Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about the “hiatus” in warming in the 21st Century, and I realized that the CERES satellite dataset covers the period since the year 2000. So I’ve graphed up a few views of the temperature changes over the period of the CERES record, which at present is May 2000 to February 2017. No great insights, just a good overview and some interesting findings.
First, here are the raw CERES global average surface temperature data, the seasonal variations, and the anomaly that remains after removing the seasonal variations.
Figure 1. Seasonal decomposition of the CERES surface temperature data. Statistical results (bottom line) are adjusted for autocorrelation using the method of Koutsoyiannis.
So … what are we looking at? The top panel shows the raw data, the actual temperature variations. The middle panel shows the repeating seasonal variations. The bottom panel shows the “residual anomaly”, the variations that remain once we’ve removed the repeating seasonal component of the signal.
The bottom panel, the residual anomaly, is the panel of interest. You can see how little the temperature has varied over the seventeen years of record. The El Nino of 2016-2017 is quite visible … but other than that there isn’t much happening.
There is one thing that is interesting about the residual … other than warming as a result of the 2016-2017 El Nino, the temperature anomaly only varied by about ± 0.2°C. Among other places, I’ve discussed what I see as the reason for this amazing stability in a post called Emergent Climate Phenomena.
The next question of interest to me is, where is the temperature changing, and by how much? Here is a Pacific and an Atlantic centered view of the warming trends recorded by CERES, in degrees C per decade.
Figure 2. Temperature trends around the globe.
So … what is of note in these global maps? Well, both the poles are unusual. The area around Antarctica is cooling strongly, and the Arctic is warming. Presumably, this is why we’re getting less sea ice in the North and more sea ice in the South. It also affects the hemispheric averages, with the Northern Hemisphere warming and the Southern Hemisphere basically unchanging. Figure 3 shows the average decadal temperature trends by latitude band.
Figure 3. Average decadal temperature trends by latitude band.
As you can see, the only parts of the planet where the temperature is changing much are the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and the area above the Arctic Circle.
Next, in Figure 2 you can see that the North Atlantic is generally cooling. On the other hand, the Pacific is mixed, with areas of slight cooling and other areas of slight warming. Go figure.
On land, northern Russia, parts of the Sahel, the Gobi, and western Australia are warming. On the other hand, the upper Amazon is cooling strongly. So it looks like some (but not all) deserts are warming, and some (but not all) tropical forests are cooling … why?
I haven’t a clue. In my opinion, the most important words that anyone studying the climate can learn to say are “I don’t know.”
At the end of the story, I’m left with my usual amazement at the stability of the system. Despite being controlled by things as evanescent as winds, waves, and clouds, the temperature anomaly doesn’t vary more than about two-tenths of a degree. Nor is this due to “thermal inertia” as many people claim. Look again at Figure 1—the temperature changes by four degrees C peak to peak in the course of a single year, and changes by a degree and a quarter C in a single month, but the anomaly barely budges. To me, this is clear evidence of strong thermoregulatory systems, but of course, YMMV …
Sunshine today after rain, the Pacific ocean glitters in the far distance, the earth abides …
Regards to all,
w.
PS—As always, my polite request is that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so we can all be clear about what you are referring to. Please be aware that while my request is polite, if you ignore the request I may say unflattering things about your ancestry, commenting habits, or cranial capacity … be warned.
DATA: For the temperature data I have used a straight Stefan-Boltzmann conversion of the CERES EBAF Edition 4.0 datafile showing upwelling longwave radiation. The dataset is available here. I have checked and compared this temperature dataset to a variety of other temperature datasets (HadCRUT4, Reynolds SST, HadISST, TAO buoy data) and found very little difference.
Unlike the Mother Jones use of the photography of Greenland’s dirty ice and snow to promote “worry” and activism to reduce CO2 emissions, I think the northern polar dirty ice and snow is an example of significant AGW, a first order forcing, unrelated to the GHG first order forcing. With the great percentage of land in the northern hemisphere and even greater percentage of industry, we’ve changed the albedo and melt rate in the northern polar area, but not the south.
