by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
CO2 hits 400 ppm – does it matter?
Discover Magazine has announced its top science stories for 2013. One global warming story made the top 10 – #3 CO2 hits 400 ppm – Does it matter? In May, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere crossed this long-hyped threshold, setting off a storm of media coverage. But how significant is the milestone?
‘Does it matter?’ is the trillion dollar question, I agree this should be the top AGW story for 2013.
Nic Lewis at ClimateAudit
Nic Lewis has a post Does the observational evidence in AR5 support its CMIP5 models’ TCR ranges? In the comments, McKitrick summarizes it:
One of the really remarkable points Nic makes here is that, just using numbers from the IPCC report itself, and applying their own formula for transient climate response, an estimate of around 1.3C is unavoidable. Yet most of the models they employ have TCR’s of 1.6 or higher, and quite a few are even above 2, implying way too much sensitivity to CO2 emissions. Yet the IPCC goes on to say things like “There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions.” (Ch 9 p. 3). The whole summary section of Ch 9 gives the impression that models and observations are beautifully in alignment. Something’s gotta give here.
Boycotting Nature and Science
Randy Shekman, Nobel laureate, says his lab will no longer send papers to Nature and Science, because they distort the scientific process [link]
Natural gas
The National Journal poses the question How Best Can We Use Natural Gas? Should We At All? There isn’t much to the main post, but the comments are really interesting.
AGU
This past week, I have been attending the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. While I enjoyed my week, I find trying to navigate the huge number of talks and sessions to be a mind numbing experience. A number of people have been tweeting. The best overview can be found at David Appel’s site, where he links to a number of posts at Yale Climate Media Forum.
Link on the ‘does it matter’ story does not work for me – maybe try http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan-feb/03-co2-hits-400-ppm#.UqvD0GRDtTQ
Although that’s paywalled.
By the standard of recent years, global cooling predictions and natural explanations for climate change are controversial, even outlandish. By the broader standard of the last century of science — and the centuries that preceded it — what’s outlandish is attributing massive changes in climate to increases in carbon dioxide, a trace gas that represents so miniscule a fraction of our atmosphere that it must be measured in parts per million.
Huffington Post Canada, today
“an estimate of around 1.3C is unavoidable.”
I’ve followed Nic Lewis at Climate Audit.
Is Nic Lewis believable?
Icy cold to our nation’s midsection which moves inexorability towards the nation’s East coast sends a different message. Cold is here. Warm is gone. Who is listening? The numbers crunched by Nic Lewis say 1.3C for a doubling of CO2.
The weather says….much lower. TCR of 0.6 to 0.8 C is in the offing. C02 influence has been over estimated. The current numbers from Nic Lewis say lower TCR than IPCC project, and the icy fingers of cold weather say even less.
If I am right, then Washington DC will have more than slick roads and heavy clothing to worry about.
We’ll see how Gavin and company respond; models tweaked with adjusted data.
RiH008 astutely observed:
“Cold is here. Warm is gone.”
—-
It’s called winter. Comes around every year. Amazing, eh?
I yyy’m drea eee ming of a why yyy te Christ maaahs
… not. (
Beth Cooper
We’re going to Oz in June for daughter’s wedding. NO SNOW I hope.
Have a beer on me. Happy Holidays.
Thx, RiHo08, compliments of the season ter u also.
Beer, say, can u make that French champagne? :)
Beth Cooper
Now I thought diamonds we’re a girl’s best friend.
Heaven ferbid that a serf wear diamonds RiH. )
That is correct RG.
And if this winter is colder than normal, or has more snow or we get a couple of really big winter storms, we can count on hearing how it is the result of climate change, which as we all know, is guaranteed to cause extreme weather events.
Fixed that for ya’, tim.
Joshua the mainstream media won’t print your version but they will Tim’s. For instance can you find the following info headlined in any major newspapers like NY or LA Times or magazines like Time or Life or Newsweek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season
First time since nineteen sixty frickin four no hurricanes rose above category one. That’s 60 years. Right on time for what I told you to write down – we’ll be seeing a repeat of 60 years ago. The pause still has another 10 or 15 years to go if the pattern repeats and so far it is.
I don’t know where they get 1.3 C from. If you take 0.7 C since 1950 and a CO2 rise from 310 to 395 ppm, you get 2.0 C just from that.
They have a much larger central estimate of the forcing change than just that from CO2 since 1950 implying that the growth of other GHGs far exceeded the reduction effect of aerosols in this period. However, the error bars also easily cover the scenario where the CO2 forcing change can be used alone (as I did) with other GHGs and aerosols canceling giving the TCR as 2.0 C. This cancellation was what the central forcing estimate did before 1950.
Only if you believe that all of recent warming was CO2. It is ‘virtually certain’ (99-100%) that this is not the case.
Jim D,
Why not start at 1940 rather than the dip to a low at 1950?, why not look from 1998 to 2013?. Why not cherry pick some other dates? You can get any thing you want if you cherry pick correctly.
Surely the way to judge the current trend, is to start with the current date, November 2013, and look back in time until there is a statistically significant trend which can be relide on.
“I don’t know where they get 1.3 C from. If you take 0.7 C since 1950 and a CO2 rise from 310 to 395 ppm, you get 2.0 C just from that.”
He’s found Kevin’s heat !!!!
In discussions on the cause of global warming I see no consideration of the effect that heat emissions may play. Yet it is a simple matter to determine the amount of heat that has been released by the combustion of fossil fuels,(as well as the by-product CO2). The mass of the atmosphere is well known (1166x10E16 pounds and a specific heat of 0.24). The amount of heat from our consumption of energy has the potential to raise the atmospheric temperature by a factor of four times the amount that is actually accounted for by the measured rise. Any reputable scientist studying the causes of rising atmospheric temperature, must factor this into any conclusions regarding the relative impact of CO2 and heat on global warming. Obviously this has not been done by the IPCC or Kyoto or anyone else as far as I can tell. Suppose we had hydrogen instead of methane coming from shale deposits and we burned only that for our energy needs. We would generate the same amount of heat but without CO2. How much less of a problem would we have? The same sort of logic applies to our view of Nuclear power as a solution. (Nuclear power emits more than twice the total heat as its electrical output, but with no CO2). CO2 must be a miniscule contributor to the problem and yet we have serious discussions (even on an international scale) on CCS, carbon capture and storage. To reduce the atmospheric concentration by one part per million requires the removal of 18,000,000,000,000 pounds of CO2, at what cost and for what benefit? It is a shame to continue to waste time and money when the answers are technically feasible to replace fossil and nuclear with renewable energy sources that do not add to the heat imbalance.
Extra heat will not stay in the atmosphere without higher levels of greenhouse gases. This is the fundamental point that you keep missing. It is not one or the other – but both. Waste heat and radiative decay in the mantle are sufficient to heat the atmosphere to the new higher energy content increasing radiant heat losses. The ‘notch’ in the emission spectrum at TOA – the radiative imbalance imbalance caused by increased CO2 – may be relatively short lived.
Chief said:
“Extra heat will not stay in the atmosphere without higher levels of greenhouse gases. ”
—-
Is this the kind of physics they teach in the land of Oz? The atmosphere is an exceptionally poor storage vessel for heat, and so “extra” heat (whatever that unscientific term means) would never stay in the atmosphere, but rather would be in the Earth’s actual climate energy storage vessel of the ocean. Higher levels of GH gases might raise the atmospheric temperature modestly given the increased absorption potential for LW, but the vast bulk of the “extra energy” as Earth’s energy balance is altered by GH gases would be found quite clearly in the ocean.
And it’s not being found ‘quite clearly’ in the ocean.
==================
God save us from pompous gits who want to lecture on things they understand on the most superficial level.
A higher atmospheric temperature implies a higher energy content.
e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
The higher temperature in the atmosphere in turn causes ocean heat content to rise – all things being equal.
Chief,
The atmospheric energy storage compared to the ocean is miniscule. As GH gases increase in the atmosphere, the flow of energy from ocean to space (the natural source and sink for energy in the system) is reduced, and, if energy continues to flow into the ocean at roughly the same rate, than as you increase GH gases, the oceans retain more energy. You talk of energy “storage” in the atmosphere is truly absurd. The atmosphere will warm as GH gases increase simply because the increased absorption of LW with increase in associated mass of LW absorbing molecules, but this truly doesn’t represent any kind of storge as that LW energy must be constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the GH molecules.
The ocean is the prime climate system energy storage vehicle on this planet, and to talk in any other terms is both nonsensical and distracting.
Chief said:
“The higher temperature in the atmosphere in turn causes ocean heat content to rise – all things being equal.”
____
True, but the higher temperature in the atmosphere doesn’t really represent any signficant energy storage. If the flow of energy from the ocean to atmosphere was suddenly cut off, the atmosphere would cool rapidly, dry out, and be subject to much more dramatic diurnal swings, like any planet without an ocean as the prime energy storage vehicle.
R. Gates, I think it is just imprecise language by CH. Storage may mean the same as insulation to some, and saying GHGs increase insulation would be a more accurate statement. GHGs keep heat in, not by storing it, but by not letting it escape so easily from the surface.
Thus discourse descends again into the rabbit hole.
Higher temperature in the atmosphere implies a higher average energy content – despite the obvious nature of radiative flux.
The OHC change is caused by changes in the atmosphere. This is after all the core greenhouse gas theory.
Jim D.,
You are being generous to the Chief, and in the spirit of the season, I will assume you are correct. You are of course completely correct in terms of the action of GH gases, but to admit that they act as a regulator or “control knob” for the flow of energy from ocean to space would be admitting too much for some skeptics. Then they would have to look toward the ocean for a true measure of climate sensitivity– and this of course, is not what they’d like to do as it would paint a much different picture of both sensitivity and the so-called “pause”.
Chief said:
“Thus discourse descends again into the rabbit hole.”
____
Sorry this is so confusing for you Chief– dark and confusing like a rabbit hole might be. It really is quite simple– adding greenhouse gases alters the energy balance and the majority of the energy from that imbalance is stored in the ocean. The additional energy “stored” in the atmosphere, is not really being stored, but the temperature of the atmosphere is raised by the GH gases, reducing the flow of energy from the ocean. You putting on a jacket, might warm the jacket from your body heat, but to think that energy is being “stored” in the jacket is a very backward and incorrect way of looking at it.
Gatesy is a nasty little dweeb with seemingly minimal understanding. He makes such basic errors while pompously pontificating on simplistic notions. The big fail he then attempts to hide by acting in bad faith.
The physics of atmospheric gases is very rarely denied – certainly not by me. There are many complexities however in how a complex and dynamic Earth system responds.
The complexities include changing natural fluxes of CO2, changing cloud cover with changing ocean and atmospheric concentration, the nature and extent of natural variability for some.
Climate is wild. There are implications in this for the ‘pause’ persisting for decades and for the risk of climate change – warming or cooling – in as little as a decade. Twits like gatesy don’t understand and thus are more part of the problem than the solution.
Chief said:
“Gatesy is a nasty little dweeb with seemingly minimal understanding. ”
—-
As your knowledge and concepts of the physics of energy “storage” in the atmosphere is weak to nonexistent, I suppose personal attacks is what you are left with. GH gases don’t really store energy Chief, so increasing them won’t store more energy in the atmosphere, however their absorption and emission of LW makes them excellent at altering the flow of energy from the actual energy storage of the ocean to the ultimate drain of outer space.
Chief said:
“There are implications in this for the ‘pause’ persisting for decades.”
—-
The so-called pause in tropospheric sensible heat has been as the result of three primary factors: increased aerosols from a moderate uptick in global volcanic activity, and a sluggish sun and natural variability in the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere. On the other side of the forcing coin is the continued high level of GH gas growth in the atmosphere, which most importantly affects OHC. The GH gas forcing is by far the strongest of the forcings, and will dictate the direction of climate change in the 21st century. Everything else is interesting, but can be considered noise.
Gatesy entire rationale seems to be insulting those he sees as skeptics. It is hypocritial in the extreme – extreme bad faith – to persist in unwelcome snark and then complain about me calling him a nasty little dweeb. Believe me – this is mild compared to the assertions of my madness and ignorance. This is less about science than Allinsky style ridicule of those he considers ‘skeptics’. The fact that I am not skeptical at all – merely know a great more – of course escapes him utterly. The fact that he has no rational response to speak of speaks volumes.
For the most part the warmth of the atmosphere is related to the energy content. This is such a basic physical reality.
Chief said:
“The fact that I am not skeptical at all..”
—–
Either you are an honest skeptic, or a true believer/unbeliever. You either hold truths to be provisional, or you believe in your position 100%. Even the IPPC are at least honest skeptics, holding out a 5% chance they could be wrong.
Chief also said:
“For the most part the warmth of the atmosphere is related to energy content…”
How is this even important beyond a simpleton expression that energy is related to energy? You were talking about energy storage…and the atmosphere is a very poor place for that and far less (by orders of magnitude) is “stored” there than is actually stored in the ocean.
Geebus. That is stunning unintentional irony even for you, Chief.
Congrats on reaching heights of UI heretofore considered unreachable..
The fundamental cause of the ‘pause’ is cloud changes caused by changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation in the 1998/2001 climate shift. Both solar TSI and sulphates are relatively minor – some 0.1 W/m^2 – indeed TSI is currently at the peak of the 11 year cycle.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=44
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=21
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
The increase in OHC in ARGO for instance was the result of short term changes in cloud radiative forcing related to change from a deep La Nina in 1999/2000 to modest El Nino over most of the decade.
The fact that ocean and atmospheric changes are involved means ocean and atmospheric indices gives clues about likely persistence.
Gatesy gives yet another example of progressive science denial that seems utterly incomprehensible except as cognitive dissonance.
So we are joined again by Joshua who never has anything interesting or relevant to say. Merely persists with the same whines about ‘skeptics’. The fact remains that I am not ‘skeptical’ about simple radiative physics – simply understand a great deal more than that.
Let’s deconstruct. I suggest that a pot calling the kettle black is bad faith – and he suggests that this is unintentional irony? It is gross hypocrisy at the least – ergo bad faith – but I can detect no irony whatever either intentional or not. Should we suspect Joshua of lying hypocrisy? Surely not.
CH, below the stratosphere the atmospheric temperature is determined by the surface temperature, and the surface temperature is determined by how much heat it can absorb and lose. The atmosphere responds to surface temperatures, having almost no heat capacity in comparison, so it can’t control surface temperatures. Its effect is one of insulation.
R. Gates, skeptical warmist:
The atmosphere is an exceptionally poor storage vessel for heat, and so “extra” heat (whatever that unscientific term means) would never stay in the atmosphere, but rather would be in the Earth’s actual climate energy storage vessel of the ocean.
In this context, “extra heat” is the heat added by the combustion of fossil fuels. Other things being equal, the extra continuous heat input ought to raise the “equilibrium” temperature of the climate system, atmosphere first, then ocean at a much lower rate.
Putting together your argument with the argument of Chief Hydrologist, the increased inflow from carbon combustion is so slight that it does not raise atmospheric temperature much because the energy is quickly transferred to space and to ocean, and the ocean has a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere.
There is so much wrong with this statement from Jim – that I don’t know where to start.
Warming starts in the atmosphere with increased greenhouse gases – increased IR scattering resulting in increased downwelling IR. The changes in net IR losses from the surface cause increases in surface and ocean temperature. This is utterly basic ‘greenhouse’ theory.
Matthew – the ‘extra heat’ in the atmosphere is there because of the ‘extra greenhouse gases’. It really doesn’t matter where the energy comes form in that sense.
CH, the atmosphere can and does increase its IR emission just by adding GHG molecules without its temperature changing. This increased IR keeps the surface warmer, not a temperature change. The temperature change is a response to the surface temperature change not a cause. It would be an easy physics experiment to add CO2 to air and watch its IR emission increase without its temperature changing.
This has been a funny chain of messages, where participants present almost identical views but seem to believe that they disagree essentially (at least some of them seem to think so).
This time Chief has been most logical in expressing these views.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere leads to an immediate reduction in OLR at TOA and to an immediate increase in downwelling radiation at surface. The sum of the changes is a reduction in radiation from atmosphere. Thus both the atmosphere and the surface start to warm, but the initial warming of the atmosphere is faster due to smaller heat capacity. The immediate surface (skin of the ocean and a thin layer of soil) warms almost as rapidly, but layers even a little deeper warm more slowly.
Very soon the atmosphere has warmed enough to restore the balance where it continues to warm at the slower rate of the surface.
Some 7% of collisions result in IR emissions. The rest add to kinetic energy – or kinetic temperature.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html
To think that you can discombobulate the process is a bit silly.
Well done Pekka – but my expositions are typically the most informed.
The value of 7% is about right for the share of CO2 molecules in vibrationally excited state at any moment. CO2 molecules in such a state can emit IR, but only about one in billion does that, all the others release the vibrational energy in a collision with other molecules. At the same time collisions bring other CO2 molecules to the excited state.
Emission or absorption of IR is a really rare occurrence in comparison to the collisions. Each CO2 molecule has more than 1 billion collisions every second, but absorbs and emits once or twice every second. The emissions are not any more likely after an absorption than they are after the billion excitations through collision.
Which is precisely what makes it so freakin’ beautiful, Chief.
OK, I am going to disagree with Pekka here. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere does not cause it to warm. It actually has a net cooling effect because the atmosphere radiates to space more efficiently than it absorbs heat from the surface emission. You can look for the mean effect of IR in the atmosphere and it is one of cooling about 2 C per day through the troposphere down to the surface. Adding GHGs would increase this cooling rate. The cooling is balanced by convection that has a warming effect. This is how radiative-convective equilibrium works (Held has several papers on this). So the only way the atmosphere warms when adding GHGs is via the surface warming and providing the heat by convection.
JimD, the Effective Radiant Layer temperature is in the ballpark of -30C degrees which puts it in the 7000 meter altitude range. That should put the mass of the atmospheric that is cooling around 20%-30% of the total mass of the atmosphere. So it might be better to say a “portion” of the atmosphere cools with added CO2.
It may at first seem counterintuitive that adding CO2 has a cooling effect in the atmosphere, but you can use MODTRAN with a US atmosphere (something like a global mean) to show that while doubling CO2 reduces upward IR at the top which is a warming effect, it also increases the downward flux at the surface by more leading to a net cooling effect in the atmosphere as a whole from the emission change. IR cooling is an important part of the radiative-convective balance that determines the tropospheric temperature profile.
Jim,
I have done many calculations of that type for all commonly used atmospheric profiles. I haven’t collected all results. Thus it would be necessary to repeat the calculations to give a full answer.
As far as I remember and also in agreement with the results that I could find the result is typically that the increase in downwelling radiation to the surface is roughly 30% smaller than the increase in OLR at TOA.
Don’t give the Chief an inch, otherwise he will take a mile.
Read carefully to what the Chief now claims — in that he says GHG’s are in fact important.
Yet he also asserts that further warming will not be observed for a decade or three.
These two assertions can not be logically reconciled. Another 3 decades will likely give 60 PPM of atmospheric CO2, at least.
Does he really think that some mysterious sink will eat up this extra forcing, even as he claims the GHG’s play a role?
Remember that the Chief’s job is to add to the FUD, not to advance the science. Please don’t let him continue to spin. He is a phony.
Pekka, OK, MODTRAN alone can’t tell you the total effect because there is a warming effect in the atmosphere from absorbing additional IR from the surface. However there are two offsetting terms. One is heating of the atmosphere by absorbing emission from the surface, which is a convergence of the upward flux, and one is divergence of the downward flux as the atmosphere emits more downwards than it receives. The cooling effect turns out to be larger, so IR cools the atmosphere if nothing opposes it. Energy diagrams like Kiehl and Trenberth or Stephens would also show a net loss of energy from the atmosphere by radiation balanced by a net gain from surface fluxes of heat. the cooling effect of IR radiation is from its GHGs, so adding more would increase this effect, and this is what happens in the stratosphere where surface warming effects can’t reach.
Web, it is at least progress that CH has come around on his views about combustion.
Like I said, give him an inch and he will take a mile. Chief suffers from delusions of grandeur. Don’t feed him, ever.
This whole focus on chaotic behavior by the so-called “geniuses” on the skeptic side such as Chief and Tomas is ultimately completely misguided and worse, an intentional canard.
Don’t look at the temperature. Listen to what RG is saying … the OHC is retaining the heat and demonstrating the secular, near monotonic rise in energy that increasing GHGs are causing.
Another way of looking at this is the CSALT model, which captures the free energy content of the atmosphere, such that variations in temperature are compensated by variations in other thermodynamic energy terms, resulting in the total also showing that secular rise even more plainly with fewer fluctuations … including the complete removal of the pause.
Judith Lean with a presentation at the AGU is also pushing this approach, obviously building on her previous work. The truth is uncovered by looking at the statistics and mean value of the compensating natural factors, and not by GCMs and other analyses that allow the non-determinism of individual runs to suggest the outcome.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1213_JLean.jpg
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/12/agu13-a-great-lecture-not-to-be-missed-judith-lean/
Jim,
The statement was about the immediate change, i.e. before all changes in temperature. Thus nothing else changes than CO2 concentration.
I did check, what UChicago MODTRAN tells. It gives rather strong net warming of the atmosphere for tropics and midlatitude summer. Essentially zero for subarctic summer, and cooling of atmosphere for US Standard atmosphere as well as winter midlatitude and subarctic. All these are for clear sky atmospheres. Clouds would not change in this exercise, but should reduce the effect a little affecting more OLR than DWIR.
All in all the total effect might be close to zero, and determining the sign would require essentially better calculations.
The result is not important at all as it tells only about the short period before the surface and the atmosphere start to warm in unison, and as the overall warming is controlled fully by the balance at TOA. In that later phase the warming of the surface is due to the combined effect of warmer atmosphere and more CO2, and the ratio of these two factors is unimportant.
I will never give Chief credit because he will twist whatever he is fed to further his agenda. He has never been in this for the science, that has been clear from day one.
For me, what is exciting is keeping track and following the thought processes of the climate scientists as they weave their way to a clearer picture of what is happening. The OHC analyses and the Lean work on a statistical climate model is the key in my opinion at reducing uncertainty, and that is where I am focusing my substantiating efforts toward. So for example, if The Chief wants to take shots at the CSALT model by saying it is a rehash of something Lean has done previously — fine by me, as it is simply an alternative way of looking at what Lean is presenting.
Appel did an interview with her here:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/12/agu13-judith-lean-summarizes-her-agu-lecture/
Pekka, I think we agree that the instant effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere depends very much on the local sounding, and has little bearing on the long-term sustained effect. The most important thing that happens, whether the atmosphere cools or warms, is that the surface IR balance changes, because more CO2 molecules leads to more flux. It is the surface balance that determines what ultimately happens in the troposphere.
Web, thanks for that Appell interview with Lean. That is an interesting hypothesis she has about northern winters and low sea ice. Today we see snow in Cairo. Winter variability appears greater. Is that related to low Arctic sea ice in September?
