Earth’s energy balance sheet is in the red, leading to higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Sunlight in, reflected and emitted energy out. That’s the fundamental energy balance sheet for our planet. If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium.
But for decades, that system has been out of balance. Sunlight continues to pour in, and Earth isn’t releasing enough, either as reflected solar radiation or as emitted infrared radiation. The extra heat trapped around our globe — some 90% of which is stored in the ocean — adds energy to worldwide climate systems and manifests in many ways: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.
While climate scientists have warned for a half-century that this was the inevitable result of adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, so-called climate deniers have continued to suggest that the observed changes might be a fluke — just natural variation.
“Until now, scientists have believed that because of the short observational record, we can’t deduce if the increase in the imbalance is due to humans or climatic ‘noise,’” said Shiv Priyam Raghuraman, a graduate student in atmospheric and oceanic sciences (AOS) at Princeton. “Our study shows that even with the given observational record, it is almost impossible to have such a large increase in the imbalance just by Earth doing its own oscillations and variations.”
He and his co-authors used satellite observations from 2001 to 2020 and found that Earth’s “energy imbalance” is growing. Raghuraman worked with David Paynter of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), a NOAA-funded national laboratory located on Princeton’s Forrestal Campus, and V. “Ram” Ramaswamy, director of GFDL and a lecturer with the rank of professor in geosciences and AOS at Princeton University. Their paper appears today in Nature Communications.
“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.
So what has caused the growing energy imbalance?
“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’ — the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled. Instead, much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less, because increased greenhouse gases cause cloud cover changes, less aerosols in the air to reflect sunlight — that is, cleaner air over the U.S. and Europe — and sea-ice decreases.” (Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.)
In addition, the Princeton and GFDL researchers noted that oceans store 90% of this excess heat. Because of this close relationship between the growing energy imbalance and ocean heating, the Earth’s energy imbalance has important connections to marine health, sea-level rise and the warming of the global climate system. The researchers hope that tracking the historical trends in this energy imbalance and understanding its components will improve the models of future climate change that drive policymaking and mitigation efforts.
“The satellite record provides clear evidence of a human-influenced climate system,” they said. “Knowing that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of planetary heat uptake implies the need for significant policy and societal action to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to curb further increases in Earth’s energy imbalance.”
###
“Anthropogenic forcing and response yield observed positive trend in Earth’s energy imbalance,” by Shiv Priyam Raghuraman, David Paynter and V. Ramaswamy, appears in the current issue of Nature Communications (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24544-4). The research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and Technology (award 80NSSC19K1372), the High Meadows Environmental Institute at Princeton University, and the Mary and Randall Hack ’69 Research Fund.
JOURNAL
Nature Communications
DOI
10.1038/s41467-021-24544-4
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
1% probability is not exactly what I’d call “extremely unlikely”, or is it?
The exact quote is
They are claiming that there is a 99% probability that it is caused by man.
Of course the reasoning they use to come up with that 1%/99% calculation is a bit shakey.
Nor have they demonstrated that the tiny bit of warming that they have detected is bad, much less catastrophic.
Exactly . He says …”Earth’s energy balance sheet is in the red “…
No. it’s in the green !
Ask the plants.
But 97% of scientists agree
Only if you get self-selected scientists that agree with you already.
But look at his earlier claim:
Note the “just by”. That means they found it had to be a mix of anthro and natural change. But then the BIG BOLD LETTERS claim is:
“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.
Here he manages to miss out the word ALONE: less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations ALONE
That is called lying by omission.
I would guess that there is less than a 1% chance that this grad student got off his butt and walked a few hundred yards to talk to Will Happer over at the Physics Building. Princeton U. and AOS are big on their claims of diversity, diversity in science, not so much.
But, Happer is not his advisor. He has to please his advisor and committee.
This is pathetic. I would like to know who the peers are that reviewed this tripe.
What energy imbalance? Any measured ‘imbalance’ is 99% more likely to be a measurement error or some biased adjustment. Considering that each hemisphere exhibits over 100 W/m^2 of difference between maximum positive imbalance in its winter (emits more than it receives) and maximum negative imbalance in the summer. The size of any claimed ‘imbalance’ is significantly smaller than the uncertainty in the data used to approximate it.
Exactly.
It is all lies, all the time.
All the way down.
from the paper:”Using climate model simulations, we show that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1% probability) that this trend can be explained by internal variability
The 95% CI consists of uncertainty due to observational error, as well as uncertainty due to internal variability (latter quantified by standard error associated with linear fit.”
All the calculations are were done using the same models that have been used to produce the “projected temperatures” by the IPCCC.
The main problem is that what the climate models calculate on such large grid patterns it is difficult to evaluate the effects in real terms. The models are designed to prevent any runaway calculations.
AS a result, it is not surprising that they are in good agreement with each other and can produce a very small radiation imbalance. The question is: is this 1% real, or just a response to the inherent error in the climate models? With no measures of observational error and internal error that the actual equations generate in the models despite the damping used- it is quite likely internal errors are more than enough to give a <1% error.
Is it real?
Let’s have a look at models vs reality in a picture, attached below.
As we can see, this question was settled years ago.
Since then, the lies have only continued to increase in ridiculousness, audacity, divergence from reality, and shrilly unhinged exaggeration.
Need to update the graph.
I’ll get right on it.
‘Less than 1% probability’
These aren’t scientists. They’re carnival barkers.
I have an entirely defensible claim:
There is way less than a 1% probability that the numbers they give are as accurate as they claim.
Even if they don’t supply an accuracy figure, they imply it by the number of significant digits they use to display a number. For instance, if they give a number as 147 that means it is between 146.5 and 147.5, elsewise they would give the number as 146 or 148. So, by giving a number as 147, they are claiming better than 0.7% accuracy.
Can you provide a concrete example of what you are talking about?
Here’s one “Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.”
They couldn’t even be bothered with the two clicks that show Antarctic sea ice isn’t melting. Three clicks if you want to verify that yesterday was above the same day in 1979, the start of the satellite era of measurement. (Yes, I know it was earlier but let’s just play along with their fraudulent cherrypicking).
Here’s yer first click:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Antarctic sea ice has far greater effect on albedo than does Arctic, as so much more of it spreads to higher latitudes.
Lower latitudes?