In addition to the albedo change, when ocean ice melts, exposing the darker water, there may also be additional second order surface changes. Polar water seldom warms much above 32 F degrees as extra heat energy melts ice before raising water temperatures. Therefore, I hypothesize that areas of soot covering snow and ice may often be the warmest north polar surface areas with melting and sublimation below the areas of soot. Surface areas that are warmer than surrounding areas are areas of low pressure because warm air rises. Wind occurs because of pressure differentials. If my hypothesis is correct, then changes in surface pressure and winds (and therefore weather patterns) result from the dirty snow and ice you see pictured here-
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/why-greenland-dark-snow-should-worry-you/
Not to mention a whole fleet of Russian Ice Breakers that are busting up the Siberian northern Arctic Ocean on an annual basis now for the last 30+ years, which causes it to melt quicker every summer. There are a lot of ‘additive’ processes that humans are introducing to the natural environment over and above CO2 that get barley no mention. Especially in the Northern Hemisphere where the majority of humans and industrial activity is, with a much larger land mass at near sea level, Greenland notwithstanding.
Willis,
I like to have a close look at the graphed data before they are transformed and I notice that the variations in the cold season lowest temperature is larger than the variations in the higher. Perhaps it indicates the presence of a thermostat. I don’t know.
But the view that a the resulting anomaly should indicate hotter weather on the hottest days need to be questioned.
I keep using these surface temperature readings as far as I know they reflect what is happening globally very well and that is what I am interested in because trends are often just meaningless statistics without any physical prespective
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Current.aspx
Maybe the temperature is so stable because it is determined by atmospheric mass and not greenhouse gases.
Willis Eschenbach if my words have meaning to you, congratulations your article.
Stephen Wilde regards.
Keep telling them SWilde… +100
“So … what is of note in these global maps? Well, both the poles are unusual. The area around Antarctica is cooling strongly, and the Arctic is warming. Presumably, this is why we’re getting less sea ice in the North and more sea ice in the South. It also affects the hemispheric averages, with the Northern Hemisphere warming and the Southern Hemisphere basically unchanging.”
The Earth spends less time near perihelion and more time near aphelion. This means that the lengths of the seasons vary. Perihelion currently occurs around January 3, so the Earth’s greater velocity shortens winter and autumn in the northern hemisphere. Summer in the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter, and spring is 2.9 days longer than autumn. And correspondingly the same less in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning 7+ more days of fall and winter in SH. In Antarctica, where it is a high elevation continent covered in perpetual ice, (unchanging Albedo) surrounded by the southern ocean that rapidly gains ice every SH winter, therefore self reinforcing on an annual basis.
Obviously, present day orbital mechanics govern this as Kepler’s second law states, but when natural variation is cold, such as the LIA, then it is mostly frozen over and Albedo is reflecting incoming insolation and little warming to be had, but when things warm naturally, or with assistance from human kind in many industrial ways the last 150 years, then less Albedo as more ice melts leading to earlier springs and less time in NH snow cover. And given most of the NH Arctic is closer to sea level (Greenland notwithstanding) as is a majority of the land in the NH, and additional to humankind industrial inputs, then it is only logical that the NH is more sensitive to to solar and human forcing, than the SH.
This is part of the obvious reason why the Northern Hemisphere is warming and the Southern Hemisphere basically unchanging. There are dozen’s of other natural processes going on, but I think this explains why more current Northern Hemisphere warming presently, and why we have registered net warming the last 150 years because sensitivity to warmer is presently much greater in the NH than the SH.
Re: “In my opinion, the most important words that anyone studying the climate can learn to say are “I don’t know.”
Jack B. Sowards (screenwriter), voiced by Lt Cdr Data< (Brent Spiner).
Willis wrote: “As you can see, the only parts of the planet where the temperature is changing much are the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and the area above the Arctic Circle” .. Go Figure.