Marler,
“In this context, “extra heat” is the heat added by the combustion of fossil fuels.”
—-
Very little of the heat added to the system is from the actual combustion of fuels. Almost all the heat added is from the change is the thermal gradient of the atmosphere caused by adding more GH gases. This increase in GH gas density slows the rate of energy flow from ocean to space.
WHT said:
“Chief suffers from delusions of grandeur.”
—-
There are strong indications of this, but a professional diagnosis would be required to confirm. His diatribes are a strong hint it could be the case.
“So the only way the atmosphere warms when adding GHGs is via the surface warming and providing the heat by convection.”
—-
One must really break down the atmosphere into constituent layers to dissect the full range of effects of adding GH gases. These effects are not homogeneous across the whole atmosphere. But the essential fact that must not be overlooked is that increasing the GH mass in the atmosphere, will have the net effect of forcing the climate system to retain more energy, and the bulk of that net effect is not seen is tropospheric temperatures, as the bulk of this additional energy is retained by the ocean.
R. Gates, “One must really break down the atmosphere into constituent layers to dissect the full range of effects of adding GH gases. These effects are not homogeneous across the whole atmosphere.”
What a novel idea.
R. Gates: Very little of the heat added to the system is from the actual combustion of fuels.
Sure, but that is where this particular thread started, and you wrote as though the phrase “extra heat” had no meaning, whereas in this context the phrase is perfectly sensible. You and CH have gotten completely away from Philip Haddad’s simple question, and are so insistent upon scoring points that you have stopped having complete thoughts for the duration.
The simple answer to Philip Haddad’s simple question is that even if there has been enough energy from the combustion of fossil fuel to warm the atmosphere 4 time over, it has warmed the oceans or radiated to space without leaving much of a trace.
Even simpler to say that combustion heat (~0.03 W/m2) is the same type of thing as solar heat (~300 W/m2) only 10000 times smaller.
I have had such a good day. A couple of hours of solid physical work followed by an ocean swim off a sandy beach in 25 degree C water, helping Daisy wash her car at the car wash, some Christmas shopping and eating Australianised Chinese food in the shopping mall.
I return to find the thread infested with idiots.
The only irony with Joshua is that he fails to see that his repetitive whines are merely tedious and trivial.
The usual suspects get the simplest of atmospheric physics wrong – and then complain at great length. Hilarious.
The combustion/radioactive decay issue is alive and kicking. The energy content of the atmosphere is influenced by CO2 – but the source of that energy has relevance for the persistence of the so-called radiative imbalance at TOA. Too complex an idea obviously for these wannabes – who can’t even get the simple stuff right.
webby’s utter nonsense comes with a complete set of scientific denials. He denies that natural variability added to decadal warming in the last warming period, he denies dynamical complexity, he admits and then denies that cloud changes with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation, he denies what is obvious to any and everyone.
Here again is the proximate cause of the ‘pause’ using ISCCP, CERES and Project Earthshine. CERES – starting in 2000 – partially captures the ‘climate shift’ after 1998.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=44
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=21
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
Well significant enough change to give a little warming in ARGO – entirely from cloud changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=115
But the fact that these changes are related to ocean and atmosphere circulation suggests that the pause is likely to last for decades.
Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.
Swanson, K. L., and A. A. Tsonis (2009), Has the climate recently shifted?,
Geophys. Res. Lett. 36
Real actual published science – that they continue to somehow ignore. Goes right over their collective heads. This bizarre Lord of the Flies moment gives insight into their groupthink mentality – cognitive dissonance (they just don’t seem able to process it) in the face any science that doesn’t agree with their odd fears and trepidations, a collective defence of simplistic climate warrior memes, a refusal to reexamine assumptions as new evidence emerges, an earnest belief that warming must surely – for Gods sake – reemerge with the next big El Nino. A forlorn wish in a cool Pacific decadal mode.
Climate is wild – as I keep saying. I even quote the father of climate science – Wally Broecker. They would probably claim that he is a senile old fool. A wild climate implies some climate risk. But any progress on mitigation of greenhouse gases is impossible while wild claims of climate disaster continue – linked to wild ambitions for social and economic transformation – and the world refuses to warm. They need climate catastrophe to sell their version social transformation. It wont wash with anyone very much.
These people seem not capable of seeing the wood for the trees – and are more the problem than the solution. They can see we are in favour of mitigation – again and again it is expressed. Yet any true progress is almost entirely non existent – stymied by their collective refusal to abandon their perfect ideal for the imperfect reality of the world.
Matthew – the simple answer to Philip is that he is right but it is not the complete picture. As I said in my simple and original response.
The central fact – in this regard – is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere which results in a higher energy content. The source of the ‘extra’ energy is irrelevant – energy is fungible. The fact that combustion and radioactive decay are easily sufficient to account for the extra energy has implications for the persistence of the radiative imbalance at TOA.
This is very basic atmospheric physics. Do try to keep up.
Time was, Gates used to present reasonable arguments in the true spirit of enquiry.
Now all he seems to does is initiate personal attacks, and then criticise those who respond without deference. Top-notch chutzpah, to be sure.
Possibly symptoms of intense discomfort on the road to Damascus ?
Chief is going against Dr. Lean. The dynamic complexity is an inconsequential perturbation to the system. The CO2 control knob controls.
With respect to the oceans, there is no such thing as natural variation. Mankind has hooked up a chocolate hose to the vanilla dispenser. It’s a mixed breed. It’s Macaca Variation. Hot is hotter; cold is a bit unchilled.
Chief Hydrologist: Matthew – the simple answer to Philip is that he is right but it is not the complete picture. As I said in my simple and original response.
The central fact – in this regard – is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere which results in a higher energy content. The source of the ‘extra’ energy is irrelevant – energy is fungible. The fact that combustion and radioactive decay are easily sufficient to account for the extra energy has implications for the persistence of the radiative imbalance at TOA.
Tell us again what it is that the “extra energy” from combustion and radioactive decay are easily sufficient to account for. The radiative imbalance at TOA are accounted for by combustion? What in Philip’s post was “right”? was it his figure for the total heat released by burning fossil fuels? The assertion that it was enough to warm the atmosphere 4 times over?
Chief Hydrologist: This bizarre Lord of the Flies moment gives insight into their groupthink mentality
Poor guy. You’re trapped in an EngLit straitjacket. Everything you try to write comes out garbled.
Wow. The irrational is strong in this one. Stop being a pathetic bore Matthew and you might understand something.
“The higher temperature in the atmosphere in turn causes ocean heat content to rise – all things being equal.”
The atmosphere is what causes the ocean temp to rise?
CO2 hits 400 ppm; Does it matter?
a / CO2 hits CD parts per M
b / CO2 hits 620 parts per 3641100
c / CO2 hits 190 parts per F4240
Does it matter?
Nope!
a / Roman
b / Octal base
c / Hex base
Point is, it is just another number from a Decimal base 10 numbering system.
400 looks suspiciously like a “crisp number” to me…
you must have been great fun around the 10th anniversary of 9/11 telling all the victim families that it doesn’t matter.
I doubt that any of the models could replicate the 1940 global temperature singularity. See my website.
How best can we use Natural Gas?
Perhaps the Americans should use what they have wherever they can for when the Russians get their colossal Bazenhov shale play underway, a Siberian shale deposit that is estimated to be 80 times the size of America’s Bakken deposit then along with China, Argentina, Australia with enough gas in just one of many shale deposits, the Canning Basin deposit to keep Australia in gas for another 400 years plus the UK’s immense deposits over 1500 feet thick plus the Japanese now on the verge of harvesting the immense deep water methane deposits which are located around most of the continental littorals, the world is swimming in energy sources and will be for a couple of centuries into the future.
You still have the whole of mostly unexplored Africa, most of South America, most of the central Asia to look to for even more shale deposits.
Plus the probability of very deep oil reserves right down the very ancient trough running down the east side of the Andes and possibly out into the Atlantic to around the Falklands, a geological trough that holds the immense heavy oil deposits in the Orinoco Valley in Venezuela which are close to the Saudi’s reserves in size but are a diabolical, full of nasties, oil source to try and extract and process.
ROM says ” Perhaps the Americans should use what they have wherever they can for when the Russians get their colossal Bazenhov shale play underway, a Siberian shale deposit that is estimated to be 80 times the size of America’s Bakken deposit…”
_____
So you think we should use up all our natural gas ASAP so we can then be dependent on Russia for natural gas?
That doesn’t sound like a good long range plan to me.
MAX OK;
So you think we should use up all our natural gas ASAP so we can then be dependent on Russia for natural gas?
That doesn’t sound like a good long range plan to me.
_________________________
Well I guess it’s how big a vision you have for the future.
A narrow parochial vision limited to your own back yard or a global vision which recognises that Africa, central America including Mexico, Indonesia, Asia and Southeast Asia and soon to follow India are all now rapidly accelerating economically.
America as has happened to all nations in the past and will continue to happen has most likely had it’s day in the sun as the supreme economic, political and military power on this earth and from now on others will share in or assume that role in the future.
Always a hard pill to swallow when you see your nation’s power and influence in the world ebbing away as the European colonial powers still have not fully accepted their diminished and still further diminishing role on the world scene
It is quite likely that some other nations may just be able to provide energy fuels and energy sources a lot cheaper than America can even from within it’s own borders sometime in the future.
So capitalism being what it is will go to the cheapest source of energy it can find.
And then we have the new energy technologies like the LFTR, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors currently under full scale development in India and China and the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks fusion reactor project perhaps in the not so distant future.
Like the rapidly globalising food production system or the fully globalised automotive production industries, global energy also is rapidly globalising so a hard line nationalistic attitude to the retention of energy sources entirely for oneself is just becoming another rapidly dissapearing anachronism.
You’re making sense to me, ROM, though Putin wishes you would lower your voice. He likes to play cards with dunces.
Since the whole wind exercise seems aimed at making the US more dependent on gas, why not skip the whirlygigs and the bird-killings and the ridge clearing and the endless cabling…and just pass a law making gas the compulsory power source? At least it’s a fossil fuel, so it kinda works okay. If you’re going to have silly laws, why not a silly law that at least cuts to the chase? Your eagles will love you and coal can be sold off and burnt by someone else. (This NIMBY strategy has been implemented already. Australia has two coals: “carbon pollution” is heavily taxed coal burnt in Australia, “valuable national resource” is untaxed Australian coal burnt offshore.)
Anything is better than wind farms, and since they are just the hyper-expensive green wrapping for gas power, why not just skip the wrapping? It would be a win-win. A win for Boone Pickens and a win for Shell.
Best not get me started on wind and solar, mosomoso.
We could be here all night just discussing the total ignorance and stupidity of those who advocate trying to supply a modern industrialised nation that relies entirely on a dead stable, totally reliable and cheap electrical energy supply system to run it’s entire 24 hours a day, 7 days a week energy dependent systems. with wind turbines, the output of which nobody knows when it will stop or when it will start start or by how much.
And then advocate solar as well as a major electrical power generating system that operates for at most, about 8 hours a day at any sort of useful output for some of the time.
Been there with wind some 65 years ago .
Always had the old Tilley pressure light on standby and often not on standby but in full use if the wind didn’t blow for a few days.
The old man got to hell out of that wind generator just as soon as he could lay hands on a decent petrol engined generator and a good set of batteries after they started to become available again a couple of years after end of WW2.
The wack job advocates of wind and solar obviously have never tried to run any sort of totally electricity dependent life style or business or a industrial enterprise of any sort let alone a mineral or metals processing or manufacturing operation at all or at best, for very long just on the energy supplied by some wind turbines and / or some solar cells. .
Incidentally it seems that Putin has his own very considerable problems if the online version of Der Speigel is right.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/putin-speech-hints-at-big-problems-and-stagnation-in-russia-a-938761.html
JC said:
“The National Journal poses the question How Best Can We Use Natural Gas? Should We At All? There isn’t much to the main post, but the comments are really interesting.”
_______
Natural gas can be best used by making as much profit from it as possible. Don’t make it cheap by glutting the market. Cheap natural gas just encourages waste and hastens depletion of this precious resource.
Natural gas would be more profitable for mineral owners if the Federal government raised the depletion allowance on royalty income ( now a measly 15%) to 50%. Not many people know that as the oil and gas depletes, our royalty income shrinks and eventually disappears altogether. Then we are a left with a lot of useless holes in our ground, cavities that could in the future mess up our water and cause earthquakes.
Profit for whom? To make a handful of already-rich people richer still? Whilst keeping energy expensive for everyone else, especially the poor masses?
Me, of course. I’m a seller.
You are getting paid for the nat gas they worked for to get out of the ground. You didn’t do anything, but you get paid anyway. They aren’t paying you to exist, they are paying a royalty for the gas. Your royalty SHOULD go down as the gas is depleted. You are full of BS on those points, and the idiotic statements about earthquakes as such just serve to illustrate what a disingenuous, truth-twister you are.
Yes, jim2, I am getting paid for MY gas, but I’m an environmentally responsible citizen, not a big-oil suck-up.
Suddenly Oklahoma is having lots of earthquakes. Usually, it’s about 50 earthquakes a year, but this year it’ s about 2,500. I can’t wait for jim2 to try to explain why. I need a good laugh.
Max_OK, “A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more than 8,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by electronic mail, internet and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate earthquakes more rapidly and to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years. The NEIC now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 50 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in the environment and natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes. ”
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
Then it could be spawn of the Demon Carbon
How do you know disposal wells aren’t the main cause of the increase Oklahoma earthquakes?
Hmmm.
“A partial explanation may lie….”
Must’ve missed that part, eh Cap’n?
Max_OK. I apologize for calling you a disingenuous, truth-twister and accusing you of making idiotic statements about the earthquakes.
There are more earthquakes in OK. But, I haven’t found any evidence that they are due to fracking, just some speculation.
Thank you, jim2. It’s not the fracking that’s suspected of causing the Oklahoma earthquakes. It’s the fracking-related disposal wells. The earthquakes haven’t been large, and maybe the disposal wells are or aren’t a cause.
Joshua,
“Hmmm.
“A partial explanation may lie….”
Must’ve missed that part, eh Cap’n?”
Nope, I am pretty sure you won’t find any “complete” explanations. However, since the vast majority of OK earthquakes are incredibly tiny for a logarithmic scale it would be a partial explanation for the majority of the quakes. I did leave Spawn of Demon Carbon as an open option for the rest.
Believe it or not, geothermal heat flux is actually a fair proxy for past temperatures and since glacial mass has weight it tends to push down on the crush. Once the weight is removed, the land rises and it appears to take some time recover and does some funky things along the way. There are quite a few global tide stations that are rising twice as fast as the ones sinking. A warmer world would have different seismic events than a colder world. So you could easily blame it on the Demon Carbon, Global Warming causes Earthquakes!!!
The 4.5 quake last week is at least smaller than the 5.6 quake in 2011 so perhaps Oklahoma is experiencing the climate “pause”. However, since the vast majority of quakes that can be reasonably blamed on frakking and mining are of the tiny/super tiny variety, that “partial” explanation should carry considerable weight.
Next year, carbon dioxide designated magic gas of the decades.
Warming in the 40s, cooling in the 60s-70s, warming to the 2000s, stagnation in the 10s and now? cooling in the teens?
Amazing what this gas can do.
Unless the theory of climate temperature sensitivity to it, is nonsense.
Then it is just a trace gas, vital to plant growth.
Why do the consensus find it acceptable to focus on temperatures “… especially in the last half of the 20th century” when this is selecting out the temperatures in the period mid 1940s- mid 1970s when temperatures were decreased and were flat. Many, like Mueller at Berkeley (BEST) always uses data starting in the 1970s in order to exclude this entire period. Is this acceptable?
400ppm – when did it last happen?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Steinthorsdottir_CO2_stomata_2013_zps0180f088.png.html?sort=3&o=31
http://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions
400ppm – when did it last happen?
“These fluctuations at the boundary are preceded by peak [CO2] during the latest part of GI-1 (12,760 cal yr BP, 95% range12,875 – 12,637 at 3.43 m depth) of ca 400-425 ppm.”
Testing my reading comprehension eh?
Black swan surfing anyone?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/12/14/07/13/surfing-swans-astonish-gold-coast-swimmers
Lol … a black swan event! Someone tell Nassim Taleb.
This seems the most important news story of the week.
Ethan Couch Sentenced To Probation In Crash That Killed 4 After Defense Argued He Had ‘Affluenza’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/ethan-couch-sentenced_n_4426722.html
A drugged and drunk teenager does twice the suburban speed limit and falls asleep plowing down pedestrians – boasting right after that his father could get him off anything. Ethan seems primed to join the global celebrity circus.
I hope they appeal – send the father to jail. But it seems to reflect a certain attitude whereby all notions of personal and social responsibility goes by the board in favour of libertine morals and assertions of absolute personal entitlement. I must admit I see it more in the left than the right – fast cars, drug taking, celebrity ‘culture’, ganstra rap, grunge, raunch culture – the list is pretty long. Adolescents we know are pretty much brain dead until 25 – and might cite Max_OK as an example if pushed. He still has 10 years to go. But there does seem to be a great need to re-instill conservative values in the young. This would seem to require conservative values in the parents. Thankfully – most already possess these.
I go crazy ’cause my folks are so f****n’ rich
Have to score when I get that rich white punk itch
Sounds real classy, living in a chateau
So lonely, all the other kids will never know
We’re white punks on dope
Mom and Dad live in Hollywood
Hang myself when I get enough rope
I can’t clean up, though I know I should
Chief, here’s a letter I sent to the Oz on 10 Nov, when a killer was given a derisory sentence because of growing up fatherless:
“My father walked out before I was two, in wartime England, and I grew up in poverty. Like the killer Kieran Loveridge, I grew up “without the benefit of love, support and guidance from my father” (“Family fury as killer gets four years,” 9-10/11). Unlike Loveridge, I never engaged in drunken assaults.
“No one can go through life without difficulties and hardship. But we are all responsible for our own behaviour, and should be held properly accountable for it.”
Yes, every adult is responsible for his or her behavior. Adults who post here should keep that in mind.
They can sue the father for negligence – or maybe negligent homicide?
Chief Hydrologist said:
“Adolescents we know are pretty much brain dead until 25 – and might cite Max_OK as an example if pushed.”
______
Chief, a person can be a stick-in-the-mud like you at any age. Sometimes I pretend I’m you just to bore myself to sleep.
Dunno Max – sounds pretty brain dead to me.
‘Jensen says scientists used to think human brain development was pretty complete by age 10. Or as she puts it, that “a teenage brain is just an adult brain with fewer miles on it.”
But it’s not. To begin with, she says, a crucial part of the brain — the frontal lobes — are not fully connected. Really.
“It’s the part of the brain that says: ‘Is this a good idea? What is the consequence of this action?’ ” Jensen says. “It’s not that they don’t have a frontal lobe. And they can use it. But they’re going to access it more slowly.”
That’s because the nerve cells that connect teenagers’ frontal lobes with the rest of their brains are sluggish. Teenagers don’t have as much of the fatty coating called myelin, or “white matter,” that adults have in this area.
Think of it as insulation on an electrical wire. Nerves need myelin for nerve signals to flow freely. Spotty or thin myelin leads to inefficient communication between one part of the brain and another.’ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468
I assumed everyone was aware of this research – but realise it is not a safe assumption with Max_OK. He’s probably bored and thinking of sex. Hell I know I am – with less excuse.
Chief Hydrologist: Adolescents we know are pretty much brain dead until 25
some days you don’t even care. in this thread, you are wasting our time.
Most days I don’t give a rat’s arse Matthew. You ponce around saying SFA and expect credibility to emerge spontaneously. Credibility is earned and not by smarmy little snarks motivated from my dismissal of a recent comment of yours.
An article linked from Drudge:
Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz2nQqCiaSe
Quotes:
“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
Related article:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N50/EDIT.php
You mean the researchers found that Scandinavia was warmer during the Medieval and Roman periods..
Why do you imagine that might have been?
“You mean the researchers found that Scandinavia was warmer during the Medieval and Roman periods..”
Yes but you know climate deniers, they’ll happily promote blatant lies and misinformation about past temperatures and still have the gal to complain about statistics of Dr Mann.
By what mechanism does some local area, such as Scandinavia, become significantly warmer than average, for periods of decades to centuries? Where and when is such an occurrence known to have happened?
bob grabs at icy straws. Drink deep.
==============
“By what mechanism does some local area, such as Scandinavia, become significantly warmer than average, for periods of decades to centuries?”
change in earth’s tilt toward the sun for example
Are you suggesting that happened during the Roman and Medieval warm periods, and only affected Scandinavia?
lolwot appears to be suggesting the Earth can tilt towards the Sun, but only towards Scandinavia.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
It was obviously quite a bit cooler in the LIA in many places. I do find it difficult to draw conclusions from any of this – other than vigorous natural variability.
The thing about the Earth being a sphere jim, is that you can’t tilt all of it closer to the sun…
The study talks about Scandinavian summer temperatures being warmer in the early holocene for example. That part of the earth was tilted more towards the sun in summer months back then. At the expense of the summer southern hemisphere which was tilted further from it than today.
If you extrapolate a paper on Scandinavian temperature to the world you will get the wrong answer.
Really?
Maybe you guys could explain why Scandinavia is warmer than other parts of the earth at the same latitude?
ordvic claimed the paper said the earth was warmer during the roman and medieval periods and I just pointed out the paper says nothing of the sort.
Phatboy, could natural variations in the strength of the gulf stream affect the climate of northern europe? And the paper only covered Scandinavia, so who knows what the effects could be elsewhere, ask Mike, or Moberg or Lundqvist.
Kim, I saw your picture on another website, get a haircut.
Bob,
Actually I didn’t write anything I just copy and pasted the title of the Daily Caller article. I actually thought the same as you that it was misleading.
I just found that there is actually two links one goes to the CO2 science synopsis that I linked above and one links to an abstract of the paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12003/abstract
If there is anything funky going on blame it on the Daily Caller.
Both the CO2 science article and the abstract do mention higher temperature though.
CO2 science:
“And the resulting history he developed indicates that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present…..”
Abstract:
“This implies (adjusted for land uplift) that early Holocene summer temperatures may have been 2.3°C above modern ones.”
Bob, yes, it could be natural variations in the gulf stream, but that wouldn’t only affect Scandinavia, but Britain and the Arctic as well.
Besides, adding warmth to these regions for a protracted period, without increasing the global average, would necessarily mean protracted cooling in other areas. What evidence is there of that?
Oh, and do explain to lowlot that the tilt of the earth affects both the northern and southern hemispheres equally.
Ordvic,
Apologies for misquoting you, I dislike when people do that to me.
I agree that it was about 2 or 3 C warmer at the start of this interglacial or the holocene optimum. Other sources have said the same thing, and do we want the sea level at the same level as then?