But more of it melts during the summer, only about 15% of it remains from one year to the next.
Lately it has snowed frequently in Greenland, very large island to the south of the artic.
Yesterday’s Antarctic ice extent was about tied with 2015 for third highest on that date since dedicated satellite observations began in 1979. The two higher years were 2013 and the monster ice year of 2014.
Clearly, CO2 doesn’t melt sea ice.
I don’t think that has any relevance to the uncertainty on energy budgets. I will say that the NSIDC lists the uncertainty on sea ice anomalies as +/- 0.3 km^2.
Okay, I’ll bite. If it isn’t relevant then why do the authors of the study mention it as one of their main concerns? Somewhat confusing.
My point was mainly with the interpretation of uncertainty given the figures in energy budget diagrams like the one from NASA used as a thumbnail for this blog post. My comment was not in reference to the Raghuraman et al. 2021 publication.
Ah right. In that case, since satellite observation routinely undervalues sea ice coverage by about 30-50%, isn’t your uncertainty somewhat on the low side?
They also completely ignore the fact that at low angles of incidence, the difference between the reflectivity of snow vs sea water is very small.
For half the year at the poles the incidental solar energy is so vanishingly low as to be almost nonexistent 😉😁
That is high angles of incidence, equal to low solar elevation angles.
On the illustration showing the Earth’s energy balance, they show the total reflected solar radiation as 99.9 W/m2. That’s claiming an accuracy of 0.1%. At any moment that’s not the amount of energy reflected from the planet. In any event, there’s no instrument you can point at the Earth which will give the total reflected energy.
The reflected energy goes in all directions. To measure it all at once, you’d have to have a sensor that would surround the Earth. That would, of course, block the Sun’s radiation.
So, we have to sample and calculate. That entails making assumptions. Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the reflected energy exists at bandwidths ranging from microwaves to x-rays and beyond. How the heck do you separate reflected IR from emitted IR? You have to make more assumptions.
It’s not too rude to say that their claim of <0.1% error for reflected energy is total and utter B.S.
I believe you are referring to the Loeb et al. 2009 and Trenberth 2009 et al. 2009 blended energy budget. That 99.9 W/m2 is not the uncertainty nor does it contain any vestiges of it. Loeb et al. 2009 contains an entire section on the uncertainty here and lists the SW reflection uncertainty as +/- 2 W/m2. So their claim is for a 2% uncertainty.
Note that the ~100 w/m2 of reflected SW radiation is only that which is directed to space and is not absorbed by the planet. Terrestrial radiation is distinguished from solar radiation by the frequency. The former primarily being in the SW bands and the later in the LW bands. IR arriving from the Sun does not get reflected. It is absorbed.
I do agree that any claim of uncertainty < 0.1% for reflected SW radiation is utter B.S. But…no one is claiming that as far as I know.
As I stated, I am referring to the illustration on the WUWT main page for this article. That illustration is similar to others commonly presented except maybe more egregious. Giving a number with three significant digits is a claim of accuracy.
You can claim that the significant digits in the illustration are the result of the illustrator, not scientists, but I guarantee that a graphic artist did not dream up those numbers. They came from some scientist somewhere, so yes, someone is making an unfounded claim of accuracy.
Anyway, back to the article on which we are commenting … If you apply proper error bars, Raghuraman et al’s claims of certainty fall apart.
Yeah, that illustration has Loeb et al. 2009 and Trenberth et al. 2009 listed as references. I realize there are established rules for the display of digits based on quantified uncertainty, but you should not assume the display of digits always implies the uncertainty. The illustrator definitely should have included the lower and upper bounds for all figures.
I did read Raghuraman et al. 2021. They’re methodology quite clearly considers error bars so I’m not sure what the concern is here.
You are mixing ‘metaphors.’ At least units! Try using “wavelength” since you use implied wavelength in the names you use in the next sentence, i.e. “SW bands and the later [sic] in the LW bands.”
That depends on the material and its refractive index in the IR. Most materials are more absorbent in the IR than in visible wavelengths, although there are frequently abrupt changes at specific wavelengths. However, for specular reflectors, particularly water, IR is totally reflected at glancing angles. Your claim is only correct for certain materials and then it is dependent on the angle of incidence and the variation of the extinction coefficient at specific IR wavelengths.
You definitely got me there. I should be more careful about usage of frequency and wavelength and make sure I’m consistent with it. I’ll definitely be more careful about that in the future.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. However, how about your blanket statement that IR arriving from the sun does not get reflected?
Near-IR is strongly reflected by chlorophyll!
I did a rough calculation and estimated that 0.2 W/m2 of solar IR is reflected back to space. That is small relative terrestrial radiation, but not insignificant. I concede that point. I should be more careful about blanket statements like that. They are almost never right.
How much solar IR do you think makes it to the surface?
🙂
You need to be more specific. The solar IR that makes it to the surface varies with time of day, latitude, season, cloudiness, specific humidity, and concentration and type of aerosols. It also varies a small amount with the solar sunspot cycle. Furthermore, are you asking about all wavelengths called IR, or just thermal IR?
That’s an assumption. Reality is more complicated. example
Good point. I should be more careful about claiming that all solar IR is absorbed. It might not be. In fact, based on the paper you cited and doing some rough back-of-the-napkin calculations suggests that reflected solar IR could be as high as 1 W/m2 but more likely on the order of 0.2’ish W/m2. That’s not insignificant. Assuming I did the calculations right and no one has objection I’ll concede the point.
“IR arriving from the Sun does not get reflected” So clouds are like a two-way mirror. Only stopping O/G IR?
It is nuanced. I did a quick calculation suggesting that just under 1% of the incoming solar radiation is 4 um or above. The publication commiebob just posted suggests 15% of IR can be reflected by clouds. The biggest unknown for me is the coverage of high cirrus clouds which I estimated at 40%. That comes out at right at 0.2 W/m2 (340 * 0.01 * 0.15 * 0.4). If someone wants to throw out different figures that would be great. I’m not very confident with the result so I arbitrarily threw in a factor 5 for some wiggle room.
But to your point there is significantly more terrestrial IR than solar IR. So any increase in the return to the emission source whether it be reflected or absorbed and remitted blocks more outgoing terrestrial energy than incoming solar energy.
The modern science does not depend on numbers.