Interestingly, the Arctic and Antarctic are both linked through downwelling into the deep ocean. If total downwelling were limited by the requirement that the sum matches total upwelling, then a slowing of downwelling in the Antarctic would be accompanied by a increase in downwelling in the Arctic. Increased downwelling in the Arctic would lead to import of more warm water from temperature regions on the surface and Arctic warming. Decreased downwelling in the Antarctic would lead to less import of warm water and cooling.
IIRC, a see-saw of this sort has been hypothesized to function during the very warm periods (+10? degC) observed in Greenland ice cores (and Antarctic ice cores) during the last ice age. Likewise, warming took place much earlier in Antarctica than Greenland as the last ice age ended.
When looking for a reference, I found that Chylek has made some of the same observations you report here, except he covers the whole 20th century.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042793
Paragraph [16] of that paper covers references to the seesaw observed during the last ice age in ice cores.
Chylek’s data is not as clean as yours.
Willis, I recommended my paper part 8 (EIGHT) which deals with
the time period 1600 AD to 2050 AD, the present time, at
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
Instead of checking THIS PAPER, you selected ANOTHER ONE, wiily-nilly
and only made arrogant remarks over part 7 (SEVEN).. This time I will
write the number in letters, for your better visibility…….. It seems, age is
taking its toll, if you do not notice to be in a completely other (550 AD to
1650 AD) time period.
Is this your way of analyzing papers, not seeing that you are within
a different Holocene time?
Hopefully, Anthony does not notice that you start to have difficulties
with numbers………well, we all get old? I will give you a second
chance with paper PART 8 (EIGHT).. and please feed in the period
lengths, the period length increase of 6.93 years and the period
amplitude factor, which is also given, starting 8108 BC and remaining
steady for over 10,000 years……
The paper NUMBER EIGHT is interesting….it covers the time until 2050,
which you were asking for to comment…… xx..
“The El Nino of 2016-2017 is quite visible … but”
But there was no 2016-2017 El Nino.
2015−2016.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.png
Will you buy 2015-16, with pronounced lingering effects into 2017?
Sheesh! Picky, picky, picky!
I don’t need to buy anything, it’s an error, Willis should have written 2015-2016.
weltklima March 25, 2018 at 8:14 pm
Weltklima, thanks for your comment. I read the abstract of your paper 7 and the abstract of your paper 8. I have rarely seen such special pleading or such a strange mish-mash of postulated causes. In addition, you’ve proposed a total impossibility—a “cosmic lunar meteor impact” … you say that “this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB)”, and then you say it “then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun”.
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
In addition, you have one of what on my planet is a pretty sure-fire sign of what I call an “SIF”, which is a Single Issue Fanatic—stacks of CAPITAL letters IN each PARAGRAPH in places that MAKE no SENSE.
Given all of that—given the claim that there are five different causes that neatly replace each other just at the point where your previous theory stops working, given the crazy idea about the “cosmic lunar meteor impact”, given that once the moon is driven out of its normal orbit it will not just “spiral back” to where it was, given that there is no way to know how many loops it made on its imaginary trip, and given your BIZARRE use OF capital letters where THERE is no need FOR them … given all that, I fear that I am not the man to wade through your 109 page booklet and your eight different treatises. I could force myself to do it, I suppose, although it would be painful … but I guarantee you won’t like what I find.
My best regards to you in any case, weltklima, and my regrets,
w.
Willis wrote to weltklima, “In addition, you’ve proposed a total impossibility—a “cosmic lunar meteor impact” … you say that “this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB)”, and then you say it “then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun”.
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that is pseudo-scientific nonsense.”
Willis is right. That is impossible nonsense — a violation of conservation of angular momentum, to be specific. Orbiting bodies cannot “spiral” unless something is exerting drag on them (like an atmosphere).
Willis, you are aware that in climate science some major importent variables are missing and that the IPCC list with internal variables is uncomplete…. and there must be some other external forcing which governs our climate and explains the about 400 year long climate movement up and down: CWP – LIA – MWP – LALIA – RWP – Greek cold…..etc. This about 400 year climate wave up and down is historical knowledge (before your time) of the Old Greeks, There exist a preserved letter of Solon in Greece to the Pharao (300 BC), in which he described this multi-centennial observation and this, temp/climate up and down continued after Solon, see the above described climate up and down……. The regularity of this centennial movement points to external causes, which are not the Sunspots, but rather Earth Orbital Changes. For this reason, the climate came out of the deep, cold LIA in the 17 Cty and will peak (at 2048-49) in the 21st century, continuing this up- and down cycle……this is the message of my paper Holocene part 8, which you are unwilling to read.