Phatboy
I’ve cited evidence before that showed that the medieval warm period wasn’t global, such as pollen studies reconstructing temperatures for Michigan that were cooler. You can find them if you search.
And the whole Medieval warm period goes back to Lamb’s reconstruction, no? Which had England warmer, no? Lamb’s work and the Medieval warm period in AR1, right?
Wish the guy was still alive, he’s likely rolling in his grave.
Bob,
You ask the pertinent question as far as warming. Of course everyone realizes the implications behind each new piece that comes out about climate change. Drudge would link this or any other material that puts a dent in consensus AGW thinking. I see it a little different. To me the paper just adds to the knowledge base.
If Mann’s graph had not been famous and the critique of it had not made it so controversial, perhaps we would see a paper like this as doing what science does and that is add to knowledge. Instead we have Mann feeling like a soldier in a war. He will continue to show anything that confirms the stick no matter how thick he has to make the handle. The critics want hotter hot and colder cold. I guess there is no going back for Mann. If he had not let himself be a tool to present to the public an idea that it wasn’t hot before and now suddenly there is a torch shooting out of the plains, I don’t think he would be this controversial combative figure. Maybe he likes it like this and he does have his press singing his praises.
For me I’d just like to learn this without the vitriol just for the purpose of knowing. Since climate change is now more about government, politics, energy etc the science seems to be skewed and it’s hard for the average person like me to know what is established and what isn’t. Especially when something like atmospheric physics is talked about. The average person just can’t really decipher that and shouldn’t even have an opinion but they do.
So I appreciate it when we get discussions on here such as you present that shed a little light on the various subjects.
ie: see Peter Lang below
ordvic,
What were the sea levels a the start of the Holocene optimum compared with now?
How would you propose to control sea levels?
What are the tolerance limits to which you want to control sea level?
What is the probability your chosen policy to control sea levels will keep sea level with in these tolerances?
What a re the costs and benefits of such policies, given that the estimated damage costs of the projected sea level rises this century are trivial?
bob droege,
My comment above was intended to be addressed to you. I hope you will attempt to answer my questions with serious and considered responses.
Ordvic,
I don’t want to go down a Mann rabbit hole, I’ll just say I think he is still trying to do valid science, as I think he always has, and I don’t his detractors have made their cases.
To answer Peter Lang’s questions, here goes.
Sea level at the beginning of the Holocene was about 3 meters higher than today.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://diogene.net/climat/compton-2001-holocene-sea-levels.jpg&imgrefurl=http://diogene.net/en/climate-change&h=472&w=640&sz=96&tbnid=eLSiV8eSXLNAwM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=126&zoom=1&usg=__te9awqldfXNETZkQw_b2J-Ly10s=&docid=UK0vP2ZJti6u9M&sa=X&ei=zietUuSQEaXNsQTOwYLoDg&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAg
As to controlling sea level, I think that is close to not possible. I believe the best we can do is slow down the rate of rise and the eventual maximum.
How do I propose to do that? Stop burning coal, that should do it.
For 1% of global GDP.
Uhm, damage from sea level rise has not been trivial this century already.
Some 90,000 homes were flooded by hurricane Sandy that wouldn’t have been flooded but from the sea level rise caused by AGW.
Experts expect 40-60 cm by 2100 with strong mitigation and 0.7 to 1.2 meters without.
There are already parts of Florida that flood regularly at high tide and there is no building dykes there.
“Uhm, damage from sea level rise has not been trivial this century already”
I guess I shouldn’t have pigeon holed Drudge as here he linked a story about rising sea water:
apnews.myway.com/article/20131215/DAAMTNNG1.html
I’ll try that link again:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131215/DAAMTNNG1.html
Bob,
Complete and utter nonsense. As is the remainder of your non-answers.
As is the remainder of your non-answers.
He did say ‘Stop burning coal’
That’s a pretty hefty answer.
Bob, Was the cooling in Michigan as protracted as the Scandinavian warming, did it occur at the same time, was it caused by the same natural changes in the Gulf stream, or something else? Did they have a common cause, and, if so, what? What, in fact, caused, or triggered such large and protracted changes in the Gulf stream? What caused, or triggered its reversal? Why do speleothems from China and South Africa also indicate medieval warming?
Until we can answer questions like these satisfactorily, we can only speculate as to how much of today’s observations are down to natural causes, or otherwise.
So it was all down to a few millimetres sea level rise, and nothing at all to do with the 5-metre storm surge elephant in the room?
Knowing that hurricane Sandy was not caused by global warming caused by humans burning coal, we do know that the loss of arctic sea ice causes changes in the jet stream and the prevalence of the westerlies that can push hurricanes out to sea, and about 1 foot of sea level rise along the eastern seaboard has been caused by humans burning coal, and that sea surface temperatures were warmer along the path where Sandy strengthened due to burning coal, I can only conclude the following:
Sandy would have been weaker without AGW.
Sandy’s storm surge would have been lower without AGW.
Sandy’s path would have been different without AGW.
There is even a recent paper claiming that burning coal during the industrial revolution led to the end of the little ice age.
Don’t try to prove your point using one or two data points, use as much data as you can find, like this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, Bob, those things don’t follow.
phlap phlap goes phatboy
And flop goes Bob!
Ordvic,
How?
(sensible, considered answer, please, and taking into account the realities of the real world, such as you don’t try to tell a customer what he wants or needs, but you can try to persuade him/her you have a better deal and a better solution).
If we did stop burning coal, over a realistic time period, how much difference would it make to sea levels in say 2050 and 2100, what would be the saving in reduced damages and what would be the cost?
Peter,
Well I don’t know if it is possible or not and how much it would help if at all. Because of the Obama administrations policies energy providers in the US have already switched away from coal to natural gas. I would ask Bob if he thinks it’s possible to get China and India to do the same? I would think in the short term they will continue to build plants like China is doing at the rate of one a day. Although I did hear the pollution is starting to get to them.
The other thing to consider is will sea levels continue to rise if the Stadium waves kick in along with a Solar minimum?
My personal feeling is that we should have a policy of eventually phasing out fossil fuels regardless of Climate change. Problem is is that government policies are usually corrupt and tend to fail so I don’t think there is any magic wand there.
i don’t think I need to preach energy issues to you though since you know far more than me…just giving my general outlook since you asked.
ordvic,
Thank you for your reply. As I expect you know, gas replacing coal will reduce GHG emissions from electricity generation by less than 50%. Nuclear replacing coal would reduce emissions by nearly 100%. So, the abatement cost is much less with nuclear than with gas even at current US prices. So, if the aim is to cut US GHG emissions from electricity generation at least cost, then nuclear is a lot cheaper way to do it.
You ask:
I’d say no. Not if the method demanded is by regulation and raising the cost of fossil fuels. However, IMO, it is definitely possible using free market mechanisms – i.e. allow and facilitate competition to lower costs and provide plants to suit customer needs. That is what the USA excels at. If the USA removes the impediments to low cost nuclear and gets on with leading the way to develop small modular low cost nuclear power plants, China, India and the rest of thew world will adopt them without any need for coercion. They will do it because it is cheaper.
Forgotten which site has the new BEST data with ongoing warming discussion but would like to comment that, similar to the arctic is warming study, everything goes up. This is not natural, not mathematical, not sensible and makes ones hackles rise. like a Ponzi scheme is the best comparison.
If I was selling this rubbish I would put a little negative in somewhere, a bit of Greenland that went cool. A bit of Nebraska that went cool. Not for long , just enough to say these observations might be real.
But when you’re selling a Ponzi scheme everything is rosy, everyone gets 30% a year. CO2 puts the heat up then the heat must go up. I challenge both Wayman and Mosher to review the data respectively.
Show some negative changes , somewhere , because they must exist in real data on nature
I don’t expect the SKS to bother because they know there are no negatives,
I expect Mosher to reflect and perhaps ask himself belatedly, why doesn’t the dog bark.
If you have a question number it and get in line.
Steven Mosher
“If you have a question number it and get in line.”
So you are sane and are not a limitless glutton for punishment.
Mw. Sometimes I wonder
Thanks Steven. Keep up the good work. As you have pointed out the more data, correctly interpreted, you can collect , the better off all our comments will be, and you are certainly doing this well.
A good place to check what IPCC tells about the discrepancy between model projections and observations is Box TS.3: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 years of the Technical Summary (pages TS-26-29 of the Final Draft).
There we can read (I emphasize points that refer directly to bias in models):
What to think about the formulation of AR5? My impression is that the essential points are stated, but that the formulation is overly defensive. Too many sentences have the nature of “How can we save the credibility of the models?” rather than “What do the observations tell objectively about the accuracy and reliability of the models?”. The difference is perhaps subtle for people who do not have a negative preconception about the models previously. The authors may have been afraid of, how the more objectively formulated sentences would be used by critics of the models.
“The authors may have been afraid of, how the more objectively formulated sentences would be used by critics of the models”
Models are not children that need to be protected from harm, they are tools to be modified or trashed.
I cannot believe you cut these mendacious swine so much slack, you are a professional physicists, it is not your function, or any scientists, to protect an hypothesis from reality.
Pekka, keep tip toeing to the light but at least have the balls to call out your colleagues who have produced crap, and yet defend it.
A failed model is a starting point for a better model, not a rallying point for defending intellectual castles in the sky against the troglodyte mob.
Love ‘tiptoe to the light’. Once he gets over his tippy toes fears he can get into his stride again.
===========
Doc,
The models are not perfect, and there starts to be enough evidence to conclude that most of them have somewhat too high sensitivities, but that does not make them worthless. Small changes in the formulation of those paragraphs would make them balanced in my view. All the content is quite OK, only the formulation is not what I would like.
A more open style would make it easier to discuss also the arguments that support the validity of the models at the level they are judged to be valid. Avoiding that adds to the distrust. Also the science itself would gain from more openness, because a fully open and even excessively critical discussion is what all science needs. That’s part of the ideals of science.
C’mon, Pekka, poof goes catastrophe; is that image of damage fading, too?
==============
The Met Office has a model that can’t work right, as Nic Lewis has so eloquently demonstrated. It is designed to fail at less than 2C sensitivity.
So, is the design ignorant or disingenuous? Always the same question, the same question.
==========
A: Good crowd tonight … so what do you do?
B Oh, I’m a model.
A Model eh, what sort of model?
B I’m a climate model.
A Oh I’ve always wanted to meet one.of those.Say, have
you found a way to model clouds yet?
B Not yet, clouds are complicated.
A Guess so …Well what about reconstructuring historical
climate variability?
B So far no luck. Hindcasting climate reqires pretty sophisticated interpretion of novel proxies and statistical methods. There have
been some interesting attempts …
A So I’ve heard. Heh, what about forecasting? Any luck there?
B A few of us have got together on a spaghetti graphs but it’s
still a work in progress. We need more financing.
A Don’t we all, hang in there …say, can I get you another drink?
Way to go, Beth. Hilarious. One wonders what a climate model drinks? Corn whiskey? But we are hijacking P’s thoughtful thread.
Models favoured beveridge is Kool Aid. Lots of it.
Natural gas.
I think we should mine it from the ocean.
Here a general idea of how:
So idea is reduce pressure at sea floor where there are methane hydrates.
So:
” In the open ocean, where the average bottom-water temperatures are around 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, methane hydrates occur starting at depths of around 500 metres.
….
n very cold regions like the Arctic, methane hydrates even occur on the shallow continental shelf (less than 200 metres of water depth) or on the land in permafrost, the deep-frozen Arctic soil that does not even thaw in the summer.”
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
So say going to mine methane hydrates in 600 to 200 meter of depth of
water. Since each 10 meter is 1 atm [14.7 psi]. That would be 60 to 20 atm
of pressure or 882 to 291 psi of pressure in these ocean depths.
Or if reduce the pressure at depth to less that than about 290 psi, methane in warmer conditions at arctic ocean water which can shallow as 200 meter depth than methane would release.
So if at 600 meter and 882 psi, can reduce pressure to about 290 psi or reduce the pressure by about 600 psi.
Doing this requires a similar structural strength of submarine.
Or if submarine went to depth of about 400 meters or about 1350 feet
it would doing this- inside the sub at that depth it would 600 psi less than ocean pressure at depth. So sub hulls are something like 1/2 thick hull thickness and using titanium alloys to reduce weight. So for your purposes
we don’t care much weight- normal ship steel is fine.
So structure with be like lid for jar. And it could be say 100 feet in diameter
and 10 foot walls. So walls would made of 1 inch thick steel walls, and top of lid has be made structurally stronger than walls. And would be dome shaped. So dome has curved span if it’s radius of 50 feet which needs structurally members to support the load, whereas walls are dealing 10 span which need less structural support.
And top of dome is pipe which go to the surface of ocean- so if 600 meter
depth this pipe would be about 590 meters long. And this pipe would about 4 feet in diameter and 1/2 wall thickness. So pipe has extensions
added depending on depth. Or have lid with short pipe in middle in which more pipe length is added. So this vaguely looks like funnel.
So this funnel will have electrical power and and various control mechanism which enable it to float and sink by using ballast control [like a submarine- a submarine which can only goes up or down.
So are long as it has electrical power it could rise to surface and lower to the ocean bottom.
In addition to 10 wall along perimeter, there is a blade or tapered curtain
which goes from knife like edge to 1″ thick. And the weigh of the entire “funnel” will sink this “5 foot long knife edge” into the ocean mud. And these teeth could in segment [air tight] which could replaced when damaged/worn out. And roughly one wants these teeth to sink into mud so they are at least 2 feet deep- or allowing some variation in the ocean floor.
So roughly the 10 foot high 1″ thick steel wall, would weigh about 64 ton,
and lid weighs about 100 tons, and teeth 16 tons. So funnel weighs about 200 tons. Or at construction of $2000 per ton, should cost less million dollars.
A 100 meter length of 4′ diameter pipe 1/2 walls. Would have mass of about 42 tons. So max length of 600 meter being just over 250 tons.
So what you do is remove the water from the pipe. Or if full of water to sea level, there no structural stress on structure due to ocean pressure.
But remove water from this pipe, so say there air in pipe 200 meters
below the surface, than there is 20 atm compressive pressure on pipe and on funnel, and 20 atm of remove pressure from sea floor.
And 20 atm is 294 psi. So 294 psi less pressure on sea floor.
So you have pipe top sealed, and pump out water of the pipe, than methane released will go up the pipe. And put it in a FPSO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_Production_Storage_and_Offloading
And FPSO can be rather expensive, such as, Voyageur Spirit:
http://www.sevanmarine.com/index.php/component/content/article/41/16-fpso-sevan-voyageur
It’s Gross Tonnage: 27,596 costs about $540 million.
So to keep such FPSO busy one need a lot these things I talking about
and just in terms of mass that FPSO is about 1000 times more massive than this thing which extract methane. So perhaps you have about dozen of them to keep such a large FPSO busy.
So how much methane could this mine? It depends on concentration of
the methane deposits concentration. And don’t know exactly how much methane per ton sea floor there would be.
But if this was 100 feet in diameter [in meters 30.48 meter in diameter],
the area of sea floor would be 7850 square feet or 729 square meter.
So if assume the reduce pressure remove methane from first meter or
so of depth. And cubic meter was around 1 ton of mass of more [water is 1 ton] then you dealing with 729 cubic meters. So if concentrate extractable is 10%, then it’s about 7.29 tons. And one could cause it draw from more than meter depth and/or have higher concentration of methane .
And perhaps more important issue is how quickly one do a cycle of putting it on the ocean floor, drawing out gases, than moving forward a 100 feet and repeating this. Or making a large difference if do this couple times a day or if took more than week to do it once.
Anyways something like this might work.
….
A bit of info on the Japanese experimental extraction of methane from the off shore Nankai Trough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21752441
They have also just found very large deposits of methane hydrates in the Sea of Japan.
And a pic or two of the americans drilling into Arctic deposits of methane hydrates.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/energy/2013/03/pictures/130328-methane-hydrates-for-energy/
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2013/06jun/methane0613.cfm
The Chinese are also on the move with methane hydrate exploration and experimental extraction of the methane gas but with shale deposits potentially larger than the USA’s any methane use for energy production will probably remain on the back burner for a long time.
“A bit of info on the Japanese experimental extraction of methane from the off shore Nankai Trough.”
….
Interesting. And seems they mining 300 meters beneath ocean floor,
which would too deep under surface for what I meant:
“Further data analysis will indicate if gas production from the marine methane hydrate prospect in the Nankai Trough is commercially viable.
This methane hydrate deposit lies 300 meters below the seafloor in waters 500 meters deep, 80 kilometers off the Pacific Coast of central Japan.”
And:
“Methane hydrates are stable at high pressures and low temperatures. Arctic deposits predominantly occur in the lower parts of and beneath permafrost at depths greater than 200 meters. Marine deposits are found on and beneath the seafloor in water generally deeper than 500 meters.”
So what I mean would be for methane on the surface of ocean floor.
This interesting:
“While Blake Ridge methane hydrate concentrations are too low to allow commercial extraction, field testing in Japan’s Nankai Trough in 1998 and 1999 confirmed substantial natural gas reserves. Sandstone in the Nankai Trough was found to contain up to 80 percent methane hydrate saturation.”
So as said it need to about 10% or more concentration near surface.
And that 80% at 300 meters under surface. And seems to me you only find such concentrate quite distance under ocean floor surface.
To Chief Hydrologist: I am not denying that the greenhouse gases are important in retaining heat. My point is that the additional heat from heat emissions may be more important than the increased “insulation” value obtained by going from 350 to 400 ppm CO2, and that heat generated by either or both mechanisms MUST be considered. Do you agree?
The forcing from waste heat is a tiny % of the forcing from CO2 alone
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=6
SkS is utter nonsense as usual. Waste heat is generated at about 0.03 W/m2 – with an equivalent from radioactive decay in the mantle.
The change in greenhouse gas forcing is about 0.04W/m2/year.
The forcing definition is defined as the change in forcing from greenhouse while holding the temperature. Obviously a hypothetical quantity used for comparing the activity of various gases – but not real in any sense. SkS thus compare a real quantity with an imaginary one.
In reality the planet warms and emissions of IR are again increased in the Planck response. The more it warms the higher (to the 4th power) the emissions.
However – the higher energy content of the atmosphere is possible only because there is more climatically active gas in the atmosphere. It is somewhat irrelevant to the real questions as to where that energy comes from – the Sun, waste heat or radioactive decay. The question is interesting on the margin – i.e. the persistence of any mooted radiative imbalance before the planet adjusts to a new quasi equilibrium – but clearly doesn’t go to fundamental notions of atmospheric physics.
“Waste heat is generated at about 0.03 W/m2 – with an equivalent from radioactive decay in the mantle.
The change in greenhouse gas forcing is about 0.04W/m2/year.”
yes the key part being the per year
Over many years the GHG forcing accumulates to over 2wm-2.
The waste heat forcing remains forever low about 0.03wm-2.
That was exactly the point numbnut. The forcing doesn’t accumulate. The planet warms and IR emissions increase. Go back to the basic definition of greenhouse gas forcing – and figure out what the S-B law and the Planck response mean in relation to it.
Okay then waste heat is ZERO wm-2 per year. As it isn’t increasing.
So the CO2 forcing at 0.04wm-2 per year is infinitely larger.
It is the forcing change that causes climate change. The forcing change from waste heat is almost zero (the difference between burning in 1750 versus now), similarly the sun hasn’t changed much. The forcing change from CO2 is nearly 2 W/m2 since then. Some of this has been offset by surface warming that has already taken place, but an imbalance of 0.5-1 W/m2 remains for future surface warming to catch up with. Climate is always trying to keep up with changes in forcing, and currently the big rate of change is from CO2.
You guys really need to think things through properly
Strictly speaking it is the change in the atmospheric concentration of climatically active gases that allow the atmosphere to hold more heat – i.e. be warmer. The source of the extra energy is utterly irrelevant to this basic fact of atmospheric physics.
The biggest source of variation in TOA radiative flux currently – and in the last decades of the 20th century it seems – is changes in cloud radiative forcing.
Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=77
We are learning a bit more abour what happened at the secret meeting between the Royal Society and Lord Lawson.
http://www.thegwpf.org/royal-society-fellows-meet-reactions/
One name, to me, stands our; that of Sir Alan Rudge. A few years ago, he led a group of Fellows to try and overturn the RS stand on CAGW; unsuccessfully. There were about 40 fellows who, in Sir Alan’s terms, were prepared to “put their heads above the parapet”.
I quote from the reference “In particular, the scientists on our side of the table placed more emphasis on empirical observations, while the team led by Sir Brian Hoskins appeared to have more confidence in climate models and future projections generated by such models.” I wonder where I have heard this before. This seems to be one of the fundamental issues that the warmists are reluctant to discuss.
Sorcerer’s Apprentices, knowing only a model incantation.
=================
Oh please, skeptics regularly dismiss empirical observations.
For example empirical observations show the oceans are gaining heat. But skeptics are loathe to admit that and instead insist the Earth stopped warming in 1998, or even that the world is cooling!
What empirical observations show the world is cooling we may ask?
Sorry lolwot, even if your missing heat is deep, the pipeline is long enough it will only come out at the end of the Holocene.
=======
you’ve misunderstood the implications
lolwot, you write “What empirical observations show the world is cooling we may ask?”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
I keep on asking these questions. What is the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, as estimated for the increase of ocean heat content, and where is the reference that shows how this was done.? Where is the proof that the alleged rise in ocean heat content was cause by additional CO2 in the atmosphere?
Is that trend statistically significant?
We have empirical of sorts. ow good it is is an open question. It has improved by bounds and leaps this century.
But here’s a couple of attempts to stitch it all together from various instruments.
IR – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=81
Clouds as a poxy for SW – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=44
A recent ocean heat content reconstruction –
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LymnaandJohnson2013OHCA_zps703732d0.png.html?sort=3&o=16
OHC is somewhat consistent with changes in TOA flux as it should be. Altogether it suggests a much bigger role for cloud radiative forcing changes due to low frequency climate variability than anticipated. Accepting one side of the equation and not the other seems to be the way it works.
We have empirical data of sorts. How good it is is an open question…
How did that happen?
When Storch said warming over the pause was .06C per decade I believe he said that was little different than zero warming, so there is obviously zero cooling. It’s flat.
In the face of monstrous downward pressures from natural cooling influences/cycles ACO2, a shrimp trace gas, is holding its own just fine. In fact, it’s taking names and kicking butt.
In reality the pause followed the 1998/2001 climate shift. The trend is negative since 2002 consistent with the synchronous chaos theory of climate. The suggestion from synchronous chaos climate theory is that cooling – or at least non-warming – will persist for decades.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Without an understanding of synchronous chaos – understanding climate is not possible.
lolwot, you write “Is that trend statistically significant?”