It was very similar question on the radio:
Almost as unlikely as a Trump victory in 2016 😉
I always have trouble assessing the direction an ‘odds’ that is presented suggest, especially when it is coupled with negatives and then comparing it to an analogy offered. But, thinking about your analogy here’s how I read it: Hillary stalwarts boasting a less than 1% chance of a Trump victory.
Based on that reading I’d have to give that mega +’s for the allusion of watching their reactions as the “less than 1%” changes as time goes on.
Either he does not know the basics of thermodynamics or he does not know de basics of statistics.
Or both.
Auto
My money is on almost total ignorance. Outside of his specialism in ‘how to obtain grant funding’ that is.
What energy imbalance?
Joe Biden ?????
Koyaanisqatsi, I guess.
Koyaanisqatsi:
So the study contradicts this: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663?type=check_update&version=1
The author is saying that EEI is decreasing, reflecting the OHC derivative.
Whom should we give credit to?
“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’ — the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled.”
Right.. so now CO2 causes : ” cloud cover changes ” not an enhanced “greenhouse effect”.
This is likely correct. CO2 produced IR is very weak and thus enhances evaporation especially in warmer oceans. This enhances the evapo-convective forces which will lead to more cloud cover in those warmer regions (especially summer and day time in the extratropic areas).
The net result would be some warming in colder parts of the planet and more cloud cover over warmer parts of the planet. This will tend to moderate temperatures overall. Of course, latitudinal moderation will also decrease extreme weather.
I agree. But this guy is saying.. “much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less, because increased greenhouse gases cause cloud cover changes,” implying less cloud cover.
Clouds hold heat in as well as reflect it, remember.
Only at night.
not “hold” they do slow the movement of the IR waves but they do NOT “hold” any of it.
I agree completely: Bad math isn’t a natural process.
Ah, the commander in Chief says he is .
As all involved [measurement] uncertainties are (far) greater than 1%, I doubt that he can falsify a hypothesis that narrowly.
Not only is he not in the neighborhood of 1% he isn’t even in the right state. What am I saying? He isn’t even on the right planet.
Please stop saying derogatory things about planet Libtardia. The Libtardians mean well.
The Libtardians mean well.
The Libtardians mean well – for themselves.
Better?
Auto
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
It is a corollary to Unintended Consequences.
So who is right?
https://rumble.com/vkd3jp-top-climate-scientist-dr.-willie-soon-predicts-global-cooling-for-next-20-3.html
It is also well known that the Earth has been MUCH warmer in the not-so-distant past!
“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.
I say bullsh!t.
Keep in mind that this warmist cabal has made more than 48 consecutive false predictions of climate disasters – the odds of this being mere random stupidity is 1 in ~281 trillion.
His means of making this claim was to compare to climate models. The other possibility is that climate models are worthless piles of non-validated code.
In the past, much bigger changes in planet temperature were entirely natural.
However there is only a 1% chance that the current one is natural.
UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs can’t even correctly represent the past. To say a bunch of models that get global average temperatures 3 C apart can get energy budget calculations within 1% is delusional.
There is a 100 percent chance that is total bull shit!
His apology is plausible. but less than 1% probable. This is the state of modern science, the old/new “jurisprudence”, etc.
The article castigates the strawman they call “deniers” using an old debating trick. But there is a whole spectrum of people who expect more rationality than supposition in these extreme claims. A lot of these are very knowledgeable people who finished their engineering or other hard science degrees instead of opting for the easy grad studies courses in the environment department like Ragahuraman did.
I suppose I am a “half ***ed lukewarmer” in the sense that I agree the average temp. is up a degree since 1850 with about half of that caused by changes in land use and CO2….but a “denier” in the sense that I deny it is any real problem.
The relevance of the paper’s findings can be summarized by one statement it contains…..”we begin with 2001”. FFS, not even a 30 year climate assessment period. Just a waste of attention span to read it. Seems you can now be published in Nature Communications if you know the symbol for “sigma”….
If I’m not mistaken (and I’m not going back to check right now), even the CERES crew at NASA Langley (LaRC) only go to 2005 for their Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) estimates. What makes his data back to 2001 any better?
He is a grad student in CliSciFi, that’s why. Right or wrong, on the surface his paper destroyed the CAGW theory; it is not GHGs disrupting the outward flow of LW radiation, it is CO2 destroying aerosols and clouds. Pal review has fallen apart.
Did you mean “half-fast?”
“The researchers hope that tracking the historical trends in this energy imbalance and understanding its components will improve the models of future climate change that drive policymaking and mitigation efforts.”
And I HOPE that tracking the historical trends in roulette number outcome will improve the models of future number outcome that drive my decision making.
But of course that would involve risking MY money, so maybe relying on hope is not a good thing for MY bankroll.
Thank you for the intelligent, clear and sensible comment!
But how can the models be improved? I thought the science was “settled”?
Chucking them in the bin would be a vast improvement.
“so-called climate deniers have continued to suggest that the observed changes might be a fluke — just natural variation.”
““It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.
This system of thought is wrong, and the people pushing are simply activists.
Climate change is due to natural ocean variation driven by solar variation.
The use of the pejorative ‘denier’ is a dead giveaway that this article is just more politics.
The authors shown their hand in the abstract (my bold):
What is clear and evident, as they don’t understand the drivers, is their ignorance.
“…..We conclude that the satellite record provides….”. And what does the satellite record show about the Little Ice Age, The Roman and Minoan warm period…and oh yeah, the Ice Age ? Do I need a /sarc?
Yes, and why do they exclude the 1979-2000 portion of the satellite record? Looks a lot like a big bowl of cherries to me.
Guesses about the energy imbalance wasn’t available before about 2005. I don’t know where the grad student got his 2001 to 2004 data. I’m not about to spend time digging into this steaming pile to find out.
Willis has just posted a really good take down of the nonsense used to support this paper’s predetermined conclusion.
0.38 ± 0.24??? Are they having a laugh?
Good enough for government work, I suppose.
Remember when the UN IPCC trotted out CliSciFi models showing with and without human drivers. Since the models were tuned to CO2 using aerosols to hindcast, naturally the “with” tracked observed and “without” showed cooling. This grad student is attempting the same trick. No wonder the pal reviewers liked it.
