by an increased absorption of Sun’s radiation by oceans.
Explanation:
The main heat source increasing Earth’s temperatures is the Sun. Oceans cover most of Earth’s surface. Oceans’ albedo is quite low in .06 range. That means that oceans absorb Sun’s heat easily. As a result of heat absorption, water evaporates creating clouds. The clouds created by evaporation have high albedo in .80 range. Therefore clouds have an ability to reflect Sun’s radiation back into space stopping the heat absorption.
Such a powerful mechanism is the main regulator of the Earth temperatures for millions of years.
However, the most recent human activities created a thin layer of oil covering the oceans. That prevents evaporation and disrupts the self-regulating mechanism. Reduced evaporation results with fewer clouds reflecting Sun’s radiation back into space. Oceans absorb more heat and Earth’s temperatures rise.
2. Faster temperatures rise on Earth’s poles
Faster temperatures rise on North and South poles are caused by a significant reduction of ice area covering the poles.
Explanation
Higher temperatures of the oceans surrounding the poles result with melting ice covering both Earth’s poles. As result, an area covered by ice with high albedo (0.50-0.70 range) is being reduced and replaced by ocean water with low albedo 0.06. That, in turn, increases local heat absorption at the much higher rate. Therefore, temperatures on poles rise relatively faster than on the rest of Earth.
Januz
I think your theory is interesting but at the very least you need to have some data to prove it.
My data are showing that arctic warming is due to the magnetic stirrer effect that causes earth’s inner core to move north east.
As an experiment I suggest a test in a swimming pool where
a) a certain amount of heat (J) is applied and the subsequent heat loss (eg delta T) is recorded after a day, 2 days, 3 days etc.
b) a certain amount of heat is applied, a thin oil film is applied and the subsequent heat loss is recorded after similar periods as a)
obviously ambient T must be constant so you have to conduct the experiment in a closed environment where ambient T can be regulated.
Let me know what you find.