You answer my questions, and I will answer yours.
sorry i was just trying to stick to the is it warming/is it cooling question didnt mean to look like i was ignoring questions
lolwot, So was I trying to keep to warming/cooling. You stated that we know the earth is warming because of ocean heat content. The world may well be warming, but is the warming caused by more CO2 in the atmosphere? We need to know the climate sensitivity of CO2 as measured in units of ocean heat content before we can answer that question.
Jim Cripwell, the rate of change of ocean heat content tells us that there is a radiative imbalance of 0.5-1 W/m2. It can’t tell us the causes, but there is one obvious factor whose change more than accounts for this size of imbalance, and will figure into the calculation in a big way.
Jim D, you write “Jim Cripwell, the rate of change of ocean heat content tells us that there is a radiative imbalance of 0.5-1 W/m2.”
Maybe, maybe not. This was NOT the question I asked. I asked for the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 as measured in units of ocean heat content.
Storch, who has a mountain of credibility next to that of CH, says warming of .06C this century is essentially the same as zero warming, so the puny little cooling numbers since 2002 are not cooling. It’s flat! LMAO.
13 years into the 1940 climate shift, the significantly downward red trend line starting in 1940, versus 13 years into the 2000 climate shift, the green upward trend that is essentially for the time being a feel-good zero trend for the dead-ender kimOOlers.
Jim Cripwell, why do you think that the change in ocean heat content produces the sensitivity to CO2 doubling? It provides evidence for a radiative imbalance, nothing more. Take it one step at a time.
Jim D. Go back to lolwot
@@@@@
lolwot | December 14, 2013 at 11:07 am |
For example empirical observations show the oceans are gaining heat
@@@@@
I was asking about empirical data that proves CAGW. This was lolwot’s reply. The implication was that CAGW is causing the oceans to warm. If so, then my question is relevant. Where is the estimate of the climate sensitivity of CO2 in units of ocean heat content? I hope I can get an answer from lolwot.
Jim Cripwell, you have to go through the logical steps. OHC increase rates show an energy imbalance. AGW predicts an energy imbalance. Put two and two together or come up with an alternative explanation of the OHC increase.
Jim D. you write ” OHC increase rates show an energy imbalance. AGW predicts an energy imbalance. Put two and two together or come up with an alternative explanation of the OHC increase.”
I agree. I have said over and over again CAGW is a viable hypothesis. The issue, as always, is HOW MUCH is the contribution of CO2? And there is no way of knowing if the heating oceans is caused by CAGW or natural causes until we quantify what is happening. And you do this quantification by estimating the climate sensitivity of CO2 in terms of ocean heat content. Hence my question.
I object to people like lolwot claiming that the increase of ocean heat content is a sign of CAGW, when the fundamental science to show that this is true, simply has never been done.
Jim Cripwell, the increase of OHC is consistent with AGW. If you want to disprove AGW, don’t look at OHC to help you. Hypotheses are always tested by observations and consistency with them. The observations don’t prove them, but more supporting observations help to confirm them. It goes for general relativity and it goes for AGW. You can’t prove either definitively with observations.
Jim Cripwell said:
“I object to people like lolwot claiming that the increase of ocean heat content is a sign of CAGW, when the fundamental science to show that this is true, simply has never been done.”
_______
Of course you would object to this Jim, as it does not fit your preconception of how GH gases affect Earth’s climate system. You’ve listened to all sorts of nonsense about heat “going into” the deeper ocean and the like, when simple thermodynamics would tell you that is impossible. Yet OHC increase is a sign of not CAGW, but AGW, as the biggest energy reservoir on the planet will of course fill up first and fastest as more heat is stored in the system. GH gases affect the rate of energy flow out of that reservoir, not how much goes in. That’s why OHC increases. The fundamental science on this has been done over a century ago.
GH gases affect the rate of energy flow out of that reservoir, not how much goes in. That’s why OHC increases.
The modelled and extrapolated OHC for the last 1/2 century is around a factor of 2 less the error in the instruments for the pre argo era.
The OHC increase is also around the expectations for increased SW forcing due to the decreased O3 layer.
In addition the so called bottom warming (especially the SO) is more consistent with Wind forced braking friction ,hence you need to differentiate the contributions.
“What is the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, as estimated for the increase of ocean heat content, and where is the reference that shows how this was done.?”
I don’t know, I am not sure how to go from ocean heat content to climate sensitivity (or vice versa)
Here is an analysis of Shekman’s hypocrisy.
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/11/this-takes-the-prize-editor-of-new-luxury-oa-journal-boycotts-luxury-subscription-journals/
Open access is a circus in progress.
Amusing. Thanks for the link.
I don’t think you can accuse Shekman of hypocrisy, he now has the status that he can attack the ‘big’ journals for their distortion of science reporting and the allocation of funding the kudos of ‘big’ journal authorship brings.
The points he is making are not normally publicly aired, but many scientists, including myself, agree.
How did Steig et al., make the front cover Nature in 2009 with a miserable exercise in averaging crap.
Doc, “How did Steig et al., make the front cover Nature in 2009 with a miserable exercise in averaging crap.”
Now Doc, that was groundbreaking science. Since then just about everyone has shown them how it should have been done.
“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz2nS6dIPd0
There was no boat in the Cleopatra drama, they were acting it all out on ice.
============
As Judy says, “All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,”…
man-made warming + natural warming = lot’s of warming
man-made warming + natural neutral = some warming
man-made warming + natural cooling = no change or cooling
_________
Judith also says “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
How do we know it’s not a tie?
Dr Curry knows better than that. I don’t want to accuse her of misleading though as it is possible the reporter has misquoted her, but this is becoming quite a pattern.
Lets look at the question of CO2 dominance on climate.
Nic Lewis’s estimate of TCR, which Dr Curry promotes above, is given as 1.3C per doubling of CO2.
That means 0.48C warming from CO2 since 1950.
Or 70% of the warming since 1950 explained by CO2.
This also of course backs up the PCC attribution statement that more than half the warming since 1950 is due to greenhouse gases.
Yet Dr Curry is strangely mute on all of that. Instead what she is reported to say always inevitably leads people to imagine CO2 is some insignificant influence on climate and nature dominates.
Is it because if Dr Curry did speak the truth on this matter, the various deluded elements of skepticult would turn against her?
The dominance of nature is a sacred cow among skeptics, even when they post admissions (eg nic lewis TCR) that it isn’t so, they still abhor actually admitting it clearly.
Add a little perspective and simply saying that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet is about like saying adding more water to the planet will cause more drowning.
Here’s kyle Swanson again – from a realclimate post.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/rc_fig1_zpsf24786ae.jpg.html?sort=3&o=38
Exclude the large ENSO transitions – noisy bifurcation – in 1976/1977 and 1998/2001 for good reason and the resultant trend was some 0.1 degrees C/decade. Half of this at least is natural variation. So the actual warming from greenhouse gases in 1979 to 1997 was 0.05 degrees C/decade.
The other implication of synchronous chaos climate theory is that the ‘pause’ will persist for decades.
lolwot, I just had a look at Keeling and HADCRU3
Year Temp CO2 Log(CO2)
1950 -0.310 311 2.493
2013 0.435 400 2.6
If we assume exponential fossil fuel burning we get a doubling from 1950’s 311 ppm in 2128; and that gives us a CS of 2.05 degrees, with 100% of the warming due to CO2.
Year Temp CO2 Log(CO2)
2128 1.74 622 2.8
However, lolwot tells us that only 50% of the warming from 1950-2013 was due to the ‘knob’ beloved of scientists.
So we are to run around in panic, trash our economies, screw up any chance for people in the third world to attain health and wealth, because people like you are frightened of one degree in one hundred years?
Well, lolwot, as the pause lasts the value of CS must continue to fall.
I am afraid to tell you this lolwot, but I feel it necessary that you face the fact your knob is shrinking.
Really you shouldn’t be using HADCRU3 anymore, it is well out of date.
“If we assume exponential fossil fuel burning we get a doubling from 1950′s 311 ppm in 2128, and that gives us a CS of 2.05 degrees”
No no no. That makes no sense. You can’t calculate CS from CO2 rise.
“However, lolwot tells us that only 50% of the warming from 1950-2013 was due to the ‘knob’ beloved of scientists.”
No I didn’t. Pretty sure I explicitly said 70% of the warming was due to CO2 using **Nic Lewis’s** figure. Not mine.
” because people like you are frightened of one degree in one hundred years?”
Even your own figures show more than 1 degree, and you’ve only considered CO2, and ignored other greenhouse gases.
And you’ve forgotten these figures are TCS not ECS so understate the actual temperature rise.
Please compare even 1 degree more warming to past temperatures
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V7CB4YvFdPY/UqVwsBLXndI/AAAAAAAAEU8/2giwaZscUJw/s1600/Temperature_of_Planet_Earth_2.jpg
Snows in Egypt? What next, hail, plagues, locusts, rivers running red and more? Is hell freezing over? Or, is it global cooling due to the natural variability in the energy the Earth receives from that big independent variable in the sky we call the Sun?
Hell did freeze over — Huffington Post Canada headline: Why Humans Don’t Have Much To Do With Climate Change
How ppm of the population will never find meaningful employment as a result of spending millions of dollars to waste the societies attention on a phony problem like global warming due to increased atmospheric CO2 caused by businesses need and use energy to provide goods and services?
BREAKING NEWS
Judith Curry joins forces
with David Appell … and James Hansen
!!! Energy Conservation Rules Supreme !!!
Conclusion It’s terrific to see that Judith Curry and David Appell are joining to recognize the emerging supremacy of Hansen-style energy-conservation considerations for long-term climate-change policy analysis!
Aye Climate Etc lassies and laddies, not *that’s* the future of a foresighted climate-change science-economics-and-policy that is rational, responsible, and sustainable!
Good on `yah, Judith Curry, David Appell, and James Hansen!
Yes, see in particular reviews of Judith Lean’s work presented at the AGU in statistical climate modeling.
I had always assumed that anyone in the vicinity of Appell would be drawn toward him, purely due to the gravitational field generated by all that mass.
It is quite clear that like a black hole no information is capable of escaping him.
Boycotting Nature and Science:
This isn’t too different from what we have read before, about the great need to publish “new” results, about the pressure to publish such a paper or lose funding, about (especially) John Ionnides’ work showing how few such papers eventually get replicated. It goes far beyond climate change issues, and speaks to how the monetary rewards — for instance, getting a new drug approved by the authorities — can create “results driven science,” where your reward it contingent upon getting certain results published.
Misspelled John Ioannidis’s name in previous post. Here is a free link to his most famous article, “Why Most Published Research Findings are False;”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16060722
but has John’s work been replicated?
Here’s a popular article.
Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
Frankly – I think that any paper that doesn’t have an underlying coherent theory of climate as a dynamically complex system – with all that implies – is hopelessly outdated. This is most of climate science.
As noted elsewhere, deceptive science threatens the survival of us all:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/1925-southern-sunspots-cause-cold-northern-sunspots-cause-heat/#comment-300148
did anything interesting happen in science around the period 1945?
Well, the Maunder spots were ‘large, sparse, and primarily Southern Hemispheric’. There are huge clues there.
==========================
lolwot, you write “did anything interesting happen in science around the period 1945?”
Are you serious? That was the end of WWII when the most enormous strides were made in electronics and computers, amongst many other fields. The first computer, Collosus was built in, I believe, 1944. The magnetron was developed in 1942. I could go on and on.
In the comments on natural gas article;
The National Journal poses the question How Best Can We Use Natural Gas? Should We At All? There isn’t much to the main post, but the comments are really interesting.;
I was taken aback at how casually some people advocate for government “studies” and regulation. They apparently can see no downside to regulations or central control by the government. They see individual freedom and free markets as a noxious weed that need to be eradicated.
These are the people we need to keep an eye on. They are the ones that will, slowly but surely, take us back to serfdom where everything we do and say is dictated to us by the government. I find them disgusting.
Progressive Shangri-La: A society in which everything not commanded is forbidden. And the progressives do the commanding and forbidding.
We are approaching it asymptotically.
The oil and gas industry in the US is booming because it is being executed by the private sector in relatively free market without a lot of regulations – not that there aren’t any, there are a lot. The people that propose more regulations don’t care that this industry is supplying thousands of jobs to people who need them. These idiots, after they regulate the industry into shambles, will then propose a crappy life on welfare as the solution to those who lost the jobs. That’s the really disgusting part. Government for every aspect of life, all the time. It sucks.
The Left is in free fall. It cannot undo what it’s done and scaring children like Greenpeace tries to do by using Santa Clause to spread propaganda only exposes the dystopian views that color their beliefs. Using the example of the undoing of David Suuki Dr. Tim Ball observed how extremism is all beginning to fall apart for the Left:
His [David Suzuki] television series became his undoing as a classic example of how extremism is its own undoing… I identified some of the misinformation in a presentation to farmers in Saskatchewan a few years ago. Afterward a woman told me that a month earlier she would have disagreed with my comments. Now she understood because Suzuki did a program on farming and as a farmer’s wife she knew how wrong and biased it was. Each new program exposed another segment of society to the deception… The same is happening to climate alarmism as more and more segments of society are negatively affected. His actions and climate driven energy policies close industries, decimate communities, cause job losses and force business closures.. It parallels what is happening in the climate alarmist community. The comments and claims become more extreme, but achieve the opposite of their goal. It is necessary to consider the further negative effects of their exploitation and deceptions. What is the damage to the credibility of science?”
Content-free demagoguery by Wagathon, fascinating American history by FOMD!
Today the political allies of global corporatism are in 21st century scientific/economic free-fall, as surely (and unknowingly) as 18th century royalists were in political/religious free-fall.
So, how does it feel to be in denialist free-fall, Wagathon?
… a royalist is someone who does not eat unless he provides something of value to society that people will voluntarily purchase?
> The Left is in free fall.
Just like the Earth, or so I’ve heard.
Speaking of which:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/412019383519555584
Heh, I just told Bob Tisdale a coupla days ago in a blog comment that ‘doctor’ just means ‘teacher’.
============
I find it odd that an American can discuss the politics of the First American Civil War, the Revolutionary War, without attempting to understand the politics of the English Civil War and its grope towards representative democracy, given that the colonists were just following the same strands as the English.
Average teacher salaries
Finland: $28,780
USA: $44,917
In Finland general practitioners earn, on average, about $70,000 per year,
In the USA general practitioners earn, on average, about $170,000 per year,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/average-teacher-salary-around-world_n_4037534.html
http://www.cato.org/blog/no-teachers-finland-are-not-paid-doctors
That Finland teacher stands corrected. Thanks, Doc.
The Cato article ends with a remark that would deserve due diligence:
> And, of course, having a curriculum that is more closely aligned with the PISA (the metric by which people judge Finland to be better) than almost any other industrialized nation may exaggerate Finland’s superiority significantly.
Here’s something about PISA:
http://www.weareteachers.com/hot-topics/special-reports/teaching-around-the-world/finlands-a-plus-schools
Based on the Finns that I have met, the advantages are that they have a somewhat homogeneous society that highly values education. In addition, they have a huge sense of national pride and a significant part of that is a desire for the nation to be self reliant, aka SISU. And part of this is that they highly value education. In other words, they have a lot of smart parents who know what it takes to raise smart kids and understand how important education is to the future of the nation.
Any comment from the Finns here?
Here is some an interesting of education in Finland and Iowa. Iowa graduates 88% of its high school students. In Finland where the US equivalent of high school is optional, 66% continue to “secondary” education. Fins have an option to pursue free education continuously through-out their lives, where in the US, High School is not an option.
So if the US reduced compulsory education from 12 years to 9 years, we too could excel by not forcing students that don’t want to be students to attend school. Freedom of choice? What a novel concept.
The US also used to have a fairly strong technical and trades oriented education system for students that aspired to menial things like the vast majority of Americans actually end up doing after their compulsory education. Industry and trade unions spent time and money to make sure programs related to their trades/interests where well represented.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/top_performers/2012/01/the_death_of_vocational_education_and_the_demise_of_the_american_middle_class.html
There are a few other things about Finland education which would compare more favorably to State and Local education rather than “national” stats. However, do the inferior quality of the education system in the US, our “educated” can’t quite make the connection.
The kids in Finland start school around age 8-9. They need to be able to speak Swedish and Finish. They can also normal speak and read English as all the US/UK imports are not dubbed, but subtitled. The kids learn English from watching kids shows.
Doc,
The kids start school at the age of 7 in Finland. Before that they have one year of preschool, which has already many school-like features. A large fraction of kids read before they go to first grade.
The primary school takes 9 years. After that we have three years of high school or about 3 years of vocational school. Neither is presently obligatory, but most choose either one.
Pekka, “The primary school takes 9 years. After that we have three years of high school or about 3 years of vocational school. Neither is presently obligatory, but most choose either one.”
That is what I consider the most impressive thing about the Finnish system. The students are allowed and even expected to take charge of their education. Also it should be noted that the few private schools in Finland, mainly religious, also receive government funding and must meet the same standards.
Cap’n
I’m on board with you about vocational education.
How does one determine “inferior quality” when comparing apples to oranges (the differences in societal values regarding education, the differences in diversity and poverty levels of the students, how teachers are treated, the amount of support and level of training provided to teachers, etc.)? Perhaps if in Finland there were as many ideologues who attack the very concept of federally-supported education, who attack teachers’ unions, who attack teachers, the quality of Finnish education might not be quite so “superior?”
–snip–
Finland didn’t set out to be #1 on the OECD’s PISA international comparative tests. They focused not on competitiveness or excellence but on EQUITY. They actually claim to be inspired by the American idea of equal access to education for all. So all schools get equal funding except in cases of “positive discrimination” where lower income areas and with recent immigrants actually get more $
Oh, because of the social democracy they have (coupled with what is usually ranked as one the most “open” market economies in the world) they have a child poverty rate of 4% compared to the US rate of 22%
The “Culture” of education matters but it’s not based on thousands of years of tradition (like South Korea/China). It was a choice to develop norms/values around education over decades. Teachers are paid well, it’s ultra-selective to get into teacher training programs and all teachers study subject areas and get Masters degrees.
Less homework, less in class teaching (so more time to work with other teachers to problem solve, share ideas and assess student progress) but virtually no standardized testing
–snip–
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807752576?ie=UTF8&tag=thneyoreofbo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0807752576
One of the most important, and increasingly difficult, things is keeping the level of education close to equal in all schools. As long as that can be maintained the results in rating of education are likely to remain at high level.
In the most recent PISA ratings the results dropped somewhat, but are still the best outside some Asian areas. South Korea, Japan, and Shanghai in China, but not the whole China got higher ratings, but with a very different school system as far as i know.
Joshua, the scare quotes around “educated” should have tipped you off. Too many of our more vocal national school system bashers are trying to compare apples to oranges. Finland has a nice affordable system because they have community and parental involvement plus the students have the option to direct the course of their education. In my opinion, if your child is not getting the quality education you expect you haven’t been properly involved in your kid’s education. The system starts with the parent.
There is much evidence to support the key role of parents in influencing educational outcomes. Still, I’d say your comment is too categorical. For example, I’d guess that in Finland they have much better results with kids whose parents are not particularly involved in their children’s education.
And what does one do with your argument, anyway? Do we just say that “It’s the parents’ fault” and resign ourselves to the societal ramifications of a sub-optimal educational outcome? Spending on very early childhood education brings a broadly positive return (12-to-1? 18-to-1?) to society. The earlier the better. One of the reasons is that spending on very early childhood education directly addresses improving parental input to educational outcomes.
Unfortunately, IMO,some folks would rather dismiss what benefits we do gain from our educational system, point to how the results are sub-optimal, and exploit the problems so to confirm their biases.
In Texas equalized spending was called the Robin Hood plan. The liberals were going to steal from wealthy districts and give it to the poor districts.
They called it the Robin Hood plan as a pejorative. “Unless the Sheriff of Nottingham rides to rescue, they’re going to let those evil hungry people eat our deer!”
Joshua, “Unfortunately, IMO,some folks would rather dismiss what benefits we do gain from our educational system, point to how the results are sub-optimal, and exploit the problems so to confirm their biases.”
Right, born to byatch. Some people just live to make a crisis out of every little thing :)
Joshua, ” Spending on very early childhood education brings a broadly positive return (12-to-1? 18-to-1?) to society.”
I am going to separate this one. Spending time is more important than spending money on education. Money spent for some reason seems to be the yardstick which is wrong. Some schools systems are graded lower because they don’t spend as much money and have as many specialized classes even though their other stats are competitive. The PISA is math, science and reading. Those are subjects that don’t cost a lot to teach other than science labs. So what spending are you talking about? Police to force parents to read to their kids? Buses to take the kids to an “educational” environment? Mandatory pre-K? Forcing Big Bird to include more AGW pep talks? Or perhaps spending a little on teaching assistant training?
Cap’n –
Of course there are multiple issues to be addressed. Of course, just spending more money for the sake of spending more money will not be useful.
I don’t know what this is in reference to. “Graded lower” by who?
In Philly, if you cross over the city boundary to Lower Merion, a posh suburb, the pending per student doubles. Parents in that wealthy community with schools that produce good results see a reason to contribute enough in taxes to double the spending per student.
Basically a non-sequitur to my point, which was the return to society on investment in early childhood education.
Perhaps spending on programs to teach parents not to base arguments on absurd strawmen? :-)
There are a variety of factors where spending can improve results. I would imagine that student transportation would be one. Training would be another. Pre-K is definitely another.
Is Activist Tim Ball projecting?
Reaching the 400ppm level has no significance. About 50-times the amount of CO2 exists in the ocean and as they expand because of global warming they release more CO2 and that has been increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The annual release of CO2 from the ocean is more than 10-times than that of human emission. The human emission is minuscule. Trying to control the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a fool’s errand.
Human emissions are some 4% of natural flux – but rising to 8%, 16%, 32%, etc as global economies exponentially grow this century.
Emissions are nominally under our control.
Girma said:
“About 50-times the amount of CO2 exists in the ocean and as they expand because of global warming they release more CO2 and that has been increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
—-
Except that is specifically not occurring Girma, as the oceans have been absorbing a big part of the CO2 that humans have been moving from lithosphere to atmosphere via the human carbon volcano. Humans are is the dominant change agent on the planet and this the term Anthropocene is exceptionally on target.
Girma, the proponents of this have not noticed that ocean acidification is the wrong sign for this to be even close to a true description, so there goes that theory.
Gatesy has a problem with basic physics. Above he complains that changes in the heat content of the atmosphere are irrelevant. Laughable interpretation of greenhouse gas theory.
Warm water holds less CO2. This is an basic physical reality. But then the changes in CO2 flux with temperature is not merely or even primarily the result of reduced solubility but of changes in vegetation and soils.