I call this attitude LEARNRESISTENT. Especially you know NOTHING about the osculating, oscillating, “perturbating” Earth orbit around the Sun, which is the cause for this centennial climate change…..
Instead, you walk in circles, over and over getting stuck in the IPCC nonsensical internal “climate causes” and falsifying what is false to recognize without computer check…..
You are victim of the IPCC AR4 ploy in 2006 to point to 20,000 + -year Milankovitch exclusively and thus aiming at COVERING UP of ALL annual. decadal and centennial Earth orbital changes….. and you are a stout believer of IPCC nonsensical ploy. Climate relevant are the OSCULATIONS, (Oscillations, Perturbations) of the Earth orbit. ….and you reject to look into the matter, because you are a true victim of the ploy and my booklet would be over your head anyway, this is, what you feel…..but it is written with extra care for the normal citizen without previous Earth orbital knowledge.
I had a fruitful Email exchange with the Milankovitch coryphea Andre Berger (Louvain Uni), who ADMITTED the oscillations, even ordered my booklet, but we could not get further, becaus JPL Pasadena, close to you where you live, keep the (I believe as part of Hanson NASA GISS) – or other reasons, the astrophysical Osculation values of the Earth Orbit.SECRET…. (I resorted to good historical measurements). If you were able to get those osculation distances, place the distance variations between Sun and Earth in a forcing system of x Watts/1 million km perturbation (as in my booklet) then you will get the temp increase out of the LIA into the present CWP. you will recognize the temp max in 2048-49 AD….
But you rather prisoner in you circle of dwelling in internal IPCC forcings and leave all the WUWT readers in limbo, why global temps increase, stay flat, go down and you then you WONDER HOW global temps continue after the present plateau…and admit not being able to make a senseful forcast as I did in part 8, based on sound physical astrophysical values, continuing the work of Newton, Gauss and Leibnitz, which you are unwilling to accept. Too bad for you, not for me, because truth will always prevail…. cheers from Mexico ..JS
[Reformatted to eliminate spurious line breaks … -w.]
To ATheoK Mar 24, 3:53
Theo, your “”many claims, no proof” and “How is the Moon impact proven?”
only shows that you are an IGNORANT, NOT READING the paper….. You ask
for prove to be GIVEN IN AN ABSTRACT,
but the RULES of abstract writing is NOT GIVING PROVE in the 300 words
available for abstract writing…… no understanding of science, typical troll
behaviour….too bad, not even worth my time to reply…..sorry JS..
To Willis comment . “”Here’s the bar that you need to clear:
“One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the
process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and
self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.”
Willis, first of all you do NOT READ my papers, just the abstracts…..
There is both a clear physical picture of the process, physically EXPLAINED
over 109 pages long in my booklet available. .
We are dealing here with an 8 part Holocene series dedicated to
DEMONSTRATING THE EMPIRICAL PROOF AND THE CONSISTENCE
of proposed calculations ………. and ALL other climate authors do never
start from scratch in their papers, with theoretical calculations from the
beginning. I can/will not in EVERY PAPER SHOW the physical-theoretical
Earth orbital background ANEW and anew, the papers would get too long…..
sorry folks……
To reiterate once again: The physical process are clear, the necessary
calculations were made and remain unrefuted since 2011…..the physical
base of those calculations is the calculations of Earth Orbital Oscillations
(EOO) WHICH arise by the OSCULATING ..yes, OSCULATION ….flight of
Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
Famous osculation calculations started with the mathematicians G.W. Leibniz
and Carl Gauss, he observed the sky for 4 years and developed the Least
Squares Method based on those orbital osculation calculations……..