‘ reflecting back less , because of changes in cloud cover caused by greenhouse gasses ” . totally unfounded speculation . its still completely unknown whether cloud cover has increased or decreased and what effect increased co2 has had on clouds . junk science built on wild ass guesses and assumptions . since they’re always saying warming has put more water vapor into the atmosphere wouldn’t that mean more clouds ?. clouds and their effects on weather are almost totally absent in CC thinking . clouds are the weather maker .
The pretzel-twisting logic is nothing short of amazing. First, CO2 was going to be amplified by a “positive feedback loop” of increased water vapor; now, it’s apparently going to reduce cloud cover, somehow in the supposed presence of more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Yet, still without a scrap of empirical evidence, they blame CO2 as the ultimate “driver” of the Earth’s climate. They aren’t even aware of their own ignorance about what drives the Earth’s climate.
As I like to put it – We don’t have sufficient information of sufficient quality over a sufficient period of time to say anything reasonably “scientific” about what changes are occurring, what the driving forces are, and what’s going to happen when. We can hypothesize and guess all we want, we just don’t have the level of information required to divine the climate’s changes with this absurd degree of precision. I’m much closer to being completely accurate when I say that there is a 100% chance that the authors of this “study” don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.
And of course, the old “bad weather is caused by warming climate” bullshit – the same thing they told us was going to happen when climate was cooling in the 1970s (which at least was closer to a realistic claim, since colder climate increases the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics, meaning more violent weather in “extra tropical” zones). Put the various blather together and we’re supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the Earth was in some sort of “climate nirvana,” any departure from which will make the weather “more extreme.” Plus the underlying assumption that the climate would be unchanging absent human “inputs” which are minuscule.
more water vapor <> more clouds … clouds require more than water vapor to form …
So let us say it is not caused naturally, then what is the rationale it has to be CO2? Is it because that is the only possibility the authors can imagine? This is an unbased logical leap.
And I am not just pointing that out, because it is formally wrong, but rather because I know CO2 just does not have the potential to drive climate like this. Contrails are a much potent agent and they are “man made” as well.
For that reason “not natural” will not mean CO2, or prove the CO2 theory respectively.
From the article, this paragraph is stunning:
****
“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’ — the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled. Instead, much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less, because increased greenhouse gases cause cloud cover changes, less aerosols in the air to reflect sunlight — that is, cleaner air over the U.S. and Europe — and sea-ice decreases.” (Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.)
****
So the news is… wait for it… NEVER MIND ABOUT THAT “HEAT-TRAPPING” THING. It’s the cleaner air that did it!
Do GHG emissions drive sea-ice decreases without actually “trapping” heat? Do GHG emissions cause cloud cover changes without actually “trapping” heat? And do GHG emissions really decrease reflective aerosols somehow?
There has to be something lost or left out in the study summary. The whole aerosol/cloud discussion is nonsensical. The mention of Western reductions in aerosols as being causative ignores developing countries’ increases in aerosol production. We have gone down the rabbit hole with the grad student. Maybe he will get a ‘Mannian’ Phd where he pulls a disappearing GHG theory (Medieval Warm Period) trick.
I agree a stunning paragraph but for me the most stunning part of the paragraph is one line “so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled ” hang on a minute isn’t that the very thing the warmists and ecoloons have used for decades to scare the crap out of everyone? So false alarm, no need to keep crucifying the countryside with windmills and solar panels, I can keep my house with central heating, I don’t have to go back to the dark ages and live in a mud hut. I don’t have to replace my little suv with a donkey. Oh no I forgot the bit about changing cloud cover which is all our fault and has never happened before. I shall call my donkey Donald.
Just 19 years of data, really? Once again one of those amazing computational models, that has been carefully tuned to give the wanted answer.
This paper is destined to become yet another prediction failure.
Head meet Wall.
It is at least a couple years short of a full solar-magnetic sunspot cycle.
Mark Twain — ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.’
Man, I don’t trust full professors nowadays, with years of experience, why should I trust a grad slave that published on the easiest journal to publish, from the same editorial group that published the arsenic DNA?
I stopped reading at: ‘stored in the ocean’.
I stopped at: “…manifests in many ways: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.”
Ha ha. They can’t even be bothered to check the empirical data, which completely contradict the coherent parts of the quote.
Ditto here.
The IPCC’s AR4 Report Chapter 5 page 387 says:
“The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.”
Really they can measure that to three places? Besides, an increase of a tenth of a degree isn’t going to warm anything more than a tenth of a degree, and isn’t likely to cause draughts, floods, hurricanes, blizzards and even deadlier extreme events.
The oceans have been warming a bit, but not enough to significantly alter the Earth’s climate. The atmosphere has only been warming at about 0.14 C/decade (UAH over land and ocean combined). I know of no physics that would have the approximately 1 C warming over 150 years drive an increase in global bad weather.
If there were a real imbalance then the earth would crash and burn (figuratively?). Over the past seven decades I have through empirical observation not seen this happening.
And this is supposed to be a “peer reviewed” paper in “Nature Communications”.
That journal has completely lost all credibility …
I think they jumped that shark a while back.
Now don’t be nasty – they reviewed the spelling and grammar and it passed!
There is also a 99% probability that he will get more grant money to expand this wonderful theory.
And, he will get his PhD by pleasing his dissertation committee.
Will his overturning the GHG blanket theory have any impact on how the committee looks at the paper?
Possibly, if they are bright enough to understand the implications. That is not a given, since they are in the discipline of climatology.
Wild. The paper clearly states that CO2’s effect on aerosols and clouds is driving CAGW, not its LW radiative retention properties. One would have to be blind to miss that one. Was it his buddy grad students pal reviewing his paper?
Anyone using the term “denier” is confessing that they are an advocate, not a scientist.
Pure, raw, unfiltered climate pr0n.
Groan! There are two parts to this:
PART ONE:
“But for decades, that system has been out of balance. Sunlight continues to pour in, and Earth isn’t releasing enough, either as reflected solar radiation or as emitted infrared radiation. The extra heat trapped around our globe — some 90% of which is stored in the ocean — adds energy to worldwide climate systems…”
PART TWO:
“…and manifests in many ways: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.”
Part 1 is reasonable. The planet has warmed about a degree since the 19th century, and it is reasonable to say that increased CO2 has played a role in that warming.