Humans are not the biggest agents of change thus far – but may become so. The term Anthropocene is an utter nonsense.
you sure about that?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V7CB4YvFdPY/UqVwsBLXndI/AAAAAAAAEU8/2giwaZscUJw/s1600/Temperature_of_Planet_Earth_2.jpg
Here are some precise experimental data that may help solar scientists understand the cause of global climate change:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/earth-to-leif/#comment-300236
One of the already posted presentations from the AGU is a panel discussion and press conference on the IPCC and remaining problems to be solved. David Appell asked several pertinent questions. If you have 45 minutes to spare, it is good.
David Appell is incapable of asking pertinent questions.
He asked if the IPCC is continuing to an AR6.
Maybe you are not interested.
Jim – I read the first to the fourth over decades. I am not wasting any more of my time on the IPCC but go directly to the scientific source. I doubt really that you do more than read activist blogs and summaries. Not interested?
A lot of discussion on this blog is about AR5. I guess it is because it is what the policymakers will read. There are a lot of sideshows, but this is the main thing around for both science and policy. Somebody asked them about NIPCC, and they dismissed it in a few words as not scientific.
Come now Jim – they don’t do science or policy. The discussion here is about how pointlessly misguided it all is. The political machinations that give rise to the summaries are quite obvious to any sensible observer. The distortions arising form partisan synthesis of the science are obvious to sophisticated observers.
No one is listening anymore but climate warriors like David Appell. People are seeing that the world isn’t warming – and certainly not at 0.2 degrees C/decade and are understandably dubious of the whole box and dice.
And just before gaesy jumps in with his idiotic refrain about ocean heat being a better metric – note Trenberth’s vehement complaints about the uncertainties.
So while their conclusions may be valid: yes there is no evidence of a discrepancy, given their uncertainties, and yes there is no “statistically significant” decline in OHC rates of change, but the uncertainties are so large that neither dataset is useful to know what is really going on, and that is the key point. The discrepancies among OHC data sets remain huge. We MUST do better. So the key point in their title is “within uncertainty”. It should add: “but the uncertainty is too large.”
The discussion was in relation to Loeb et al reconciling net TOA flux in CERES to OHC in ARGO. What’s happening is changes in cloud radiative forcing.
In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system. AR4 3.4.4.1
Yes of course it reflects ‘low-frequency variability of the climate system.
CH, it is true that a lot of people discussing IPCC here are like you and don’t read it or know much about AR5. But they should learn more, and not just through “skeptic” blog or journalists filters or comments here, and maybe the discussion would be more sensible. The video is a starting primer.
Chief said:
“And just before gaesy jumps in with his idiotic refrain about ocean heat being a better metric – note Trenberth’s vehement complaints about the uncertainties.”
___
Of course OHC is a better metric and the uncertainty has been high. Trenberth is right to complain and of course, the climate science community is responding correctly by the expansion of the Argo program, adding even more floats and going deeper on a consistent basis then ever before. Floats will regularly go down to 6000m in the coming years.
The use of sensible heat in at the surface of the troposphere has simply been the most convenient proxy for energy in the Earth system, but as the science has evolved over the years, it has become clear that this proxy is subject to far too much noise over the short-term, and also doesn’t even capture the energy content of the atmosphere that well, let alone of the whole climate system. The focus has now, finally, turned to where it should have been all along– on the ocean, as the true local driver of Earth’s climate. Reducing the uncertainty in measuring the energy of the ocean is absolutely critical to developing the most accurate proxy for energy changes in the Earth climate system. Trenberth is right on target in requesting the reduction of uncertainty in OHC changes.
I’m kind of wondering myself if climate change (at least the global warming part) is going by the wayside in the public’s view. I doubt most people know anything about this meeting and it looks like an exercise of patting each other on the back about how they figured out why there is a (dreaded word) pause. A few cold winters to most people says ahh it’s still cold what-u-know.
I was visiting a client the other day. This guy is an uber-liberal and the slightest twitch will get him going on Bush or Limbaugh or whatever. I made a comment about the wintery football games and joked about global cooling. Much to my surprise he said global warming is a hoax. He used those very words. I thought he was joking but he wasn’t. This is a guy with three or four degrees with one in science.
Jim – I have studied Lean’s earlier papers in detail. Interesting but ultimately limited methodology involving problems of collinearity. It is impossible to distinguish between greenhouse gases and natural variability – unless you ignore the latter as Lean did.
More sensible to adopt a simpler methodology.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/rc_fig1_zpsf24786ae.jpg.html?sort=3&o=38
Take the 1979 to 1997 trend as the ‘true global warming signal’ and distribute the increase according to the ratio of changes in greenhouse gas forcing and cloud radiative forcing. We are left with something far more sensible than Lean’s results. The Tsonis results suggest as well the potential for non warming at the very lest for decades.
So how did Lean’s earlier predictions work out?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LeanandRind20102_zpsa090fb72.png.html?sort=3&o=11
Not terribly well it seems. Has she corrected her inadequate conceptual framework? I have better things to do than wait for individual scientists to catch up.
I never read blogs other than this one – and certainly don’t consider anyone here other than Judith to have much of a clue at all. Blog science has zero credibility. I get all my ideas from peer reviewed literature. I doubt that you can say the same.
The true driver of climate is the difference in energy in and energy out at TOA.
d(W&H)/dt = power in – out
Where W&H is work and heat.
It is very simple at TOA – no one can hear you scream.
More and better data is always welcome – except when it is not consistent with warmisista memes. The hypothesis of course is that cooler sea surface temperature over the next few decades increases cloud cover and leads to a cooler planet. To not understand this even as a possibility is absurd.
Chief Hydro suggests:
“The true driver of climate is the difference in energy in and energy out at TOA.”
___
Absolutely incorrect. A great indication of your basic failure to get the dynamics correct. Energy in and out at the TOA is not a “driver” but a measurement of changes in the climate. You are mistaking the ruler for the thing being measured. Changes in the ocean to atmosphere energy flux (dictated on the long term by GH gas concentrations) are measured at the TOA, but not driven by the TOA. The ocean to atmosphere energy transfer drives the climate on the short and long term on a local basis.
Again, you mistake the ruler (TOA energy imbalance) for the causal factor behind what is being measured (ocean to atmosphere energy exchange), driven over the long-term by GH gas concentrations and on shorter time scales by ENSO, PDO, and AMO etc.
The change in global energy content is the difference between energy in and energy out. The various mechanisms that cause changes TOA net radiative forcing is what drives climate. The mechanisms driving changes in TOA flux include solar variability, greenhouse gases and changes in albedo.
In the short and long term – albedo is the dominant factor. A 1% change in albedo is a 3.42 W/m2 change in climate energy in the system – shifting with ocean and atmospheric circulation and driving glacial/intergalacial transitions in runaway ice albedo feedbacks.
Earth’s global albedo, or reflectance, is a critical component of the global climate as this parameter, together with the solar constant, determines the amount of energy coming to Earth. Probably because of the lack of reliable data, traditionally the Earth’s albedo has been considered to be roughly constant, or studied theoretically as a feedback mechanism in response to a change in climate. Recently, however, several studies have shown large decadal variability in the Earth’s reflectance. Variations in terrestrial reflectance derive primarily from changes in cloud amount, thickness and location, all of which seem to have changed over decadal and longer scales. http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Mathew: If the heat emissions leave the earth with hardly a trace, why are we even concerned? Obviously SOMEONE thinks the earth is warming; and heat emissions are enough to warm the atmosphere AND the oceans. Can’t you see the fallacy of your statement?
This figure from the book Sorensen: Renewable energy (1979) tells about natural energy flows of the Earth. It’s old, but the estimates have not changed very much. To that we may add the human energy use. Burning of fuels and nuclear energy add up to around 16 TW heat released to the environment.
Almost all the energy comes from the sun. Geothermal energy is 0.02% of that, human heat releases 0.01%, and tidal energy 0.002%. All these change only slowly, and do not therefore contribute at any significant level to warming. They just maintain the small influence on the temperature they have had for long. The variability in solar radiation is much larger than the total power of all the three combined, let alone the changes in the three.
The overall increase in CO2 concentration from preindustrial level corresponds to an estimated change of 850TW in the energy balance of the Earth or 0.5% of the energy from sun that hits the Earth (including the reflected SW). This is almost 20 times more than the sum of geothermal and human heat releases, and this all is additional over a period of 150 years. This has led to warming of the surface and atmosphere that cancels part of the imbalance, but something like half of the imbalance remains. Further increases in the CO2 concentration are almost certain to make the imbalance even larger in the future.
Again Pekka – you are conceptually incorrect in your formulation on this.
Increased greenhouse gases result in a higher energy content in the atmosphere. The source of this energy is commonly thought of as a radiative imbalance at TOA. The change in greenhouse gas ‘forcing’ – although it is more technically correct in a chaotic system to think in terms of control variables – is small and slow – some 0.04 W/m2/year. Heat from combustion and radioactive decay is easily enough to supply the energy for the small year to year changes in atmospheric heat content from greenhouse gases.
Radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is of course merely an imaginary quantity – it is defined as the difference in forcing with added greenhouse gases and keeping the temperature constant. The Earth in fact warms – that is the point isn’t it – and the emissions increase to the 4th power of temperature. So while the hypothetical quantity might accumulate – real climate just trundles along accommodating the changes by warming.
Although there is thermal inertia in the oceans – the question of how quickly the oceans equilibriate seems a very complex one – it is a question of the balance of losses from IR, latent heat and conduction – especially evaporation. I/m not sure we have anywhere near enough data to resolve this. From what data there is – the changes in heat content seem linked with not much lag at all to changes in net TOA radiant flux. So the significance of this concept of a radiative imbalance seems an open question. One of many obviously.
Radiative imbalance seems moot at any rate – it is less than credible to imagine that it is in any sense distinguishable from the large natural variations in TOA flux.
Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
Natural decadal variability dwarfs the effects of CO2 changes over the period where we have any information at all on TOA flux. The usual story is to ignore it – unless you happen to find the missing energy. Oh dear – it all seems to be cloud changes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES_MODIS-1.gif.html?sort=3&o=115
CH,
When I commented your understanding last time, I noticed that it was logical and correct on those points. Now the situation has changed. You go back to the old misconceptions that you have presented in some earlier threads.
The Earth is a non-equilibrium flow system that’s always rather close to a stationary state. All subsystems of the Earth oscillate irregularly (and also regularly due to seasons and diurnal effects) around something that can be loosely called an average state. Flows that vary only a little do not contribute much to his variability, but they affect the average state. Geothermal energy and human energy production belong to (rather small) contributors to the average state, with very little influence on the variability. The slow increase in human energy production has a really tiny contribution in the trend-like evolution of the average state. Except for that their effect is constant and has influenced the temperature equally for decades and centuries.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere contributes all the time to the trend of the average state at a significant level. Unfortunately the magnitude of this contribution is not known as well as we would like to know it, but we do certainly have some idea of that magnitude.
It’s possible that the average state varies also irregularly due to state shifts as you have repeatedly stated. That’s, however, a separate issue. Such state shifts might well dominate over the contribution of CO2 for periods of a decade or two, but even in that case CO2 does contribute to the outcome, it’s only difficult to extract that effect from the overall change. Over longer periods the persistently growing contribution of CO2 is likely to dominate clearly.
How fast the oceans take the heat affects the outcome in several ways. If the heat transfer is effective, the surface temperatures rise more slowly. That leads to less Planck response and the imbalance at TOA stays large. Thus OHC increases more rapidly, but surface temperatures more slowly.
A slow heat transfer to oceans has the opposite effect: surface temperatures rise more rapidly, the remaining imbalance at TOA is reduced making OHC and the total heat content of the Earth system to increase more slowly,
Natural variability may lead to alternation between these two modes, but it may affect the outcome in other ways as well.
Pekka,
That Sorensen figure is the best (most comprehensive) of that type that I’ve seen.
I’ve never seen this exact description before, “The overall increase in CO2 concentration from preindustrial level corresponds to an estimated change of 850TW in the energy balance of the Earth or 0.5% of the energy from sun that hits the Earth (including the reflected SW)” Where does that come from?
The number of 850TW is based on the forcing estimate of 1.68W/m^2 given in IPCC AR5 Fig. TS-7.
Pekka,
Thanks! I’ll have to look that up before i forget.
Pekka, I do not see a “trend like evolution,” just oscillations.
Pekka – your usual clarity has gone missing in action. I am not claiming that combustion or radioactive decay has any warming influence. The warming in the atmosphere – the higher energy state – is the result of increased greenhouse gas concentration in this context.
The source of the higher energy levels could be the Sun through reduced emissions of IR – but it seems more likely that CO2 molecules are emitted in a higher energy state and cool down to the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
Pekka said:
“Over longer periods the persistently growing contribution of CO2 is likely to dominate clearly.”
____
This is what both current and paleoclimate research show– over the longest periods CO2 is the dominant factor– the “control knob”. It takes this function from the fact that it is the largest noncondensing GH gas by concentration in the atmosphere. The “control knob” function comes from its ability alter the thermal gradient of the atmosphere and maintaining a fairly steady concentration consistently over ranges of temperatures and pressures– unlike water vapor. In altering the thermal gradient of the atmosphere, CO2 controls the flow of energy from ocean to space, and thus, adjusts the rate of energy accumulation in the primary energy storage vessel of the planet– the ocean. More CO2 leads to greater energy accumulation in the oceans. With the oceans being the primary local driver of climate, any alteration in the energy content of the oceans, alters the weather patterns and climate of the planet.
Chief said:
“Pekka – your usual clarity has gone missing in action.”
___
Translation: You’ve said some things that don’t fit with my memeplex. I’ll now have to “school” you.
Yes, he is a classic bully.
Pekka said:
“How fast the oceans take the heat affects the outcome in several ways. If the heat transfer is effective, the surface temperatures rise more slowly. That leads to less Planck response and the imbalance at TOA stays large. Thus OHC increases more rapidly, but surface temperatures more slowly.
A slow heat transfer to oceans has the opposite effect: surface temperatures rise more rapidly, the remaining imbalance at TOA is reduced making OHC and the total heat content of the Earth system to increase more slowly,”
____
Let’s discuss this. Remember that the overwhelming net flow of energy on the planet is from ocean to atmosphere. There never is a time that the net flow is from atmosphere to ocean- ever. The ocean to atmosphere flow of energy is really what drives both weather and climate systems on this planet, and the rate of the that flow varies over time through internal and natural variability (ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc). So to speak of the “slow heat transfer” to the oceans is dynamically incorrect, and conceiving it as such gets you off on the wrong conceptual track from the very start. Increasing GH gas concentrations act to alter the thermal gradient between ocean and space- reducing the flow of energy between the two. If the input to the oceans (overwhelmingly from solar SW) remains fairly constant, but the output is reduced, you get an increase in OHC. Over the past 10 to 15 years– during the so called “pause” in tropospheric temperatures, both the input to the ocean and the output from the ocean has been reduced, however, the output has been reduced (via mainly a cool phase of the PDO) more than the input has been reduced (via mainly a sleepy sun and modest uptick in volcanic aerosols). Thus, the OHC has continued to rise, as inputs still exceed outputs, even though both have been reduced.
@R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist:
If the energy flowing out of the ocean has been reduced due to a cool phase of the PDO, then your explanation for increased OHC is not a greenhouse effect and is therefore not due to CO2. Unless you are also claiming that the PDO cool phase is a result of a GHE. Is that what you are claiming?
will b. asks:
“@R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist:
If the energy flowing out of the ocean has been reduced due to a cool phase of the PDO, then your explanation for increased OHC is not a greenhouse effect and is therefore not due to CO2. Unless you are also claiming that the PDO cool phase is a result of a GHE. Is that what you are claiming?”
____
This is a great question and shows you are thinking of the dynamics correctly. Remember, there are long and short term changes to the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere. The long-term changes will be most directly impacted by GH gas concentrations. Thus, the continual increases to CO2, methane, and N2O over the past many decades have giving a positive forcing to the the energy balance of the climate system and this mainly reflected in increasing OHC. On the shorter-term, natural variations in the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere occur, such as ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO, and these can be seen as short-term spikes or declines in the rate of flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere (but remember, the flow is always very strongly from ocean to atmosphere). The issue as to whether increasing GH gases might affect ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO is an area of intense research and much debate. Based on paleoclimate studies, I suspect that increases in GH gases will affect these natural cycles strongly.
Pekka said:
“Over longer periods the persistently growing contribution of CO2 is likely to dominate clearly.”
Yes – but over years? decades? centuries? millenia? … ?
When I commented your understanding last time, I noticed that it was logical and correct on those points. Now the situation has changed. You go back to the old misconceptions that you have presented in some earlier threads.
The response – your usual clarity has gone missing in action – seems relatively mild.
The are suggesting a rational discussion has some element of bullying Pekka in it? The bizarre and trivial whines from the usual suspects stem from their unrequited aspirations for the world to confirm to their expectations. It is pure Allinsky.
I doubt that CO2 warming will dominate anything in any reasonable timeframe. Warming from a 40% increase in CO2 was some 0.1 degrees C. The only real risk comes from a wild climate.
A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
They thrash about in utter ignorance of most of the science – and are more the problem than the solution. They can see we are in favour of mitigation – again and again it is expressed. Yet any real progress is almost entirely non existent – stymied by their collective refusal to abandon their perfect ideal for the imperfect political reality of the world.
yup, Chief Romper Stomper, classic Aussie bully.
webby’s utter hypocrisy is always on display. He takes pride in being abusive and repulsive – and then complains about anyone who has the temerity to dispute what is inevitably utter nonsense.
It is pure Allinsky – silence the enemy at all costs. In the real world the world continues not to warm – and is not likely to for decades hence.
‘Internal decadal variability may offset expected
warming over the next decade, regionally and
globally’. http://www.agci.org/dB/PPTs/08S1_NKeenlyside_0624.pdf
‘A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full
He is pretty much clueless and mistakingly believes that his loser blog science has any credibility.
Pretty much all he has left is insulting and abusing me at any opportunity – while science and the world moves on.
With absolute sneering certainty:
Might. Could. Perhaps. We speculate. Did in the past. Typically last.
Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained. ftp://starfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub/ocean/CCS-WG_References/NewSinceReport/March15/Swanson%20and%20Tsonis%20Has%20the%20climate%20recently%20shifted%202008GL037022.pdf
Space cadets substitute narrative for real science – and then thrash about with smarmy snarks to make the point. The real problem is the head in the sand refusal to entertain reality.
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/412597163269451778
Mideast Storm Dumps Snow on Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Ramallah
By Jonathan Ferziger Dec 14, 2013 9:26 AM CT
1 Comment Email Print
Save
More than a foot of snow blanketed Jerusalem overnight, cutting power to 60,000 homes across Israel on the third day of a regional storm and blocking roads leading to the hilltop city, officials said.
The snow covered Bethlehem, Ramallah and other Palestinian-ruled parts of the West Bank. Heavy rain lashed the Gaza Strip, causing thousands to flee their homes, some using boats to navigate the flooded streets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-14/mideast-storm-dumps-snow-on-jerusalem-west-bank-for-third-day.html
Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times
1:02 AM 12/13/2013
Michael Bastasch
See All Articles
Email Michael Bastasch
Subscribe to RSS
If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.
A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.
The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.
“Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”
Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/
” “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago.”
And the dreadful impact of such high temperatures? The development of civilisation followed. I rest my case.
Faustino, there are some people who think that was a bad thing. Except when they are in Paris.
Absolutely hilarious.
“Many in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.
…
“I couldn’t sleep because of it,” said Barbara Meinwald, a solo practitioner lawyer in Manhattan.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/with-affordable-care-act-canceled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html
Nut we thought only the stupid voters would pay more for our idiotic policies.
Imagine the panic if they ever got their way on energy prices and found themselves footing part of the bill for that as well..
“You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh…….
at the death of Little Nell.”
Wilde.
But good enough for the people who live in the ‘reality based world’ who voted ‘Progressive’.
The Hospitals of the Texas Medical Center may stop taking Medicaid cancer patients, as they would make a loss on each one.
Insurance companies don’t insure one-legged people against the possibility of losing a leg. And yet, the Left talks about insurance companies being evil because they take account of preexisting conditions. Does it make any sense that an insurance company would insure a stolen car against theft? The Left apparently thinks we should pass a law that makes insurance companies do just that and idiot voters say, Ya, ya dat make goot sense. 47% of the people in this country refuse to properly use the English language to communicate. The Left isn’t demanding insurance for people with preexisting conditions; they’re demanding welfare and calling it insurance.
Yeah, sure, the beings on Planet Manhattan are surprised. Who would’ve guessed that?
And I for one welcome our new efficient-market health-care overlords. The sooner these hospitals cease treating orphans, destitute, PTSD, mentally ill, addicted, elderly, and terminal patients, the better. Think of the market efficiencies that will result … it’s magic! Thank you, Supply-Side Jesus!
Fan,
Are you feeling OK? Usually your posts are at least on point. Humor aside I couldn’t make heads of tails of that post. Did ObamaCare take away your meds?
It must be particularly irksome for some that the president is black.
Yes. “the beings on Planet Manhattan.”
Be careful, denizens, the “other” is all around you.
lolwot,
“It must be particularly irksome for some that the president is black.”
Thanks for showing again the reflexive racism of you progressives.
Do you know what it means when you are the only one who can hear the dog whistle?
GaryM | December 16, 2013 at 12:58 am |
“Do you know what it means when you are the only one who can hear the dog whistle?”
Well it could mean you’re the only dog within earshot.
It could mean it’s a bad whistle and you’re blowing it out of earshot from anyone else.
It could mean you’re at a convention for the deaf and someone is blowing a bad dog whistle.
There are other possibilities. Which one do you mean?
@
lolwot | December 15, 2013 at 7:15 am said:
“It must be particularly irksome for some that the president is black.”
It is extremely irksome that the President isn’t Allen West or Herman Cain.
While the oceans are a far greater heat sink than the atmosphere, the mechanism of AGW is still via CO2 in the atmosphere.
A question seems to exist as to what happens to the portion of the extra heat that is captured by the CO2 and remains in the earth system (ie ignoring the portion the escapes to space).
Does it
– by conduction, warm the atmosphere as a whole ?
– by back-radiation, warm the oceans and the land ?
– both ?
The answers to this would inter alia serve as a guide for where to look for meaningful measurements.
While I think that AGW competes – unsuccessfully – with the new synchronous chaos paradigm of abrupt climate change – the place to look is as global energy content and incoming and outgoing energy.
How are you at simple differential calculus? It all becomes very simple at the top of atmosphere.
d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out
W&H is work and heat – there are any number of real energy terms ranging form enthalpy to kinetic and potential energy. The biggest term by far is ocean heat content. Power in is the sun – along with some minor terms such as combustion. Power out is the reflected shortwave and emitted IR. Power is in Joules/s and is really just the average energy flux over a period.
ARGO gives us short term data on oceans. A little warming that is consistent with the change in net TOA flux – e.g. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
The key parameter is power out. This changes hugely – compared to the other factors – as a result of cloud cover changes which are feedbacks to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. These are elements of a chaotic system that change abruptly – therefore cloud changes abruptly.