Prof. Foster (UK), who participated in the preparations of AR4, 2007, told
me how they cheered and embraced themselves in the meeting after deciding
to rig climate science by separating the EOO out and focussing on internal
forcing… this was BTY…. .
I think you are slowly loosing it: Instead of being interested in NEW papers,
which include the EOO and HAVE NOVELTY VALUE with CALCULATED
PROCESSES (I am not the handwaving Javier cycle type and I am
interested only in ORIGINARY RESEARCH). I read ALL of your post for
many years, and I noticed (you do not) that years before you did good
novelty work with the thermostat and volcano papers ……and
what are you doing now? Falsifyiing IPCC papers which we ALL know
from the start that they are false..come on…writing about old hats……..
You NEVER read a paper of mine to the end…because you are missing
the EOO background and you are NOT INCLINED to learn something
NEW….. “”WHAT YOU NEVER HEARD OF, MUST BE WRONG”””….
I know many LEARNRESISTENT types….. too bad, you joined …
cheers anyway, some of you work keeps up very good
and is very readable……….. you made up your mind, no problem…..xx.
.
To Chimp, reply 24.3. 8:42 pm
“Chimp” …Nomen es Omen….. the Holocene series, paper 1 to 8 covers the
entire 10,000 years of Holocene in A SEQUENCIAL ROW…..
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
The novelty is that each and EVERY temp spike was analyzed, which no other
author did or dared to achieve until now over such a long period…..the prevailing
verdict of Holocene studies is “Holocene conundrum” ….. therefore all studies
select shorter, maximum 3 millenia temp spans, in order to omit the difficult parts…
..I had to brake the 10,000 years into 8 consecutive segments….
and the Holocene, part 7, and the one before, part 6, were the most difficult
of climate pattern recognition. and need the knowledge of paper part 1 or 2
at least……
Willis as well never saw a continuous Holocene time series and ask me
to PROVE EVERY PHYSICAL BACKGROUND and formula IN EACH
CONSECUTIVE paper anew…… this is ridiculous, even the warmist papers
DO NOT develop the CO2-meme IN EVERY PAPER FROM SCRATCH…
. therefore, read at first the preceeding papers
before commenting senseless about Holocene end timespan papers……
So you felt to throw in your 5 cents worth…..”short 1,000 year period”……
are you the chimp? There are the 7 other time intervals already on-line.
What are you talking about?
Get serious! JS.
Wow,
Al I can say is.
Wow! Like wow!
To Willis:
Willis, convince Anthony to publish PART 8 (not the preceeding papers 1 – 7), which will
achieve the following:
(1) Answer your question of the temp evolution until 2050 WITH CALCULATIONS
PROVIDED …..
(2) Let the folks decide whether they want the full physical -Earth orbit mechanical
background…..
(3) fresh approach to the stuck climate science, even you reached a dead end in forecasting
(4) since AGW/CO2 is clearly wrong, ALL hidden possibilities BASED ON CALCULATIONS,
PROVIDING figures and reproducible numbers should have a place on the table instead of
only proving IPCC and climate sensitivity ARE WRONG and leaving the folks
EMPTY-HANDED and guessing into wrong directions. This is unfair.
cheers Jo.
weltklima March 25, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Pass … your texts contain scientific misunderstandings, like your claim about the earth-moon barycenter spiraling out and then returning to its original location after four orbits … not possible.
Regarding your four points regarding what publishing your work would do:
I am as uninterested in your forecasts regarding the year 2050 as I am in anyone and everyone else’s long-range forecasts. I think that until our understanding progresses far beyond where it is now, climate scientists should eschew all forecasts, particularly long-range forecasts for 2030 or 2050 or 2100.
They can do that now. Your writings are there to be read by anyone interested. I’m not.
Huh? I haven’t “reached a dead end in forecasting”. I make no attempt to forecast, and I think those that do are seriously misguided.
As my mom told me when I returned from my first day of high school and said it was totally unfair …
“Who ever told you that the world was fair?”