It’s also reasonable to report that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
Part 2 is not reasonable and is not supported by anything other than good old fashioned fear mongering & bullshit.
It should be noted that the claims in Part 2 are from the eurekalert.org/news-release and not the cited Princeton peer reviewed publication.
This so called balance has resulted in only a few tenths of a degree of warming over the last 70 years. Over the last decade it has actually resulted in cooling.
Tell me again why I’m supposed to be panicking?
What does that say about Eureka Alert?
Again, UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs are tuned to reflect only AGW, not natural influences. One or more of the UN IPCC Assessment Reports used this trick to “prove” only Man’s influences had any impact on observed temperatures by comparing GCM runs with and without anthropogenic influence, both compared to observed temperatures. Son of a gun, they “proved” that the world would be cooling rapidly without Man’s influence.
About as unlikely as the US women soccer team would loose with 0-3 against Sweden.
“You are a looser.” – Rudi’s grammar teacher.
When you concentrate on how woke you want to be, instead of the game you are supposed to be playing, it’s amazing the things that can happen.
I’m sorry but did you just say that all of the US womens soccer team are loose?
90% of the energy went into the oceans, yet the average temperature went up some fraction of a degree. I’ll run around screaming about the climate emergency after I finished my coffee. Yawn. We’re all doomed. Yawn.
I think I see the problem:
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
Just wondering how else it could be done?
Perhaps look at the data?
You’re right, such a pointless exercise in alarmist projection could not be done using actual data. Only climate models produce such obtuse nonsense.
How about observations, measurements, and use of historical records?
Climate modelling is Cargo Cult Science, and thus utterly worthless.
It’s a shame what college students are being taught these days. Climate science turned on its head… Draw the conclusion then fill in the blanks to support the narrative.
No. I think that’s how climate science got started in the 70’s and that’s pretty much how it’s continued since. I think it’s fair to say that modern climate science bears no relation to the excellent research that has been done by most reputable physicists over the years.
Temperatures have been relatively flat since about 2000, when incidentally co2 started increasing at a high level, especially in China and India. CO2 greenhouse theory therefore disproved.
After careful consideration and research, I estimate the chance that these “scientists” are correct to be 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001%.
Give or take.
Hrm. Can we see the error range on that figure please? It does seem to be a little bit high.
Earth’s energy balance??? There is no balance. The system is not perfect and is chaotic so a sustained balance is not possible. It will strive toward a balance as opposing forces tug at each other but can only be achieved for an instant while changing from one state to another.
What is inevitable is that it will change which is evidenced by the large climate variations throughout the Earth’s history.
Some time ago Kip Hansen posted this illustration of a chaotic system and that’s only with two parameters. Just think how chaotic the climate system is. Besides that there’s this from the IPCC:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
WayBackMachine
I use that quotation almost weekly buy the AGW true believers just slough it off as unimportant. Hell, astrology has a better track record than modern climate science.
“Earth’s energy balance??? There is no balance. “
Of course there is!
If not then either the Earth would slowly cool.
Over an extended period.
Or slowly warm.
It is.
Just because there is necessary “noise” in such a complicated system as it moves absorbed heat around (weather).
It does NOT mean there is not (or should be after an appropriate amount of time following extreme orbital characteristics) an overarching energy balance between that absorbed from the Sun and that emitted back to space by the Earth.
I see you believe that whatever imbalance may exist, must be permanent.
The reality is that the so called balance constantly shifts, sometimes incoming exceeds outgoing, sometimes outgoing exceeds incoming.
The causes, sizes and durations of these shifts occur quite naturally and have been happening since the Sun first started fusing hydrogen.
Exactly right.
Or, both, “over an extended period.”
And it is obvious that both have happened in the past.
Non – linear! What part of that do you fail to grasp? There is no straight – line, steady state system; the Earth appears to exist almost in a constant state of change, warming then cooling then warming again. Which really shouldn’t come as any kind of surprise given daily and annual rotation does exactly the same flipping thing at any point on the Earth’s surface.
As I have been saying ever since they adopted the equivocal term “climate change” and left global cooling and AGW in the dust. Change is the default condition of what is improperly called climate.
Yes, and consequently we have seasons over a large part of the earth.
As the Earth orbits around the sun, it’s distance from the sun varies. Since the Earth has mass, the energy flows both into and out of the Earth will always be out of balance.
Add in daily rotation and axial tilt and it becomes a very complicated cyclical process. I’ve thought for a while now that there is almost a fractal pattern quality about the change in temperatures on a daily, yearly and longer period cycles.
Don’t forget the helical path our planet follows around the Milky Way.
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Yep, it’s complete bollocks. File it in the “ignore” tray.
Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiigggghhht..
https://rclutz.com/2021/05/08/adios-global-warming/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/03/el-nino-and-the-lengthening-new-pause-now-6-years-10-months/
Nineteen years is absurd. Last UAH put global temp back to 1988. Watching for July’s
Yes it did – and only 20 months ago it was 0.6C higher.
While 5 years ago it was at 0.7C higher.
Having fallen to something similar to now between.
Back 9 years ago it was 0.4C lower than now and a full 1.1C lower than the peak in 2016!
All meaningless in terms of the long-term trend
Why is it SO difficult to grasp that there IS NV in the climate’s GMST?
The ENSO cycle being by far the greatest modulator of that.
The test of the long-term trend in Mr Roy’s UAH V6.0 is in the line of least squares though it from 1979 to now..
It stands (from his website) at …..
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
Thank you for pointing out the UAH6 0.14 C/decade trend from its beginning in 1979, Anthony. That was a period of significantly increasing CO2 atmospheric concentrations. It also included a period of cyclical upswing in the long-term minor secular warming from the Little Ice Age. That pretty much puts a hard cap on how much warming we should expect in the future.
less than 1% of climate experts understand the nature …
This kid now has it made for the next few years, in terms of grant funding.
Assuming his destruction of the GHG ‘blanket’ theory goes unnoticed.
They have a simulation model that starts with the assumption that 90% of the extra heat is stored in the oceans. If they’re off by 1% in the estimate of the assumption that explains their result, pretty much completely.
The consensus or flat-Earth model, literally (e.g. simulation), and socially. One step forward, two steps backward.
Flat earth, fixed point with the sun moving around it by the look of things. More than 2 steps back – this model is pre – Galileo!