Abrupt climate changes can be seen in the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Arctic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
So the hypothesis is that cloud cover changed in the 1998/2001 ‘climate shift’.
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=21
And a new reconstruction of cloud cover over different instruments and using sea surface temperature to cross calibrate.
http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf
In science – a theory is valid until one with greater explanatory power comes along – and the new paradigm progresses one funeral at a time.
BTW – it warms the atmosphere as a whole by transfer of kinetic energy between molecules and by IR scattering (a better term than back radiation) warm the oceans and surface. Really they are warmed by the Sun of course – but IR scattering reduces IR losses. The real question is how long it takes the oceans to equilibriate – all other things being equal. The latter is something that is so unlikely that it feels silly just to say it.
I feel that the evidence shows very little lag between inflections in toa flux and in ocean heat content.
e.g. s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=157
I should note CERES had some early problems seen in the graph.
You ask smart questions Gail, but to begin, you must understand the net energy flow in the climate system is overwhelmingly from ocean to atmosphere to space. Small natural variations (ENSO, AMO etc.) modulate this strong flow, such that it is a bit more or a bit less a times, and we see this reflected in tropospheric temperatures and of course net TOA energy flux. But the biggest control valve for the flow of energy from ocean to space are GH gas concentrations– and more specifically, noncondensing GH gases. The “extra heat” (a terribly unscientific phrase) is not stored in the atmosphere, but rather, to the most significant extent, is energy that does not ever come out of the ocean, precisely because the thermal gradient between ocean and space had been made less steep by the presence of more GH gases. Thus, the OHC goes up (where the “extra energy” is stored) and this has huge impacts on the cryosphere, which is closely associated with OHC via the strong advective currents continually bringing warner water from equator to the polar regions.
Gates,
Going with your thermal gradient explanation, atmospheric temperature regulates ocean cooling. So to regulate oceans to a higher temperature than before, the atmosphere too has to be at a higher temperature than before.
Which isn’t happening right now; even the IPCC and other committed alarmists admit this. While CO2 content continues upwards.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/13/week-in-review-8/#comment-425013
Gates
The atmosphere is an exceptionally poor storage vessel for heat, and so “extra” heat … would never stay in the atmosphere, but rather would be in the Earth’s actual climate energy storage vessel of the ocean.
Elsewhere you mention that the oceans are warmer than the atmosphere, and hence heat flow is oceans->atmosphere.
But in the quote above you say it is atmosphere->oceans, ie from a cooler body to a warmer one.
How does that work exactly ?
Gail,
You seem committed to viewing me a certain way, and are equally committed to your apparently flawed conceptions of energy flow in Earth’s climate system. On the other hand, you affinity for Chief and his poetry seem more than apparent. If you wasn’t to have an honest dialog, fine, but if you simply want to parrot Chief’s flawed concepts, or appreciate his poetry, then you and I need to have no cause for discourse.
Please move away from your router, now…
http://www.naturalnews.com/043238_Wi-Fi_routers_radiation_plant_growth.html#
scientists have some facts, for a change.
Gates
I asked a civil question. Lose this new angry/irrational alter ego of yours, and just answer would you? I know you can do better.
It’s all about me – how strange
A cold wind buffeting off the lake
captures the imagination for an instant,
plunging with the pelicans wing glancing
sunlight off feathers.
They seem obsessed with my poetical inclinations. At the age of 15 and in the throes of profound anger and alienation I discovered Henry Miler on a train station bookshop. Miller talked endlessly about writers – and was an extraordinary literary stylist. Thus Miller is the core of my literary education – a very good one.
Having fun in the climate etc eSalon is obviously not allowed.
Chief,
Once before you mentioned Spengler, and now it’s Henry Miller. I, too, read him at 15 (quite an experience). And, I’m betting that’s where you came across your first reference to Spengler. Me, too. And, to my amazement, the second time was in a history course my first year in college. What? Someone actually took Spengler seriously? Well, I did and still do. Miller, too. History or autobiography aside, they are both incredible poets. I think you know what I mean.
One question, since we are so in tune. Have you ever read Kenneth Patchen?
And my apologies to those who dislike these kinds of postings on a science blog. I just couldn’t resist.
Gail, to answer your question when heat doesn’t stay in the atmosphere it passes to space, so the heat flow is surface -> atmosphere -> space. The flow to space may be restricted by GHGs, so it backs up the flow like a blocked drain, which is a common analogy.
Judy has invited nineteen smiling hippopotamuses home.
============
Jim D,
Thanks, but the question you answered was not the one I asked.
To wit, Gates often mentions that the oceans are warmer than the atmosphere, and hence heat flow is oceans->atmosphere.
But in that quote I cited, he said is it atmosphere->oceans, ie from a cooler body to a warmer one.
How does that work exactly ?
Paul
No apology is necessary. One of the distinguishing traditions of climate etc is that we occasionally burst into song. It is usually quite civilised – with the less evolved occassionally p_ssing on the parade.
So it is the duty of the artist to discourage all traces of shame
To extend all boundaries
To fog them in right over the plate
To kill only what is ridiculous
To establish problem
To ignore solutions
To listen to no one
To omit nothing
To contradict everything
To generate the free brain
To bear no cross
To take part in no crucifixion
To tinkle a warning when mankind strays
To explode upon all parties
To wound deeper than the soldier
To heal this poor obstinate monkey once and for all
Kenneth Patchen
I have not read Patchen – but certainly shall.
Here’s a very young Australian poet – Jamie King-Holden.
Nostalgia
There is a place, far from the television’s warped smile
And my Mother’s cook top toiling,
Where golf balls are swallowed
by the Murray’s thick amnesia.
There is a place, unseen from the pot-smoked man-shed,
And my Father’s calamity of tools,
Where willows huddle and whisper like children
At the floating calf, facedown.
There is a place, invisible, to the tar-scarred suburbs
And cars’ headlight violence,
Where the bank is pillow-soft and transforms nightly,
When the moon turns its back on the water.
There was a place, below a lonely, hunched gum,
Skin, sun-aged bark, and flaking,
Where we dipped our feet in the quick-cool stream;
Where you and I built sandcastles.
http://ekleksographia.ahadadabooks.com/atherton/authors/King_Holden.html
Cheers
R. Gates
but to admit that they act as a regulator or “control knob” for the flow of energy from ocean to space would be admitting too much for some skeptics.
Can you name more than a handful of such sceptics? Or is this just the standard comforting drivel that precommitted alarmists like yourself masquerading as sceptics put your kids to bed with ?
the so-called “pause”.
That would be the 17-year measured, undisputed (except by a few uber-alarmist nuts) levelling out of atmospheric temperatures would it? Raised atmospheric temperatures, as you often mention, being the control-knob of ocean->atmosphere heat transfers, and the proximate cause of AGW.
“That would be the 17-year measured, undisputed ”
Undisputed? I thought science was never settled!
BTW, UAH disputes it. It shows 0.11C/decade warming in the last 17 years
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/plot/uah/from:1996/trend
Yes but IPCC predicted 0.20/decade warming and you can barely get to half of that even by cherry-picking through all the different temperature series.
Very few informed participants on either side of the anthropogenic climate change chasm dispute there’s been slowdown or stoppage of lower troposphere warming for about the past 15 years. Neither side disputes the fact that CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere has continued to rise as fast as ever during that whole time which adds insult to unexpected injury of the global warming hypothesis. Deal with it. Denying something doesn’t make the thing go away.
“Yes but”
Yes but nothing. If you are going to imply temperature has stopped rising you better be talking about a flat trend, not a 0.11C/decade trend.
UAH does indeed dispute the pause, but not in a way that supports AGW. UAH shows no warming 1978-1997 and no warming 2001-now. The only warming in the entire UAH record occurs coincident with the big ENSO. So there is a bit of warming in less than the 17 year period, but absolutely none that looks to be due to AGW in the entire measured period. Shifting from the surface statistical models (erroneously called the instrumental record) to UAH does not help the AGW cause, rather it kills it.
UAH shows the dominant warming trend due to greenhouse gases interspersed with dominated ENSO natural variation. Rather backs AGW. That big jump upward around 1998 is just proof of that.
lolwot, “UAH shows the dominant warming trend due to greenhouse gases interspersed with dominated ENSO natural variation. Rather backs AGW. That big jump upward around 1998 is just proof of that.”
Hang on a second. That should be ENSO Anthropogenic Variation according to JCH. Webster’s model tends to provide evidence CO2 is a cause of SOI, variations in length of day and may possibly influence Earth’s orbital parameters. It could turn out that Man is the center of the universe. Then again, perception of the observer does impact the interpretation of the physics. “If a planet warms in the solar system and no one is present, did it happen?”
I think thermodynamic frame of reference selection applies somehow?
ENSO moves around ocean water; water that is now warmer due to ACO2 and other manmade influences.
The oceans don’t forget anything.
JCH, “The oceans don’t forget anything.”
Nice observation. I believe it is properly called long term persistence or thermal inertia, not to be confused with scientific inertia.
lolwot, how does no warming 1978-1997 constitute a “dominant warming trend”? Same for no warming 2001 to today. Two flat lines does not a trend make. It is a simple step function, ENSO driven, with no sign of GHG increase warming, which is gradual and steady.
“lolwot, how does no warming 1978-1997 constitute a “dominant warming trend””
Check the errors on that trend.
It’s the overall trend that matters. Short-term flat trends are to be expected over sufficiently short periods. The 1998 ENSO jump shows the climate is getting warmer. Without the ENSO jump AGW would be falsified.
AGW does not cause ENSO jumps so it is indeed falsified. There is no GHG warming in the entire UAH record.
LOLWOT cherry picks a temperature series (UAH) and says there’s no pause in global warming. Even so, the IPCC predicted 0.20C/decade which can (barely) get us to the dreaded 2.0C of warming by 2100. Yet even cherry picking the series LOLWOT can only show us 0.11C/decade warming in the past 17 years. Ouch. That isn’t alarming. 0.20C/decade is barely alarming. We need mo mo warming to keep us all askeert. Mother nature just won’t cooperate. Maybe it’s all those compact fluorescent light bulbs and electric cars is what caused the slowdown in global warming. It worked! Mission accomplished!
“AGW does not cause ENSO jumps”
AGW expects ENSO jumps
Gates,
The record above shows you as the initiator of personal attacks on CH, with the following bit of faux condescension :
“Is this the kind of physics they teach in the land of Oz?”
And later you have the gall to say
“I suppose personal attacks is what you are left with”
Smug dishonesty in spades. Ever considered joining the IPCC?
It all seems very odd – I was explaining to a ‘skeptic’ how CO2 increases in the atmosphere was the central element in this most simple aspect of climate science. The physics were of course right – as attested to by the umpire.
Speaking of umpires – my wife has taken to watching cricket again. One wonders how long this winning streak can continue – certainly long enough to win the Ashes series. Yea.
I’m putting it down to an utterly irrational Lord of the Flies moment. I’m no Piggy however.
Neither of them are innocents, Gail.
Chief was talking about “extra heat” staying in the atmosphere because of additional GH gases, and I corrected him on this imprecise and unscientific language. This was too much for his inflated ego to accept, and so he launched a personal attack on me. My criticism of the educational system that taught Chief his physics is not a personal attack.
The energy content of the atmosphere is higher in a warmer atmosphere. The energy is stored kinetically in the entire atmosphere. What matters is not the fate of any particular photon but the statistics of the system as a whole.
Gatesy likes to pontifcate with only a superficial understanding. It makes for both superficiality and pompous absurdity.
Chief,
The energy content of the atmosphere is next to insignificant compared to the energy content of the ocean, and the primary effects by several orders of magnitude of increasing GH gases in that atmosphere is not in the increase in energy content of the atmosphere, but in increased energy content of the oceans. Furthermore, the energy stored “kinetically” in the atmosphere is only one way it is “stored’. There are many forms that energy takes in the atmosphere, as in all the other spheres of the planet. The average kinetic energy, being measured as sensible heat, is just one form, and using it as a proxy for energy in the entire atmosphere may not be the best proxy to use (as Piekle Sr. has pointed out). Worse still, using it as a proxy for energy in the entire Earth climate system, will yield an extremely unreliable metric given the overwhelming amount of energy in the ocean, and the low thermal inertia of the atmosphere and its low relative energy content.
Gatesy repeats endlessly this simplistic meme as if it were some profound and complex insight into the workings of climate. It isn’t – it is common knowledge that should be taken for granted in any sophisticated discussion of climate science – but is oddly warped in gatesy’s case by the need to make climate warrior points.
If is of course the simplest aspect of the science. Atmosphere and oceans are a coupled system but greenhouse gas theory starts in the atmosphere. The higher energy content results in a warmer atmosphere with increased kinetic energy of the molecules in the system – kinetic temperature. That there are minor terms in the energy equation I discussed in a little detail above.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/13/week-in-review-8/#comment-425272
The increased back scattering of IR photons in a warmer atmosphere decreases net IR losses from the surface – particularly important over oceans due to the large thermal inertia. The point at which oceans warm sufficiently to again increase losses – primarily as latent heat – is as I said a complex one. The available evidence – such as it is – suggest that oceans heat content increases while net TOA radiant flux is increasing and declines with declining TOA flux.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=157
Climate warrior quibbling about the simple aspects of climate is because this is all they understand – albeit it with odd warminista wrinkles. It serves to distract from the more complex and interesting aspects of Earth and climate sciences.
Chief said:
“The point at which oceans warm sufficiently to again increase losses…”
Higher GH concentrations will keep the ocean warming until the point at which GH gas concentrations stabilize, or of course the oceans simply evaporate away and the planet loses massive amounts of water vapor to space. On the shorter term, cycles like ENSO, the PDO, or the AMO will alter the flux from ocean to atmosphere to space, and this is of course reflected and easily measured in tropospheric temperatures and ultimately in TOA flux.
What astonishing nonsense gatesy. There is of course a limited capacity to increase greenhouse gases before the emission spectrum is saturated – and this stops well short of apocryphal notions of oceans boiling away.
The idea of thermodynamic equilibrium – albeit in a system that is non-linear and not in equilibrium ever – is that losses tend to match gains over time.
Chief,
If somehow CO2 and methane and N2O could each rise ten-fold or twenty-fold from where they are now, the oceans would respond by retaining that much more energy. Of course atmospheric water vapor would also increase as evaporation from the ocean surface would increase. Some of this water vapor would be lost to space. There is a point at which the surface becomes so warm that liquid water is not maintained at the surface, but is all vapor in the atmosphere is then lost to space to a large degree. Our closest cousin planet Venus, is a perfect example of this in action. But Venus is not an example of a continuing run-away greenhouse effect, as its temperatures are stable, based on GH gas concentrations being now stable as all the carbon and water that could be moved from the surface to the atmosphere or space has now done so.
Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is rearing its pencil-whipped head again.
Listen up, folks. Measurement of change in OHC measurement is so close to zero that the polarity of it can be pencil whipped from minus to plus if the need arises. The need did indeed arise. The principal researcher (a young lad named Josh Willis) using our best instruments (~3000 ARGO bouys) initially found the ocean losing heat. As soon as this result was communicated to colleagues the lad was quickly shown the error of his ways and the ARGO data was pencil-whipped into compliance with the climate science bandwagon/consensus.
I schit you not. The story is here in black and white published by the head cheerleader in charge of consensus climate science – NASA.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
The inescapable fact of the matter is that our instrumentation simply does not have the precision and accuracy needed to resolve global energy imbalance on the order of tenths of a Watt per square meter. The inadequacy of the instrumentation has been and continues to be the major problem with characterizing anthropogenic changes to global average climate data. When the data is constantly riding inside the margin of error then choices (conscious or otherwise) to apply mathematical correction algorithms biased towards a certain outcome become the signal.
Indeed, OHC continues to rise. With 2013 set to have the hottest oceans on record!
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
And this is despite a quiet sun and negative PDO! Many skeptics had predicted cooling! In light of the lack of cooling isn’t it time such skeptics re-assessed their denial of the CO2 control knob? What else can be causing record hot oceans? Can’t blame it on the Sun anymore!
Thanks for bringing this important metric to our attention David Springer!
Indeed. The ocean was losing heat until the data was “corrected” to show it gaining heat. Those ARGO buoys (and NASA boys) are such flippy floppies, eh? Thank you for bringing the most recent pencil-whipped data to our attention so we may laugh at its fanciful construction the story of which is here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
So you believe the oceans are cooling and sea level is falling.
Ie you believe two things in opposition to the wealth of independent evidence for both.
And to do so you invent conspiracy theories about scientists.
After-all you present no actual evidence for why these changes are not happening, you just declare that you refuse to believe it and so charge the scientists monitoring ocean heat instruments and sea level monitoring instruments with fraud.
Are you brave enough to actually state in very clear terms that Josh Willis is a fraud?
Go on if you are man enough to stand behind your convictions.
lolwot, you write “Indeed, OHC continues to rise. With 2013 set to have the hottest oceans on record!”
I am still awaiting an answer from you as to what the estimate is of the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is, expressed in units of ocean heat content.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/annualcfs_nrad.png
Above is a reanalysis which agrees with Josh Willis’ initial finding and, not surprisingly to some, agrees with the timing of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming of the troposphere. Imagine that, the troposphere stops warming and the ocean stops warming at the same time. It’s almost like they were touching each other or something, huh? This despite the fact that during the whole time the ocean and atmosphere were cooling anthropogenic CO2 was pouring into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate. Control knob my ass.
I believe sea level has been rising for thousands of years and the current rate is not significantly different from any time in the past. I believe our instrumentation to detect year-over-year sea level rise is inadequate to distinguish between a historical 2mm/year rise by global average tide gauge and 3mm/year. I believe that anthropogenic depletion of fresh water aquifers causes land subsidence that is misinterpreted as rise of the ocean in many locations. I believe that melting of land-based ice has been more or less continual since the beginning of the current interglacial period and this, not anthropogenic warming, accounts for most of the actual sea level rise observed over thousands of years in tide gauges.
I believe young scientist Josh Willis was bullied by senior scientists who held the reins of his career in their hands into accepting their conclusions that his methods were wrong. Whether that makes Willis a fraud depends on whether he honestly believes his early work was wrong or not. I’m not a mind reader so I can’t say what are his inner beliefs in that matter.
Inasmuch as the sun has gone alarmingly quiet and that quieting has contributed to the pause in temperature rise of the lower troposphere it must follow, according to the anthropogenic warming hypothesis, that the increase of CO2 has prevented some amount of global cooling we’d otherwise have experienced due to the quiet sun. If the high end of the CO2 sensitivity estimates are correct then we’ve been spared a catastrophic amount of global cooling like what was experienced during the Little Ice Age just several hundred years ago.
Thanks lolwot for bringing this global life-saving benefit of anthropogenic CO2 to our attention!
By what mechanism can the 0-2000m layer gather energy at a higher rate than the 0-700m layer?
“If the high end of the CO2 sensitivity estimates are correct then we’ve been spared a catastrophic amount of global cooling like what was experienced during the Little Ice Age just several hundred years ago.”
You’ve kind of glossed over the alarming implication.
If the drop in solar output over the last 10 years caused 0.3C cooling and the CO2 rise caused about 0.3C warming…
So what happens in the next 10 years. CO2 continues to rise that’s another 0.3C warming. So we need another 0.3C cooling from the Sun.
Are you banking on solar output continually falling for 100 years? What happens if it stops, or even reverses?
David Springer said:
“…the sun has gone alarmingly quiet…”
—-
Alarmingly? Not curiously or interestingly, but alarmingly? Is it a portent in the sky? What is so alarming about these normal solar cycles of long or short duration?
“I believe that anthropogenic depletion of fresh water aquifers causes land subsidence that is misinterpreted as rise of the ocean in many locations. I believe that melting of land-based ice has been more or less continual since the beginning of the current interglacial period and this, not anthropogenic warming, accounts for most of the actual sea level rise observed over thousands of years in tide gauges.”
So you believe both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting far faster than reported by the IPCC? Enough to explain all the sea level rise. With no thermal contribution whatsoever?
lolwot flails winnowed straw; the higher the sensitivity, the colder it would now be without man’s effect.
=============
David Springer said:
“Control knob my ass.”
—
Well, as a matter of fact, that part of your body is a control knob, unfortunately, yours seems to be stuck shut so that things are backing up and allowing excrement to come out of your mouth.
RGates, Skeptical Firefighter, ignores the bell clanging by his ear. Go look at the Maunder sunspots, ‘large, sparse, and primarily Southern Hemispheric’.
=============
Of course kim, but we are conditioned for cold. Civilizations thrived at higher colder latitudes. The Earth is not adapted for super-interglacial heat.
Oh, I see RGates is otherwise occupied. Well, never mind then.
=========
lolwot has to go pee outside.
=========
Jim Cripwell intelligently asks:
“what the estimate is of the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is, expressed in units of ocean heat content.”
—–
Those units would be expressed in joules and based on current trajectories and measurements, the answer seems to be somewhere between 1 and 2 x 10^22 joules per year down to 2000 meters, with even more if you want to include the abyssal depths.
kim why do you want to suddenly shove the earth’s climate into a temperature range it hasn’t been in for millions of years? what’s in it for you?
From Josh W, I heard admissions against interest in a conversation re: OHC and transport with Pielke Pere and the Emperor Kevin T. That gives him some credibility with me. Nonetheless, faced with his bewildering quest, and his amazing tools, I suspect it may be impossible to be completely objective. There are unknown unknowns in the task of eliminating bias.
=========
Kim said:
“RGates, Skeptical Firefighter, ignores the bell clanging by his ear. Go look at the Maunder sunspots, ‘large, sparse, and primarily Southern Hemispheric’.
—–
And these I should be “alarmed” about?
The globe would have cooled even more than it has without man’s warming effect, lolwot, but how much more even kim doesn’t know.
============
Your choice, RGates, earplugs in or out. I don’t expect you to spring into action, but you might sniff around for smoke.
===========
“The globe would have cooled even more than it has ”
It hasn’t even cooled
Like Egypt, Greece and Rome?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/12/14/newser-life-originated-underground/4022999/
R. Gates, you write “Those units would be expressed in joules and based on current trajectories and measurements, the answer seems to be somewhere between 1 and 2 x 10^22 joules per year down to 2000 meters, with even more if you want to include the abyssal depths.”
Thank you for a reply, but unfortunately, the answer raises more questions than it answers. Unlike the CS for surface temperatures, it would seem the answer is based on the current, empirical data. In the case of normal CS, there was a hypothetical estimate based on fundamental physics. This would appear to be absent in the case of the figure you have quoted.
Without an actual reference, which I could read and study, I have to guess how the numbers were derived. I could, of course, be wrong. So please forgive me if that is the case.
It would seem that some sort of estimate has been made based on how much of the rise of OHC was caused by additional CO2, and how much by natural causes. What is this proportion, and how was it arrived at?