And no, simply BECAUSE someone HAS used CALCULATIONS and is PROVIDING figures is far from A sufficient reason TO take THEIR claims seriously … sorry, I couldn’t resist the allure of the CAPITAL LETTERS …
Sadly, I would advise Anthony to not publish your work. Not that he asks me very often, he’s his own man, and his judgment is generally spot-on in these matters …
w.
No problem, Willis….. you are a free person and you are allowed to defend your
right to NOT READING papers, but skim an abstract and know already
the paper´s worth….. I will let you have your right to ignorance…. as you mentioned
your school pupil days, please add that you had the same attitude of not
wanting to read NEW knowledge long before, no academic interest…..and
consequently, you became fisherman, where you had to deal only with fish,
big and small, head and tail, and a few numbers: the catch in pounds……
Good choice. I am particulary impressed by your astronomical Earth Orbital
knowledge, which you pull out of your sleeve since your high school days.
Well, too bad, some people really waste their talents – but if that is what
you want, its fine with me. Regards Jo.
AR5, WG1 kapitel 9.
http://thumbsnap.com/s/rlhIrW5H.png
Figure 9.28 | (a): Annual mean visible aerosol optical depth (AOD) for 2001 through 2005 using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) version 5 satellite retrievals for ocean regions (Remer et al., 2008) with corrections (Zhang et al., 2008a; Shi et al., 2011) and version 31 of MISR retrievals over land (Zhang and Reid, 2010; Stevens and Schwartz, 2012).
There is a lot of aerosols from pollen above Amazonas.
Did the amount of aerosols change over the years?
Did the cloud-cover change over the years?
Answers to those questions could be some of the answer to your “why?”.
There are a lot of aerosols from pollen above Amazonas.
(English is not my first language. If I correct myself, there is less chance, I make the mistake again.)
Don’t bother to correct yourself on this one. Natives don’t, unless “grammar nazis”, who do not even agree with each other. https://www.englishforums.com/English/TherePeople/hqmk/post.htm
You had it right the first time. “A lot” takes a singular verb. “Of aerosols” modifies the subject of the sentence, ie “lot”.
To Dave Burton , 26. Mar 4:56
Dave, I am dedicated to the Earth orbit for almost 20 years……. while you heard
something that “angular momentum” exists in the world….
Why do you want to throw in your 5 cents worth without knowing the course of the´
Earths flight around the Sun? ….. Every astronomer KNOWS that the forward movement
of the Earth, which is carrying out its elliptic MEAN PATH has the FORM OF AN SPIRAL….
THE Moon as well SPIRALLES around Earth [“libration”] …..The SPIRAL IS THE GRAND
MOVEMENT OF EARTH AND MOON, not to mention the other planets….Because of
spiralling, the Earth orbit is an OSCULATING ORBIT MOVEMENT and, as on a ship
moving in high sea, the stars are called “Osculating elements”, because they move up
and down with the waves..(thus with the oscillating orbit)…..
You fell victim, just as Willis did, to the IPCC ploy of 2006 (whilst setting up AR4) to
suppress the public mentioning of Earth orbital movements ON ANNUAL, DECADAL
AND CENTENNIAL SCALE……They agreed to mention/concentrate/air/comment/
ONLY on MULTICENTENNIAL (minimum 19,000 yr) Earth and Earth orbital
movements and EXCLUSIVELY DWELL ON THOSE…. [“Milankovitch cycles]. The
whole Milankovitch stuff almost is a scam with THE AIM and INTENTION of
COVERING UP the OSCULATING SPIRALLING MOVEMENT OF EARTH…..
Because this ploy to cover up the annual Earth orbit orcillation functioned very
well, as they colluded in 2006, Willis has 1. never heard of this 2. Willis is not
open to accept it, 3. Willis is constantly offending me, when I bring up the EOO
subject 4. Willis is on the meme: I have not heard it…so it must be wrong 5, He
knows that he rehearses always the same old opera and fights against any NEW
THOUGHT, stuck in his old thinking unwillig to learn something NEW…..
….. and if you write to Jet Prop. Lab in Pasadena to hand you their DAILY
OSCULATION list, they have order to keep ti secret (I asks various times in the
past – no reply from this guys)….. For this reason, I use as physical measurements
observations made before NASA-GISS-JPL…..