Perhaps these pinheads will toddle through and see it, so I will ‘splain it one more once. The climate changes constantly, always has and always will. Humans are not causing it to change and can not stop it from changing. CO2 is plant food not pollution, more is better, less is bad. In summation hubris is not a positive character trait, check yourselves before you wreck yourselves.
Let ’em knowingly have a wasted life. They only get one.
The old, if it’s caused by man, it must be bad line of religious thinking.
Why can’t man cause bad things? Climate change is a bad thing and man caused it.
Climate change is a recurring phenomenon of unqualified character. Warming has generally positive effects for the viability of humans, fauna, and flora.
Struggling with evidence-free assertions again griff. Why don’t you do what you think you do best and give us a Polar sea ice report …..
…. oooooh err, not today. That link isn’t evidence-fwee and it’s howwid. Waaaaah, where’s my Mummy.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it.
I never said that man can’t cause bad things. I said that these people make the assumption that any change caused by man is bad. If you can’t see the difference, then there is no hope for you. (Then again, we already knew that.)
There is no evidence that climate change is bad. The climate has been changing since the Earth first developed an atmosphere.
There is no evidence that man is the sole cause of what little climate change is currently happening.
The only change is a slight warming and a little more rain. All good.
Why do you believe that Man can’t cause good things?
“Man caused it” – Griffy you are egotistical beyond belief. Go and get help before you need to be sectioned for your own good.
That’s exactly the opposite of what Mark said, though.
Why can’t man cause GOOD things?
Change is the natural default condition of any chaotic system. Man did not “cause” it and it’s neither a “bad thing” … nor a good thing. It merely exists. The term you use to describe the naturally coupled, non-linear chaotic system “climate change” is a logical fallacy … an appeal to ambiguity … equivocation.
Circular reasoning much?
If there is such a huge imbalance, why isn’t the planet warming by more than it is?
Is this supposed to be a counter argument?
Cue the professional apologists…
It is, though I’m not surprised that you don’t see it.
Don’t see what, genius? 🙂 BTW the planet is not warming by more than it is is because of the numbers, you know, those things scientists are extremely good at.
It’s certainly one of them. There are many more, especially the one showing the study to be fact free.
Fact free? Rory, you’re again confabulating… Please come back if you are able to understand the meaning of “empirical law”. Until you stop being illiterate in basic things you can’t assess whether something is “fact free”.
Prove it.
Clearly you have no idea what empirical means.
That is not an argument. It’s hand waving.
it is only of the order of + 0.4 to 0.8 W/m2.
And ~ 93% is being taken up by the oceans.
Hey I thought it was 90% just a few comments ago? Keep commenting and you’ll get it up to 97% yet.
Now prove it.
The oceans had been warming, both before and after 1950. I’m not sure if current data indicates recent ocean cooling.
Dr. Roy Spencer has done some calculations of ocean warming since about 1950. IIRC, ocean warming since then, from all drivers, is about 1% (maybe up to 2%, stretching it) of the energy flows into and out of the Earth. Read what he has to say about it in his ebook “An Inconvenient Deception.”
That’s for the tip … I shall.
You’re kindly referred to the relevant literature. Just as one doesn’t have to prove the Pythagorean theorem every time, already proved scientific results can be used without proving them.
In other words, you have none and have no clue where to find it if it did exist.
From the “Methods” section: “We analyzed 47 CMIP6 coupled models’ piControl simulations …”
This brand new article in “science” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming contains a message by Gavin Schmidt (NASA); ” Already scientific papers are appearing using CMIP’s unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100, adding fire to what are already well-justified fears. But that practice needs to change, Schmidt says. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong.” Nothing more to say.
But Schmidt and the boys still run their CliSciFi models with them and publish their results.
90% of this “energy imbalance” has “gone into the oceans”, where it can’t be measured. How convenient. But, they “know it’s there”. Riiiiiiight.
Yup they know it’s there ‘cos they dyed all the affected water with a blue-green dye. See that’s smart, that is!
There are several OHC timeseries available. For example, Cheng et al. 2021 is one such timeseries. There are others available. Clearly it can be measured. Do you actually mean that you reject the measurements?
The recent ARGO measurements are unalarming. One of the reasons the prior study began in 2005 is that they needed the accuracy of ARGO combined with CERES in dealing with quantities that are miniscule and only now becoming measurable. The science is evolving rapidly and CliSciFi is back in the Climategate stone age.
Dr. Roy Spenser’s work shows an ocean heating-driven EEI that is unalarming.
“higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events…..pretty Polly! pretty Polly!… Polly want a biscuit!”
Add Princeton to the list of Universities NOT to send your children to. Imagine spending the kind of money it cost to go to Princeton and ending up with just another credentialed moron.
Or a supreme court justice or the richest person in the world. 😉
The other possibility is that the oceans have been warmed by some other mechanism and then share 10% of that energy with the atmosphere. They never discount this possibility so the claim about less than 1% chance the EEI increase is natural is nothing but an outright lie.
In fact, ocean warming appears to have started around 200-400 years ago in some places. Here’s one example.
?resize=720%2C405&ssl=1
Not to annoy, but can you give a hint as to how the temperature circa -7000 (or any other time prior to the invention of the thermometer) was determined?
https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/paleoclimate/proxies.asp
Actually, temperature is defined as a function of the average velocity or motion of the atoms and molecules of which a substance is composed, correcting for the specific heat. It is very difficult to accurately make such a determination. Therefore, liquids that expand on heating are used as a proxy for the ambient temperature. Liquids contained in a calibrated glass stem are called thermometers. They have a disadvantage that they can only determine the temperature at the instant they are read (with the caveat that Min-Max thermometers retain the range between readings and re-setting). Virtually all temperature measurements, now or in the past, are by proxy.
Thank you.
SO why have we not discovered this extra source of energy heating the oceans that just happens to coincide with a 50% rise in a non-condensing atmospheric GHG?
Why haven’t we noticed this warm water rushing to the surface and causing an anomalous zone/zones of high SSTs ?
After all hot water rises and it has to get to the surface to heat the atmosphere.
The problem is that the error bars on this claimed warming are 5 to 10 times greater than the warming itself.
Only those who are paid to see, can see it.
PS: The planet has been warming for around 150 years. Long before the CO2 levels started rising significantly.