I would, of course, appreciate a reference where I could go and study the estimation at leisure. But I assume one does not exist. Am I correct?
lolwot > Indeed, OHC continues to rise
The pencil-whipped OHC you mean.
lolwot > … And to do so you invent conspiracy theories about scientists.
The only conspiracy theories around, are those of lolwot &co who suggest government-funded climate science is NOT skewed to favour more government interference. A cabal of honest scientists trying to be objective, rather than lying and cheating so as to serve their paymaster, as shown in Climategate.
Simply ludicrous.
Jim C.,
You can find many excellent sources for estimates in changes in ocean heat content over the past several decades, with a nice summary found in a presentation given earlier thus year by Levitus:
http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Levitus-Lamont-05.pdf
To arrive at an estimate for what the future gains will be per a doubling of CO2 requires extension of the end of the current record combined with paleoclimate data from the last time CO2 was at 560 ppm. Such a combination yields the range of 1 to 2 x 10^22 joules of energy per year the oceans will be storing down to 2000m as CO2 approaches this level in the atmosphere. If these estimate are correct, the biosphere of our oceans will be deeply stressed by this rapid warming, as recent studies are showing such stress is already occurring.
R. Gates you write “Such a combination yields the range of 1 to 2 x 10^22”
Let me ask the question I asked before. Am I correct that there is no reference where I can read the details of this estimate? I am afraid the snippets you write don’t give me enough detail.
You write “Such a combination” What combination? Is there an assumption as to what proportion of the observed rise in OCH is caused by CO2? And if so, what is this proportion?
@ R. Gates:
” Such a combination yields the range of 1 to 2 x 10^22 joules of energy per year the oceans will be storing down to 2000m as CO2 approaches this level in the atmosphere. If these estimate are correct, the biosphere of our oceans will be deeply stressed by this rapid warming, as recent studies are showing such stress is already occurring.”
Well, lets see. Taking your 1-2e22 joules/year as a (future) given, attributing ALL of it to ACO2 (which seems a bit of a stretch), and assuming that ALL of the ziggajoule is actually confined to the top 200 m of the oceans, we find that the top 200 m will warm by .075-.15 C/year, if none is radiated off, evaporated off, or leaks into the ocean below 200 m.
In a biosphere where the temperature gradient is typically measured in degrees for movements of tens of meters, horizontally or vertically, and is experienced by sea life in seconds or minutes, it wouldn’t seem to me that temperature trends of .075-.15 C/year would be notably stressful. But then again, I am not a biosphereist.
Bob L.,
Your assumption that the energy gain is constrained to the top 200m would be your first wrong assumption. We’ve seen energy being increased all the way down to abyssal levels. But more importantly is that energy increases are not uniform throughout the ocean, but, because of natural advection of major wind driven currents, energy in concentrated more in certain regions of the ocean. The THC represents the major circulation system of this more concentrated ocean energy. For example, if you were to take the total energy in a square meter of the Gulf Stream versus that of the open ocean 500 km east of the Gulf Stream, you’d see the much higher energy of the Gulf Stream. That Gulf Stream advects energy to both the polar region as well as to be downwelled in the North Atlantic, warming the abyssal layers of the ocean.
Interesting article on research on CO2 and ocean heat content the last time CO2 was around 400 ppm over a sustained period:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377839895000488
@ R. Gates
“Your assumption that the energy gain is constrained to the top 200m would be your first wrong assumption.”
You got me there. But I will have to admit that I am puzzled as to exactly how YOUR assertion, which I quoted (“Such a combination yields the range of 1 to 2 x 10^22 joules of energy per year the oceans will be storing down to 2000m as CO2 approaches this level in the atmosphere.”) morphed into MY ‘wrong assumption’. I simply took the figures that you provided and calculated the heat rise of the top 200 m of the ocean if ALL of the energy that you were postulating were CONFINED to the top 200 m. That provides the upper limit of the temperature rises of the top 200 m.
As you point out, of COURSE it would not be confined to the top 200 m and all the energy would not be 100% expended in raising the temperature, but would be partially dissipated through other mechanisms. Therefore, the 1-2e22 joules of energy that YOU postulated would, in the real world, raise the temperature of the top 200 m a lot LESS than the numbers I calculated. Again, my only ASSUMPTION in calculating the temperature rise for the top 200 m that would result from the addition of YOUR postulated 1-2 e22 joules of energy was that YOU accurately described reality.
Complete horsechit. Willis corrected errors. That is not pencil whipping.
Pencil whipping is creating records after the fact. I have seen it in audits. It implies fraud or cheating, but could also indicate management has left an employee overwhelmed with paperwork.
Josh WIllis did not commit fraud. Josh WIllis did not cheat. JC is a pile you know what if she allows this baseless libel of Josh WIllis to remain on her blog.
Bob L.,
My essential point is that the energy being added to the OHC is not spread evenly over the whole ocean, but is concentrated in regions due to natural currents, downwelling, etc. A great deal of it is advected to the polar regions, especially the North Pole due to the asymmetrical nature of the energy advection on the planet. In estimating that the oceans will be retaining an additional 1 or 2 x 10^22 joules of energy per year, in a CO2 world of 560 ppm, we would have to look at a great deal of this energy having been advected via ocean currents to the polar regions and gone into the reduction of continental ice mass at both of the poles (mainly Greenland and Antarctica). Paleoclimate studies of the last time CO2 was close to being this high on a long-term basis seem to hint this is exactly the case:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377839895000488
@ R. Gates
“My essential point is that the energy being added to the OHC is not spread evenly over the whole ocean, but is concentrated in regions due to natural currents, downwelling, etc. A great deal of it is advected to the polar regions, especially the North Pole due to the asymmetrical nature of the energy advection on the planet.”
So as I understand it, the ACO2 is well mixed and the TSI is constant per latitude, so the additional heat captured by the ACO2 will be pretty much evenly distributed over the surface of the ocean, warming the surface by a max of .075-.15 C. Ocean currents will then collect all this extra heat, concentrate it, and carry the superheated water to the poles (” we would have to look at a great deal of this energy having been advected via ocean currents to the polar regions and gone into the reduction of continental ice mass at both of the poles (mainly Greenland and Antarctica)”), where it is dissipated in melting the Greenland and polar ice caps.
It seems a bit improbable that ocean currents could concentrate the energy and raise the temperature enough to melt the polar caps, but if heat is NOT concentrated so as to raise the temperature significantly more than the average of .075-1.5 C I don’t see how it could melt much ice.
Bob L.,
The concentration of energy that ocean currents represent are significant and the Gulf Stream, for example, is a major contributor of bringing energy to the Arctic Ocean. This is well known and pretty well studied. The currents leading into the Arctic have been running at their highest temperatures in several thousand years, and most of this energy originates with the concentrated energy that is the Gulf Stream:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110127/full/news.2011.52.html
phatboy | December 15, 2013 at 7:57 am |
“By what mechanism can the 0-2000m layer gather energy at a higher rate than the 0-700m layer?”
Easy peasy. Warmer runoff from the continents!
Let’s assume that greenhouse gases don’t warm the ocean significantly because, unlike shortwave which penetrates the surface and warms deeper water, longwave is absorbed in the first few microns and is immediately transformed into latent energy in water vapor which convects the energy to a higher level in the atmosphere before it become sensible energy again.
Rocks and dirt don’t evaporate. Greenhouse gases can and do warm dry surfaces. The dryer the surface the more GHG warming. So we see most of the GHG warming over land in the higher latitudes where low temperatures at least part of the year keep the surface very dry. This warming of the land will also cause warming of streams and rivers as rainfall and meltwater pick up and carry the energy away to the ocean. It will be very cold water especially in springtime when we have the greatest runoff. The ocean it meets will be warmer thus the cold runoff will hug the bottom of the continental shelf until it gets deep enough to meet water that is equally dense. This depth is below the mixed layer so we miss seeing it with ARGO passing through the surface.
Because the ocean is getting warmer (and sea level rising) from continental runoff instead of directly from overhead the amount of heating is smaller than we would otherwise expect. Land is about 30% of the earth’s surface so the heating is only about 30% of what it would be if the ocean were heated the same as dry land by greenhouse gases. So the oft ballyhooed figure cited by climate boffins of 3.0C per doubling of CO2 is actually about 1.0C per doubling which is not alarming but rather beneficial after taking into considering fertilization of the atmosphere for plant life and milder winters in the higher latitudes.
The other times sunspots went walkabout like this were the Maunder and Dalton minimums which were times of exceedingly harsh northern hemisphere winters. While civilization is probably better able to cope with harsher winters now, there probably won’t be mass starvation for instance, it still takes more time, trouble, and money to get through it.
lolwot | December 15, 2013 at 8:10 am |
“So you believe both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting far faster than reported by the IPCC? ”
Not really.
“Enough to explain all the sea level rise. With no thermal contribution whatsoever?”
Sea level rises and falls but since the last glacial period ended some 12,000 years ago it’s mostly rising. In previous interglacials Greenland’s Ice sheet melted almost completely away before the next glacial period began. I don’t see why that won’t happen this time too. That’s enough to raise sea level another 6-9 meters. At the current rate that’s 10,000 or more years to git ‘er done. Where’s the cause for alarm?
You speaking of my bravery, lolwot, makes me wonder why you are not brave enough to use your real name when expressing your opinions? Do you have so little respect for those opinions that you don’t want them associated with your official life story? I can’t say that I blame you. If I held opinions like yours I’d choose to keep them from being associated with my real name too. I’n not so sure I’d do it by anonymity though as I too much personal integrity for that.
I doubt your real name is David Springer
For the record, lolwot, I am Frank James Cripwell, and I have provided details of my address, email address and telephone number, and I will provide any other information should you require it. But let me endorse what David has said.
“For the record, lolwot, I am Frank James Cripwell, and I have provided details of my address, email address and telephone number, and I will provide any other information should you require it. But let me endorse what David has said.”
I respect this enough to do it myself. Well not the phone number and address…if I start getting hang ups I’’l have to wonder if it’s lolly or Josh… but I’m proud to be a global warming skeptic and from now on will comment using my real name. Time to stand up and be counted.
.
What about you lolly?
Regardless of your stance, using personal information (beyond your real name) on an open web page is extremely foolish. To give your address and phone number is not showing “bravery” or belief in conviction, but simple stupidity. There may be no regulars here who would use that information for nefarious purposes, but plenty of others who would and they and their bots are trolling constantly for just this bit of foolishness and “bravery”. A highly unsafe practice Jim Cripwell et al.
R. Gates, you write “A highly unsafe practice Jim Cripwell et al.”
Why? I doubt whether there are 6 Cripwell’s living in Canada, and to my certain knowledge, only 2 in Ottawa. Just about all the information I have given is readily available to just about anyone.
Jim C.,
Gamble at your own risk then knowing the risks. There are good reasons that blogs try to maintain your anonymity. Volunteering your full personal information is discouraged and not a sign of bravery, anymore than walking around blindfolded on a busy highway would be seen as “brave”.
R. Gates, you write “Gamble at your own risk then knowing the risks”
This reminds me of a story, which is probably more fiction than fact. During WWII, the soldiers of the Royal Canadian Regiment had their bayonets polished to a mirror finish. When anyone asked whether this meant they would be seen by the Germans, the answer was “When we fix bayonets, we WANT the Germans to see them”
That’s an interesting story about the bayonets Jim C., true or not. But a nice shiny bayonet gives a nice target for a mortar or artillery round. Most enemies would not fear a shiny bayonet but be attracted to bomb it or shoot in that direction.
LOLWOT my real name is David Springer and I live in Austin Texas. There are two of us with the same name here. The other one is a dean at the University of Texas so don’t get him confused with me. Judith has my 411 and can verify that for you. I can fax her a copy of my DD-214 showing that I served in the USMC from 1974-1978 and was a sergeant when I got out. My driver’s license, which I can also fax, has “Veteran” on it which means the state of Texas examined my military record and validated my status. Veterans get discounts at many places in Texas and cops let us off with warnings instead of fines as a way to say “Thanks for putting your ass in the line of fire for your country, buddy. We appreciate your courage and sacrifice.”
Maybe we should ask Judith if she’s in any danger because she doesn’t hide behind an anonymous handle. The combination of being a woman with a highly regarded professional opinion that some detractors have said is a crime against humanity should put her in far more danger than any of us. No way I’m gonna let a girl make me look like a coward in comparison. Evidently there are many here who are quite content to let Judith Curry stand up and be counted while they cower and blog anonymously. That’s lower than a rat turd in my opinion. Maybe not as low as whale schit but close.
Different people stay anonymous for different reasons. I prefer not to use my full name because when people do a search for me I want them to find my business information and not what some idiot wrote about me on a climate change web site. I do think those of us that choose to remain unknown have an additional responsibility to remain courteous although I have found that isn’t always possible.
Steven, you write “Different people stay anonymous for different reasons.”
I agree. I have no problem discussing science with someone who uses a pseudonym. HOWEVER, and there is always a however, when people hide behind a cowardly pseudonym, and then launch ad hom and personal attacks against people like me, who use their real names, then I draw the line. That behaviour I find to be unacceptable.
People taking ad hom pot shots at you on the intertubes is not hazardous to your health. It’s not like you’re an American soldier in a Humvee in Irag fercrisakes. The real reason is usually that you don’t want to anyone to know you’re spending (wasting) time voicing opinions that have a net value of less than the proverbial two cents.
I couldn’t care less what you think my motivations for being anonymous are. If you have a problem with one of my opinions then state the opinion you have a problem with and why.
“Other industries would stand accused of damning conflicts of interest but when it comes to global warming, anything goes…
“The Mail on Sunday [UK] today reveals the extraordinary web of political and financial interests creating dozens of eco-millionaires from green levies on household energy bills.
“A three-month investigation shows that some of the most outspoken campaigners who demand that consumers pay the colossal price of shifting to renewable energy are also getting rich from their efforts.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-tycoons-power-brokers-help-benefit-billions-raised-bills.html
Wretchard has ‘From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.’
H/t DrJ
=====
Judith Curry:
”A few things that caught my eye this past week.
‘CO2 hits 400 ppm – does it matter?’”
In my opinion, that does not matter. It obeys natural laws. According to them, all CO2 emissions from sources and all CO2 absorptions to sinks together determine the CO2 level in atmosphere.The share of mere anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the CO2 content in atmosphere is so small that it can not be distinguished by empiric observations. The long term CO2 content in atmosphere is controlled by global sea surface temperature, mainly by sea surface temperature in the areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are. E.g. in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 I have proved the mechanism how global warming of sea surface makes the CO2 content in atmosphere rise:
”When interpreting Tisdale’s claim on Global SST anomalies and on NINO3,4 SST anomalies during 1976-2009 you can find that during the same time periode there has been no essential rising or sinking trend on the tropical sea surface temperatures. Instead, the global mean sea surface temperature has had a continuous trend of warming. What is the meaning of this? It means that the global sea surface temperatures used by Endersbee in his calculations have been controlled by warming of the sea surface waters outside the tropical sea surface i.e. mainly the warming of the sea surface waters of higher latitudes where the sea surface CO2 sinks are. As a consequence, the partial pressure of CO2 has been rising in these as sinks acting surface waters, which has been making CO2 absorption from the atmosphere to the sea surface sinks become slower. Because of that, the CO2 content in the atmosphere has been increasing. It means that more CO2 from the total CO2 emissions to the atmosphere has remained in the atmosphere to increase its CO2 content, in order to reach a new dynamic balance between CO2 emissions and absorptions. As the warming of oceans is the dominating reason for the increased content of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and as nowadays the human yearly portion ( about 8 GtC CO2) of the all yearly CO2 emissions ( little over 200 GtC CO2) to the atmosphere is about 4 %, the human role on the recent yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also about 4 %. For instance when CO2 content in the atmosphere increases 2 ppm per year, the human portion of that is only about 0.08 ppm.
Media have introduced that during the year 2010 the yearly increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has rised from about 3 % to about 6 %. It means that, in the yearly human emissions of about 8 GtC, there has arisen a new yearly recordbreaking increase of about 0,5 GtC in the manmade CO2 emissions. As at the same time the increase of CO2 in atmosphere have been about 4 GtC per year, one can find that the increase of 0,5 GtC CO2 in the manmade CO2 emissions is not able to explain the rise of carbon dioxide in atmosphere, not even though all the anthropogenic CO2 increase (0,5 GtC) of emissions would remain in the atmosphere. In reality the share of manmade CO2 emissions per year remaining in the atmosphere is only about 2 % from the yearly increase of human emissions of about 0,5 GtC, as consistent with what the yearly total CO2 increase of about 4 GtC in atmosphere is in relation to the total yearly CO2 emissions of little over 200 GtC, expressed in procentages. The 2 % from the mere manmade increase of 0,5 GtC per year of CO2 emissions causes only an increase of 0.01 GtC i.e. 0.005 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Nowadays only the sea surface warming expressed by Endersbee seems to make higher portions of manmade CO2 in atmosphere possible, as the warming of the as sinks acting sea surfaces at the higher latitudes makes absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere become slower. For instanse, in the latest yearly increase of 4 GtC CO2 in the atmospehere there is a portion of 0.16 GtC of human CO2 i.e. 0.08 ppm CO2 as presented above.
The same principle based on Bob Tisdale’s link above can be used to explain Ernst-Georg Beck’s claims on the rise of CO2 content during the first part of 20th century, including the drop of the CO2 content during the La Niña dominated years 1945-1975. Being direct measurements, the CO2 contents in the atmosphere used by Beck are accurate enough for those purposes. Whereas the ice core proxy values of carbon dioxide content used by IPCC are incompatible with any one of direct measured values, because they are mean values of some centuries, even at their best.”
Lauri,
But do estimates of CO2 emissions tally with increases in overall CO2 concentration ?
What a load of bollocks Lauri, who are you kidding but yourself?
Gail:
”Lauri,
But do estimates of CO2 emissions tally with increases in overall CO2 concentration ?”
The order of magnitude of CO2 emissions can be regarded as certain enough. Emissions from natural sources are based on complicated empiric observations where there is a certain uncertainty that can not essentially change the results expressed by me. As to the anthropogenic CO2 emissions they can be estimated better than natural CO2 emissions.
In addition I like to refer to Segalstad:
– Tom V Segalstad says, http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_CO2-Science_090805.pdf : ”The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%).”
– Tom V Segalstad; http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm : ”Carbon isotopic trends agree qualitatively with fossil fuel CO2 emissions like stated by IPCC, but show quantitatively a fossil fuel CO2 component of maximum 4 % versus the 21% claimed by IPCC.”
“Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%).””
Anthropogenic sources emit the equivalent of 4ppm CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Whether that is 5% or 0.001% of natural sources is beside the point. Evidently a 4ppm contribution is more than enough to explain the 2ppm average increase in CO2 each year.
Sorry to be rude (again), but come on.
Obama’s great socialist policies have saved us. Hail Obama!
From the article:
Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,
Some of the most respected prognosticators in the financial world are warning that what is coming in 2014 and beyond is going to shake America to the core. Many of the quotes that you are about to read are from individuals that actually predicted the subprime mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis of 2008 ahead of time. So they have a track record of being right. Does that guarantee that they will be right about what is coming in 2014? Of course not. In fact, as you will see below, not all of them agree about exactly what is coming next. But without a doubt, all of their forecasts are quite ominous. The following are quotes from Harry Dent, Marc Faber, Gerald Celente, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers and nine other respected economic experts about what they believe is coming in 2014 and beyond…
…
And certainly there are already signs that the U.S. economy is slowing down as we head into the final weeks of 2013. For example, on Thursday we learned that the number of initial claims for unemployment benefits increased by 68,000 last week to a disturbingly high total of 368,000. That was the largest increase that we have seen in more than a year.
In addition, as I wrote about the other day, rail traffic is way down right now. In fact, for the week ending November 30th, U.S. rail traffic was down 16.3 percent from the same week one year earlier. That is a very important indicator that economic activity is getting slower.
And we continue to get more evidence that the middle class is being steadily eroded and that poverty in America is rapidly growing. For example, a survey that was just released found that requests for food assistance and the level of homelessness have both risen significantly in major U.S. cities over the past year…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-13/faber-rogers-dent-maloney-stockman-%E2%80%93-what-do-they-say-coming-2014
14% of American adults without jobs, but only 7% unemployed; new maths.
So jim- I’m not sure if you ever answered, did you go with cinder blocks or poured concrete for your bunker?
You can go with both poured cement and cinder blocks of course in any combination. Don’t forget lots of steel too. Rebar is your friend.
I used poured concrete for my bunker. Don’t forget lots of steel too. Rebar is your friend.
Coal supplies already are low… The Daily Express: “Experts in long-range weather forecasting said the WHOLE of Britain should be prepared for this winter to be the most severe since 1947, which saw the UK hit by relentless snow and some of the lowest temperatures on record.”
HadCET shows so far Winter in England is 1.9 degrees C warmer than normal. Sixth of the way through Winter.
@ lolwot
“HadCET shows so far Winter in England is 1.9 degrees C warmer than normal. Sixth of the way through Winter.”
Odd. Here in the US, winter doesn’t even START until 21 Dec.
Bob Ludwick | December 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
“Here in the US, winter doesn’t even START until 21 Dec.”
Frickin’ precious.
After next week some Euros begin to wonder why a Nobel ever given to Al Gore. A Dec. 13th article in the Express is making predictions:
“A FIERCE Arctic blast is poised to bring up to six inches of snow in some areas of Britain next week.”
How about this time next year? How about this time a decade from now? Climate alarmists will be among the first to tell you they don’t know. They’re through making predictions… except those 50 year of course and then they’re sure it will be really, really hot. And, maybe by then people may appreciate a little heat.
“A FIERCE Arctic blast is poised to bring up to six inches of snow in some areas of Britain next week”
Article dated Sat, November 16, 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/443381/Six-inches-of-snow-to-hit-Britain-next-week-as-Arctic-blast-sends-temperatures-plummeting
So presumably this arctic blast “next week” has already happened. Not sure if it did or not, I think there was some snow IIRC.
“They’re through making predictions…”
I’m betting Viner wishes he’d kept his mouth firmly closed on the subject of snow soon becoming a rare and exciting event. I’ve shoveled more rare and exciting snow in the last 5 years to last me quite a long time.
Maybe I should move to Israel. Or I hear Cairo has quite a nice climate…Oh, wait…
Although Viner also said:
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
Yes, Lolly, every time it snows in New England seemingly every other day lately, we’re caught unprepared. You’d think we’d learn.
We’re no more unprepared for heavy snow in the UK than we always have been, and it always causes chaos when it happens. But that’s not what Viner meant, but I suspect you already know that
Well they say England was better prepared for snow back in the 60s and 70s when it happened more often. A prolonged period of no snow is enough to for a country to forget how to handle it.
The 95th percentile for the 1961-1990 normal in England is perilously close to being above freezing in winter:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_act_graphEX.gif
So Viner could well turn out correct. If the distribution shifts up a degree or two more, the 95th percentile in winter will never go below zero as a matter of normal course, in which case snow events will be rare.