My advice: Study the osculating (or oscillation or “perturbation” advance of Earth
and stay away from the “Knowing All”-attitude. Cheers J.
.
…….
weltklima, perhaps that you don’t know what the word “spiral” means. Here’s the definition:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/spiral
“…A spiral is a shape which winds round and round, with each curve above or outside the previous one…”
If a cataclysmic impact of some object with the Moon or Earth were to change their orbits, their orbits would stay changed. They would not spiral back to their old orbits.
to Dave Burton: Dave, lets stop the conversation…..You are a high school student, trying
to look smart…….. you need to read about the Earth orbit and how gravitational forces act
onto Earth, Moon and planets. Cheers Js.
Dave Burton is right. It goes back to Kepler that orbits are ellipses (or more generally conic sections). Newton explained why. A spiral is not a conic section.
Equatorial “tropical forests cooling”….
I’ve talked about this before. I suspect greening of the planet makes some contribution to cooling. It is an endothermic process and it coincided with the “pause”. In 2012 forest cover expanded 14% in 30 yrs and is ongoing. I recall reading that earths trees number 3 trillion, i.e. 14% means 420B new trees avg ~ 15yrs old, some 200kg/tree carbon sequestered or~80GT in 30 yrs, say by 2018 100GT Carb. Assuming “heat” sequestered equivalent to 120% that amount of anthracite energy content (40GJ/MT)~4TJ.
It is a remarkable fact that this greening, the only climate change thats unequivocal, gets scant mention by the science. Of course this absolute proof of real climate change comes at a cost- the greening (doubled harvests, increased habitat, conservation of water and diversity) makes carbon emissions a huge net benefit rather than a cost. We would perhaps owe a premium to the fossil fuel industry! If the math is correct, it is conservative because, to my mind, the greening would be exponential.
You are right in that photosynthesis is the blind spot of climate. “Earth energy budget” is wrong on this one.
FAO ( http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e06.htm#TopOfPage ) use a 2 kg CO2 ~ 30 MJ, that’s 55 MJ / kg C, so 100 Gt C would be ~ 5.5TJ. Your estimate (100 Gt C) seems correct, provided you don’t mean just live trees, as most of them are now dead and slowly decaying in the soil.
Because :
carbon cycle estimates (official science, so to speak) are that, roughly, of all anthropogenic carbon (~350 Gt as of now)
* ~45% is still in the atmosphere
* ~1/3 has been turned into plants, part still alive, most now dead in the soil.
* ~1/5 sunk down the oceans
Of the ~120 Gt turned into plants, most of it is now dead in the soil, slowly decaying. Then again, we can estimate the still living part as per the “consensus climate science”, which says that anthropogenic contribution is an increase of 3 Gt uptake (123 Gt instead of 120 Gt), which is 2.5%, and 2.5% of 550 Gt plants is ~14 Gt.
Willis Eschenbach sez:
“In my opinion, the most important words
that anyone studying the climate
can learn to say are “I don’t know.” ”
My comment:
In my opinion,
that true statement
moves Willis Eschenbach
up one notch, from a
good writer of scientific articles,
to a great writer.
In my opinion,
the highest possible level
of knowledge in climate science
is self awareness (“I don’t know”),
coupled with the ability to refute the
IPCC’s “CO2 controls the climate”,
and will cause runaway warming,
which is just wild guess speculation.
Mr. Eschenbach has reached the highest level.
Some people who can refute the IPCC conclusions
think they have to provide a better conclusion
about climate change — their own theory,
and often their own climate prediction too.
But it is easier just to refute the IPCC,
without claiming you have a better theory,
and a better prediction of the future climate,
because your theory and prediction are very
likely to be proven wrong.
“Modern” climate science is based
on a prediction of the future climate,
that we are supposed to believe
because it is stated with great confidence
by government bureaucrats
and politicians
year after year …
in spite of them providing
30 years of wrong climate predictions,
as strong evidence the future climate
can’t be predicted, other than saying
“It will change”.
My climate change blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com