If it was possible to actually measure the oceans warming, such warming wouldn’t be in the slightest bit surprising, nor would such warming be evidence of catastrophic CO2 generated warming.
Can you post a link to the dataset you are looking at which publishes error bars 5-10x greater than the warming itself? I’d like to review it too.
Simple, the best sensors have a precision of 0.5C or so, out of the box, degrading as they age.
The claimed temperature rise is about 0.01C.
The number of sensors is pathetically inadequate to measure the entire ocean with any degree of accuracy.
If anything, I gave your side the benefit of the doubt.
Let me be more specific. Which dataset that publishes a global mean temperature timeseries and accompanying uncertainty analysis are you looking at that shows X C/decade of warming and +/-5X C/decade of uncertainty?
He cant as there isn’t any.
Just another perpetual myth on here.
The sensors are accurate to 0.002C
as I have posted up twice in contemporary treads.
For denizens nothing that science can do to measure heat content on the planet is good enough.
Ergo we don’t know enough.
Ergo lets do nothing.
But actually things are being done as fast as is possible in an imperfect world.
So it’s OK
And here is just the remnants of ideological bias in it’s death throws.
Accurate to 0.002C? You are utterly delusional. They can’t get that can of accuracy in carefully calibrated laboratory settings.
Where do they get these numbers? Disneyland?
If you reread what you have just written, I think you have just tried to disprove all of the AGW climate change in one go. Well done. Dasvidaniya Ivan, for you the war is over.
Eh?
The oceans warmed and cooled dramatically without Man’s paltry inputs.
Or they got their sums wrong in the first place and nobody wants to be the first to own up!
First, pull a number you like out of your . . . the air (one that sounds impressive, like 97% or <1%), then make an argument without any evidence that you can assign cause, effect, and predict implications. Collect check.
The basic science says that the Hydrological Cycle halts the Greenhouse effect when the atmosphere becomes saturated with water; but I would NOT expect a graduate student to know that.
The current mindset in our universities doesn’t appear to teach that sort of thing.
Perhaps he should now explain why the ocean temperatures never get much above 32C in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation and why this 32C figure. Also what would the figure be in the absence of water?
He’s a young guy, he doesn’t want to get cancelled.
“climate scientists have warned for a half-century that this was the inevitable result of adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere”
Strictly speaking are there are no “climate scientists.” At best they are a jack of all trades (sciences) and master of none. There are various scientific fields with specialized scientists (masters): biology, geology, chemistry, physics and the likes. A biologist has a broad grasp of his field who then focuses on a particular area. He knows enough to critically evaluate the research of other biologists – even if it means first some selective reading up on the topic. The same applies to the other sciences.
Is a “climate scientist” sufficiently competent to draw, analyse and evaluate a huge quantity of climate information from various sciences? Understanding climate requires multidisciplinary contributions. A “climate scientist” can only have a broad grasp of one or two of the contributing sciences. He may not even have a good grounding in Mathematics and Statistics, or perhaps he only specialized in Statistics. If someone disputes his assertions, even someone from the pure sciences, his reflex reaction is to disparage him because he is not a climate scientist.
It may be a generalization but it appears that flawed reasoning and logic is what climate scientists have in common, whether male or female. Perhaps if they spent more time outside and far less pouring over the climate models they would be enlightened.
Well the UK Met Office, who know a thing or two about weather, just presented evidence the UK climate is already changed, having become both warmer and wetter…
Too bad actual scientists who spend their time studying weather, laugh at the clowns at the Met Office.
Griff,
The Met Office may know about weather [climate? Maybe less so?] presented assertions, with some numbers [look carefully cherry-picked to me].
Mike Kendon – lead author, quoted by the BBC at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57988023: –
““As it continues to warm we are going to see more and more extreme weather such as heatwaves and floods.””
But we know that warmed Poles reduces the energy available to causer storms, as the Differences are less.
And the IPCC can’t see what he claims . . . .
Out of interest, in what era do you think was the climate ideal?
You have all of time up to today to choose from.
Please give some coherent reason. Thanks.
Auto
The Met Office talking about rainfall:
” Annual trends are small relative to variability between years”
“It is also unclear how, or if these trends can be linked directly to climate change.”
Don’t worry the useful idiot Grifter will link anything and everything for the good of the narrative.
You apparently don’t know the difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist, which isn’t surprising.
Most climatologists don’t know the difference either.
We can add journalists to that list, also.
I disagree – they presented an opinion which, given their long string of failed forecasts longer than 2-3 days over the past couple of years, I would be inclined to disregard entirely. The Met office has become a rather expensive joke I’m afraid.
The Met office are the SOURCE of the climate goat rodeo. They’re more unreliable than the NASA/GISS clown show.
It should be Meth Office
A process beginning up to 300 years ago. Some multi-decadal periods warm faster while some cool. The late 20th Century was a short period where temperatures were on a cyclic upswing. The whole CliSciFi CAGW fearmongering is based on temperature estimates over a period of about 25 years. Not a very solid foundation for fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems.
This!
Someone, somewhere on Earth is doing real science. Not these folks however. Conclusions-driven evidence is now the usual way to build an “academic” career.
And your science based evidence or argument that what they say isn’t the case is…?
Oh the irony…
No! Please say it ain’t so. Can I believe my eyes? Griffy is actually asking someone to supply evidence? You’re right, this is too much.
The fact that the real world consistently refuses to follow along with what the models claim it should be doing.
You are tedious! Many of us here have presented numerous scientific reasons why the alarmist claims have weak support, at best.
griff doesn’t recognize anyone who disagrees with him as a scientist. Which means that he gets to ignore any of these non-scientists.
He never has acknowledged that Crockford is a scientist. Like Humpty Dumpty, a word means whatever griff wants it to mean.
I’ll just offer the Null Hypothesis in response to your inquiry. Falsify that and you’ll gain some credibility here.
What does who say?
I don’t need to read the conclusions of a published “scientific” paper to know from the methods that the conclusions are not reliable. This isn’t a matter of proving it wrong, but rather realizing that the methods are not scientific and of no use to reach conclusions. I spend my whole career reading and acting on scientific publications and in the past publishing and reviewing such papers. The majority of such publications can not be relied on to reach valid conclusions because they don’t abide by the stringent rules of objective science. This is just one more paper fit to line the bottom of a bird cage.
The problem is there is so much we do not know about the oceans that the assumption being made here is one that while certainly deserves argument can not be etched in stone, Large scale cyclical events intersecting or increased hydrothermal events we can’t see can cause it. Here is another inconvenient fact. The warming, especially in the west pac, encourages a change in the GWO in which countering La Ninas can develop. How so. Lower pressures to the west increase easterlies to the east. COuntering that is low solar, which would encourage el Ninos and is why I am not a big fan of sudden cooling due to lower sunspots. Just where is all the heat from the last 200 years of higher sunspots stored? No one seems to want to look at the elephant in the room, that the set up for the last LIA had 200 years of next to no sunspot activity. But the article here does not adress the run up to the current warmer time. In addition there is no runaway warming and that should be brought up, One can see it in daytime max temperatures lagging well behind and again indicating the natural tendency of the system to fight back. . I suspect a very strong La Nina will show up about 2026 at the peak of the solar cycle and turn heads. I agree with the idea of the ocean being a driver,, but I think the assumption made here that its 99% due to human activities is arguable, if not a stretch, But what else can be said? . If someone came out and said the opposite its game set match for his or her career What bothers me is there is no mention of the obviously distorted warming that is taking place and that in a way, the warming is positive if there is more in the north, That means zonal potential energy ( contrast) for the extremes lessens. And since they refuse to quantify mixing ratios which would show this is not as bad as they portray, you cant really see it and certainly the public wont. In his defense. the cleaner air was brought up a big key also. Still, when we see the arctic WARMING in summer, that is when some alarm bells will go off with me, And there is no sign that is happening and in fact its quite the contrary. In the end, we should quit quantifying temperatures and move to wet bulbs, or better still saturation mixing ratios. Given they will expose the fact this is not the emergency that is being portrayed, that is not going to happen
Fascinating this study is out of Princeton, I bet none of them talked to Will Happer
Why would a grad student writing a paper on the behavior of infrared in the atmosphere want to talk to an old white guy who happens to be the world’s leading specialist on the behavior of light in the atmosphere, the guru of adaptive optics?
“Still, when we see the arctic WARMING in summer, that is
when some alarm bells will go off with me, And there is no sign that is happening and in fact its quite the contrary.”
Would you not expect there to be little warming (in air) in summer, considering the vast sink to LH that the sea-ice provides.
You only have to look at the DMI to see that the Arctic sits at near Zero C through summer.
No coincidence that the vast majority is ice at zero C and absorbing LH of melting/fusion at the rate of 334 J per 1 g of ice at 0°C.
Or about 80x that required to raise water by 1C
and 334x that required to warm air by 1C
With respect to how little we know about what goes on in the ocean, there is this recent revelation:
https://scitechdaily.com/undersea-volcano-discovered-near-christmas-island-that-looks-like-the-eye-of-sauron/
Joe, you should hire whoever edited your latest book to edit your comments. I had to re-read it a couple of times to get the full import of what you are saying. It would be great if you took that small comment and expanded it into a WUWT article, going into detail as to the background for your summary statements. The science and import behind wet bulb temperatures and saturation mixing ratios would be an education for many of us.
Why not use all of the available data? Starting in 2001 calls this study into question. It also assumes that changes in cloud cover are the result of human emissions, ignoring all other possible explanations for such changes. Thus it contains the same fundamental flaw as most climate research these days. It ignores the fact that the climate changes quite naturally all the time, without significant changes in TSI or volcanic activity. They continue to ignore ocean cycles as possible causes for change, when ocean cycles are the most obvious reason and are consistent over all time periods. Granted, no one gains power and wealth from such scientific understanding.
The ice cores clearly show that the Holocene is waning and that glaciation is likely in the next 2-4 thousand years. Temperatures will be naturally cooling during the interim, and no amount of CO2 will be able to reverse that trend. This paper, and 99% of climate change ‘science’ today is politically funded and driven, making it advocacy, not science. Success in the industry is simple…feed the false narrative and thrive. Do actual science and be forced to find other employment.
There is a 99% chance that these “scientists” have never done any science. Especially that idiot Shiv, Their Method of Research is “Computational simulation/modeling” which is not science.
I’m confused.
I though the science is settled. That mankind is making the earth boil and the scientific consensus mean’s it’s accepted scientific fact and beyond debate.
If that’s the case why are they still doing “studies” to try to prove it?
Princeton University got it wrong in their very first paragraph with this statement:
“If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium.”
Because of the enormous heat capacity of Earth’s oceans as well as the latent heat associated with ice-water phase change, our planet never reaches—let alone—maintains equilibrium. There are internal sources/sinks (aka reservoirs) of energy that have time constants that likely exceed 100,000 years . . . interestingly, about the same as the cycle period for glacial-interglacial conditions that have occurred over the last million years or so.
It is nice to look at Kiehl & Trenberth-type diagrams of energy (actually power flux) flows within the Sun-Earth-deep space system with a net “accounting” that shows energy in = energy out, but such represent only a theoretical limit-case condition . . . one never reached in reality. More specifically, K-T-type diagrams and associated “budgets” DO NOT consider flows into and out of energy reservoirs that exist on Earth, thereby enabling misleading steady state calculations.
As but one example, the worlds oceans below the average depth of the deep-end-of-the-thermocline (about 1000m, or 3300 ft; see https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html ), are still in the process of warming up from the last glacial period which ended about 12,000 years ago.
I cannot quantify what errors are introduced by leaving “reservoir flows” (my terminology) out of the assumed equilibrium calculations, but I would not be surprised if these actually lead to 10-20% differences between assumptions and reality in terms of the planet having energy equilibrium when averaged over any 100 year or longer interval.
It depends on what the modeler excludes from the system.
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling
Ok then.
“The observed changes might be a fluke — just natural variation.”
You got it
A scientist was being interviewed on BBC this week who admitted a trade secret: when you hear “1 %” mentioned as a probability, it means they don’t really have a clue so it’s a default guess based on a hunch. Sounds about right.
If you are going to round off to the nearest percent, one can’t get below 1%!
there is no imbalance … solar energy in = radiated energy out … insulation (GHG) do not stop energy movement … they slow it down is all … it still moves …