Except we haven’t had prolonged periods without snow. And it’s because of people predicting less snow that we have failed to prepare for it as well as we did.
I grew up in a tiny town on the eastern end of the Great Lakes and am still in frequent contact with friends and family thereabouts. I haven’t spent a winter there (Jan/Feb/Mar) since 2011 and that was my first winter since 1979. I’ve lived in US southwest the rest of the time. The Allegheny Mountains in the winter are nothing short of magnificent. I loved every minute of it and since I don’t have a job or school (had one or the other or both every other winter there) I didn’t even mind taking time to shovel snow.
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowdown cooled the subtropical ocean – Cunningham – 2013 – Geophysical Research Le
Buy some ice skates if you want to visit Santa.
Meet the Robot Telemarketer Who Denies She’s A Robot
The phone call came from a charming woman with a bright, engaging voice to the cell phone of a TIME Washington Bureau Chief Michael Scherer. She wanted to offer a deal on health insurance, but something was fishy.
When Scherer asked point blank if she was a real person, or a computer-operated robot voice, she replied enthusiastically that she was real, with a charming laugh. But then she failed several other tests. When asked “What vegetable is found in tomato soup?” she said she did not understand the question. When asked multiple times what day of the week it was yesterday, she complained repeatedly of a bad connection.
Over the course of the next hour, several TIME reporters called her back, working to uncover the mystery of her bona fides. Her name, she said, was Samantha West, and she was definitely a robot, given the pitch perfect repetition of her answers. Her goal was to ask a series of questions about health coverage—”Are you on Medicare?” etc.—and then transfer the potential customer to a real person, who could close the sale. You can listen for yourself to some of the reporting here:
If you want, you can call her too. Her number is (484) 589-5611. This number, if you Google it, is the subject of much discussion online as other recipients of Samantha West calls complain on chat boards about the mysteriously persistent lady who keeps calling them. “A friendly sounded woman on the other end claimed I requested health insurance information,” writes one mark. “She doggedly refused to deviate from her script.”
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/10/meet-the-robot-telemarketer-who-denies-shes-a-robot/
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
‘T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Ulysses – Alfred Lord Tennyson
A bit of fun.
CALLING ALL NUCLEAR POWER FANS
Exelon stock is near an all-time low. The Motley Fool says the stock is so cheap it may be good buy. If you believe in nuclear power, now could be a good time to put your money where your mouth is.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/15/1-nuclear-stock-thats-bigger-better-and-cheaper-th.aspx
It might be better to play the nuclear renaissance via uranium miner/supplier. Like Camco, CCJ, for instance.
Then there is this article:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1892051-denison-why-this-1-uranium-stock-could-go-nuclear-with-upside-in-january?source=yahoo
Strange that Seeking Alpha does not provide volumes.
Nuclear power’s future will not be bright as long as natural gas is cheap and abundant. So if you are for more nuclear power, I recommend (1) oppose more fracking (except in Oklahoma) because additional fracking will just increases the supply of gas and make even more of a bargain than it is now, and (2) favor exporting gas, which will add to demand for this fuel, and push prices up.
Nuclear power advocates who are market worshippers may find my first recommendations hard to swallow. But if you feel nuclear power is suffering from a bad rap and needs a little push, you may be willing to set aside your ideology for the better good. If not, you are a hopeless free-market fruit cake, and hope Santa ignores you.
Max_OK – nuclear power plants are being used and built around the world – not just in the US, or even just the West. I put up the numbers on one of my posts – many nuke plants are in the pipeline. The US is just missing a few of the trains.
Max_OK. It is perfectly logical to be for both nat gas and nuclear power at the same time. I am for both. And, all this talk about exporting LNG might not pan out. The US certainly isn’t the only country that has nat gas containing shale. If the shale boom spreads around the world, and it will so countries around Europe can free themselves from Russia, we won’t be exporting a lot of it.
The entire rationale is cost competitive energy. Of course if Exelon has good earning, effective management and an excellent price/earnings ratio it might be worth a look.
Making electricity in already existing nuclear plants is money for jam.
Uranium price charts:
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/uranium-oxide/
jim2, I’m motivated by the desire to make money off natural gas. I don’t know what your motivation is.
Chief, I did not mean to imply I am recommending Exelon stock as a buy. I don’t hold any individual stocks (only index funds), so I don’t make recommendations.
The day I take a stock tip from you Max_OK will be announced by flying pigs.
Twas more of a challenge than a stock pick, Chief.
Goodbye for now. See you soon.
Max_OK – I’m motivated by what is good for the USA. Cheap energy via nat gas is good. More reasonable regs for nuclear would also be good. Nuclear power can be cheap if it isn’t over-regulated.
Still waiting for Gates’s response to the following :
Going with your thermal gradient explanation, atmospheric temperature regulates ocean cooling.
So to regulate oceans to a higher temperature than before, the atmosphere too has to be at a higher temperature than before.
Which ISN’T happening right now; even the IPCC and other committed alarmists admit this.
This PAUSE meaning there has been NO reduced thermal gradient these last 17 years, any posited increased ocean heat cannot due the thermal gradient issue.
Which in turn means it also cannot be due to CO2, since CO2 is meant to warm the atmosphere (reducing the ocean-atmosphere thermal gradient; which ISN’T happening).
Sorry to have missed this question Gail. Yes, indeed, over the long-term it is atmospheric GH gas concentrations (the noncondensing ones) of CO2, methane, and N2O primarily that regulate the flow of energy from ocean to space, with the thermal gradient of the atmosphere dictated by those GH gases being the regulator or “control knob” between ocean and space. As a control knob, or regulator, it does not have to open more and more for more and more heat to be stored in the ocean. The atmosphere has been at it’s warmest levels on instrument record over the past 10 years, and thus the oceans have continued to accumulate energy. GH gas concentrations are going up far too fast currently for thermal equilibrium to be reached, so the oceans will continue to accumulate energy. As long as the input of energy to the ocean is greater than output, ocean heat content will of course go up, as it has been for many decades. With GH gas concentrations rising far more rapidly than can be balanced by negative feedbacks in the climate, atmospheric temperatures don’t have to keep rising for the ocean heat content to continue rising as input to the ocean continues to exceed output on an decadal basis. Even if GH gas concentrations magically stopped rising, it would still be many decades before energy input to the ocean would equal energy output once more.
Answer your question Gail? Or is it more pointless and unphysical babble?
R. Gates,
My question, again :
By your thermal gradient argument, the atmosphere needs to warm to slow the cooling of the oceans into it.
But the atmosphere has NOT warmed for the last 17 years (despite CO2 increases).
Therefore the atmosphere (and therefore also CO2 increases ) CANNOT have caused any ocean warming during this period.
—
Your initial comment is to agree.
But then you flatly contradict this by saying “As a control knob, or regulator, it does not have to open more and more for more and more heat to be stored in the ocean”.
Well done Gail – catch you later.
OK, I am going to disagree with Pekka here. Adding GHGs to the atmosphere does not cause it to warm. It actually has a net cooling effect because the atmosphere radiates to space more efficiently than it absorbs heat from the surface emission. Jim D
I guess we can all pack it in now.
That formulation was out of place, because surface emission was unchanged in that setup, and absorption changed very little. It turned out, however, that the initial direction of change in the heat content of the atmosphere is difficult to determine, because the increase in the radiation from the atmosphere to the surface seems to be about equal to the reduction of OLR at TOA.
That near equality is true for the global average. in tropics the initial change is warming of the atmosphere while in high latitude winter its cooling. (More generally it’s warming where absolute humidity is high and cooling where the humidity is low.)
The initial direction is not particularly important, because the surface starts to warm anyway and the surface and troposphere warm soon in unison.
This all seems very odd. The warming atmosphere is a result of a reduced mean free photon path – the atmosphere is in a higher energy state. The warmer atmosphere increases IR scattering – including both up and down – keeping the surface warmer and the oceans warming.
It doesn’t seem to take much to overthrow standard warming theory. A blog science site like the one you cite or wood for trees – and amateurs pushing buttons without understanding what they are doing – being able to asses whether the results have any semblance of sanity at all or having much of a theory.
Stop being diplomatic and call it for what it is.
The real atmosphere is far too complex for being described by any short statements. Only the imaginary cases defined by the requirement that only one factor is modified, and everything else is locked to the earlier state are simpler. The imaginary case I have discussed is the one, where CO2 concentration is increased suddenly everywhere in the atmosphere, and zero time is given for anything else to change. After this imaginary change in CO2 the radiative heat transfer reacts first, much faster than temperatures and other forms of heat transfer that change only as a consequence of the changing temperatures.
That imaginary situation is relatively easy to analyze, because radiative heat transfer is understood so well and accurately as long as the state of the atmosphere is given. Simple clear sky calculations based on standard atmospheric profiles tell quite a lot, but a full calculation would require specification of clouds as well, and using a larger number of atmospheric profiles determined from empirical observations.
Reading textbooks that discuss atmospheric science looking at different weather patterns reveals the complexity of the full set of phenomena that get involved (and they miss many additional effects totally in that), Understanding such basic issues as the atmospheric profiles turns out to be difficult when horizontal mixing affects it so strongly at various spatial scales. All kind of atmospheric instabilities are another big difficult issue for quantitative understanding, and formation of clouds perhaps the largest source of uncertainties for the analysis of the atmosphere taken alone. Bringing in the oceans and what’s understood about their behavior adds greatly uncertainties at longer time scales.
Listing what’s not known creates the impression that we cannot know anything, but starting from the other end, and trying to figure out, where models and other forms of understanding have succeeded, seems to lead to somewhat more optimistic conclusions. The uncertainties are certainly large, but perhaps the level of knowledge is after all better than what one would conclude from the approach of listing and assessing sources of uncertainties.
My impression is that the last sentence above is at the heart of the disagreement between some identifiable groups of active climate scientists. One group looks more at the achievements, the other at the remaining list of problems.
Just to close things out. The essence of the problem is that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. That is after all what it is all about. Arguing that it cools the atmosphere in some place at some time because the system is complex is diversionary nonsense. Just as oceans are a sink for CO2 in some places and a source in other – all that really matters is the aggregate statistics of the system. All the rest is just long winded justification for claiming something ultimately very silly. Defence of an off the cuff remark that was poorly conceived in the first place. It all starts with atmospheric warming and unless this is understood – causality goes astray in any conceptualisation of the processes.
The Sun heats the oceans – I think perhaps we should take that for granted even through it is dark half the time. A warmer atmosphere – all things being equal – reduces IR losses from the oceans. All things being equal – entropy is maximised eventually despite the extensive properties of a non-equilibrium and non-linear Earth system. All things being equal is an absolute nonsense as you suggest. But greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. It literally cannot be any other way – statistically – unless you want to join the skydragons.
BTW – Gail is perfectly right – an atmosphere that isn’t warming cannot reduce IR losses further despite tortuous circumlocutions. This mandates other processes – in the past decade from MODIS and CERES this is almost certainly changes in cloud radiative forcing.
Chief,
There’s only one correct answer to questions of physical mechanisms when they are described fully. The correct answer is known for some questions, some others it’s presently not fully known.
While the above is accepted people may still have differing opinions of the best way of describing the correct physics briefly and simply enough in a blog comment. There are also the chicken and egg problems. Two or more factors (say A and B) interact both ways. Some people say A is fundamental and B just follows from it, while others say the opposite. Often both are equally right (or have an equally limited view of the whole).
In several recent discussions the fight has been on the chicken and egg problem. In this and also some other recent threads R. Gates as been one of the writers who surely has essentially the right physics in mind, but is far too unwilling to accept that the correct physics can be looked at from a different angle, and then described in a different way. That has lead to unnecessary argumentation that has not clarified the issues in my judgment. Your comments seem to have sometimes the same problem, although not in as clear a way as those comments of R. Gates.
Another issue that mention is the importance of the issues discussed in many comments. The exchange I had with JimD was on an unimportant detail for the real outcome. Its justification is in my view in the details of physical understanding of the particular phenomena we were talking about. The actual physics is often easier to understand at the level of details, and in that the ultimate importance of that particular detail is not the relevant criterion, the criterion is, whether the discussion improves understanding and knowledge of physics of the participants and some of the readers.
We have only one world, but we may have different equally correct ways for describing it in words.
Sooo how much man made C02 is added to the atmosphere compared to natural. If C02 has any effect on temperatures again much effect does man made have compared to natural.
Considering the history of earth what is normal temperature, C02.
R. Gates summer happens also.
Need to look at net increase in CO2 caused by human activities compared to where we would be at this point in the interglacial without human activity. Suggest you read:
http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/Ruddiman.pdf
You’ll see the effects of human activity on GH gases and the climate likely started quite some time go, hence the term Anthropocene is appropriate.
Sorry, how much effect. Anyhow man made c02 is always argued ignoring the natural contribution.
Global warming is less about heat distribution and more about income distribution.
The Gore Effect continues …
Global Warming Scientists Meet During Record Cold in California
by Frances Martel 14 Dec 2013 800
The American Geophysical Union–a group of scientists among whom are many of the most respected names in global warming studies–held their annual fall meeting in San Francisco this week. The weather that greeted them had little warmth to boast, however: the Bay Area has seen dangerous, record-setting cold temperatures this week.
The AGU holds regular seasonal conferences in which top scientists from all earth and interplanetary science fields participate. This year’s meeting, beginning on December 9th and concluding on Friday, included several exhibitions on space exploration, extreme weather events, and studies on the impact of various natural energy resource gathering techniques on the planet. It also included a panel on the Arctic and the dangers of a “sustained warming trend in the region,” as well as a panel dedicated to the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/14/Top-Global-Warming-Scientists-Meet-In-Record-California-Colds
From http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
Sure sounds like here…
“After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common “internet trolls” looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.
As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.
Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn’t even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.”
Louise invites us to ignore that the alarmist consensus is all politically-funded, and that politics stands to make considerable gains from public acceptance of climate alarmism.
I wonder if she too is in the pocket of government?
Why do we have governments if every country, and why do they have the power they have?
How are the governments formed?
Are climate policy decisions most central in the influence of the governments on the citizens life?
Pekka,
Whatever the reason we have governments, and however they are formed, the fact remains that they have vested self-interest in the very climate alarmism that they are peddling. Only people who believe in Santa Claus and the like can imagine this does not colour their funding decisions in the direction of alarmism.
And this is but one of many areas of political action.
Gail,
I disagree. Specific interests of that nature are non-existent or negligible.
Some governments are certainly formed of politicians that consider climate change an important issue. Some may also include politicians who use climate change as an supporting argument for their other environment related policies. Politicians use always that kind of argumentation in support of policies that they favor.
Beyond these practices that apply to essentially all policy issues, there’s hardly anything special in the climate change related politics.
There are surely some biases in decisions that affect climate science, but they are not due to that kind of pressure or self-interest.
@pekka
I disagree. Specific interests of that nature are non-existent or negligible.
Government not interested in increasing taxes and its reach over society?? Come off it Pekka, they are concerned with little else.
So what we have is governments, using citizens’ money, funding and selecting a ‘science’ * that preaches alarm, which just happens to justify more taxes and government controls.
See the connection?
Oh, Pekka sees it alright; he just won’t admit it. Stonewalls a prison do he make.
===========
oops! another one bites the dust.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds
In the listened to idiots or deceived by cunning frauds category I guess falling for the old CIA bit tends to favor the listened to idiots defense.
All of this guys assets should be seized as part of the punishment and returned to the tax payers. From the description in the article, he appears to be sociopathic. A polypath?
From the article:
Potential for dual-horizon development has been an important emerging theme in the Eagle Ford Shale play. The most recent report of highly successful test results in the Upper Eagle Ford zone came from Marathon Oil (MRO) during the company’s Analyst Day last week.
Marathon disclosed that it has been testing the Upper Eagle Ford as well as the Lower Austin Chalk, which is deposited right on top of the Eagle Ford formation, to evaluate the opportunity to co-develop these two zones alongside with the primary Lower Eagle Ford horizon.
The company has recently initiated two Upper Eagle Ford / Lower Austin Chalk pilots. The pilots are located in the Karnes County as indicated on the map below with light-blue dots.
(click to enlarge)
(Source: Marathon Oil’s December 11, 2013 Analyst Day Presentation)
The horizontal laterals have landing position in the Lower Austin Chalk, immediately above the Eagle Ford top, and access both zones via fracture stimulation. Marathon is testing the Austin Chalk and Upper Eagle Ford directly over Lower Eagle Ford wells to see the performance of all the wells in the system as a co-development. The pilots’ configuration is shown in the upper right of the slide below.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1899841-eagle-ford-shale-2014-will-be-the-year-of-vertical-downspacing
From the article:
Amazing Economics
Ultra’s transaction reveals outstanding drilling economics that, at the high end of the range, exceed 600% at the well level (assuming November strip prices for commodities).
(click to enlarge)
(Source: Ultra Petroleum November 1, 2013 Investor Presentation)
The extraordinary returns are defined by attractive oil-dominated EURs and very low drilling costs – just under $1.5 million – on Ultra’s acreage (picture below).
(click to enlarge)
(Source: Ultra Petroleum November 1, 2013 Investor Presentation)
Expected EURs appear comparable for Ultra and Bill Barrett’ acreage – in the 250 Mbo per well range. Notably, Ultra is using two wells – the A North well and the Rogers 16-43 – that appear to be Bill Barrett’s wells to anchor the cross-section shown on the picture in the previous subsection.
Bill Barrett’s Rogers 16-43 well provides an important case study because the well is one of very few horizontal wells in the area that has been on production for a significant period of time. The Rogers well has more than 4.5 years of production history and has cumulatively produced 171,000 barrels as of last summer. While the well’s initial production rate may appear unimpressive – it peaked at less than 130 barrels of oil per day – the well managed to produce >100 barrels of oil per day for 32 continuous months and was still producing at approximately 70 barrels a day most recently.
According to Ultra, the Rogers 16-43 well is not an anomaly, with the flat production profile also demonstrated by several other wells in the East Bluebell area as well as in the Three Rivers area. Ultra is using a hyperbolic decline model that it believes is typical for Lower Green River oil wells in the area. For the Rogers well, Ultra is using a b-factor of 1.6 and estimates its EUR to be 530 MBo, which is more than two times higher than the average EUR Ultra is forecasting for its PUD locations.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1899371-bill-barrett-strong-read-across-from-ultra-petroleums-uinta-acquisition
US Feds request comments on social cost of carbon:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact
Be heard, at least a bit. Comments can simply be sent to SCC@omb.gov. This is the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, which I helped set up in 1981.
Looks like they are requesting comments on what the SSC should be, not IF the science is good enough to implement some penalty for CO2 emmissions. Kind of like when the Democrats ask Republicans how THEY would socialize heath care. Wrong question.
Yes they are assuming IPCC CAGW, which is presently US Government policy, so the SSC calculation will be used to estimate the supposed benefits of CO2 controls. Skeptical comments are therefore needed, especially to support skeptical litigation in the days and years to come.
From the article:
Global warming? Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent!
1:07 PM 12/16/2013
Michael Bastasch
See All Articles
Email Michael Bastasch
Subscribe to RSS
It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels.
“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.
The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 9,000 cubic kilometers (2,100 cubic miles) by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) during the same time last year.
This came as a shock to researchers who saw Arctic sea ice coverage shrink to a documented low in 2012. However, now sea ice coverage has expanded to reach the sixth record low, according to AFP.
“We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume,” said Rachel Tilling of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling in a statement. “But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic.”
“In previous summers, some of the [multi-year ice] migrated over to the Alaska and Siberia areas where it melted,” Dr. Don Perovich, a sea-ice expert at Dartmouth College, told BBC News. “But this past summer, it stayed in place because of a change in wind patterns. And so there’ll likely be more multi-year ice next year than there was this year.”
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/
From the article:
North America to Drown in Oil as Mexico Ends Monopoly
By Joe Carroll and Bradley Olson Dec 16, 2013 11:54 AM CT
494 Comments Email Print
Save
Photographer: Susana Gonzalez/Bloomberg
The Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) La Muralla IV deep sea crude oil platform in the waters… Read More
The flood of North American crude oil is set to become a deluge as Mexico dismantles a 75-year-old barrier to foreign investment in its oil fields.
Plagued by almost a decade of slumping output that has degraded Mexico’s take from a $100-a-barrel oil market, President Enrique Pena Nieto is seeking an end to the state monopoly over one of the biggest crude resources in the Western Hemisphere. The doubling in Mexican oil output that Citigroup Inc. said may result from inviting international explorers to drill would be equivalent to adding another Nigeria to world supply, or about 2.5 million barrels a day.
That boom would augment a supply surge from U.S. and Canadian wells that Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) predicts will vault North American production ahead of every OPEC member except Saudi Arabia within two years. With U.S. refineries already choking on more oil than they can process, producers from Exxon to ConocoPhillips are clamoring for repeal of the export restrictions that have outlawed most overseas sales of American crude for four decades.
“This is going to be a huge opportunity for any kind of player” in the energy sector, said Pablo Medina, a Latin American upstream analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. in Houston. “All the companies are going to have to turn their heads and start analyzing Mexico.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-drown-in-oil-as-mexico-ends-monopoly.html
From the article:
Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists’ search for proof going cold
Even China’s coal-burning is offered to explain lack of global warming.
More from Register Opinion Columnists
John Phillips: Politicians, lawyers making doctors feel ill
Carl Cannon: Ted Cruz’s history lesson
Troy Senik: A Republic, if we can keep it
By MARK LANDSBAUM / Register columnist
Recall global warming hysteria’s halcyon days? Just 13 years ago, Dr. David Viner, senior scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit, confidently predicted that, within a few years, winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.”
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Article Tab: image1-Mark Landsbaum: Climate alarmists’ search for proof going cold
MCT ILLUSTRATION
Of course, that doesn’t mesh with what happened. This past October, the UK Express headlined, “Worst winter for decades: Record-breaking snow predicted for November.”
By the end of November, Brits were shivering, “as Britain faces snow, ice and plummeting temperatures,” reported the Mirror newspaper. “Most of Scotland has been issued severe weather warnings for ice, and temperatures are expected to remain low, causing problems with snow and ice across the country.” Winter yet lay ahead.
We shouldn’t pick on Great Britain. There is plenty of global warming foolishness here at home. Recall James Hansen, global warming guru whose alarmist campaign was underwritten by his NASA paycheck. By the 2020s, Hansen predicted in 1986, the U.S. average annual temperature would rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit, or more, and up to 3 degrees by the 2010s.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/warming-593355-global-temperature.html
R gates, seems like a poor correlation to me. The tiny amount of human contribution is turning earths climate on its head just does not compute.
Now if man has happened to delay the next ice event in this running ice age is that not a good thing?
Except nc, the anthropogenic contribution to GH gases is no longer tiny. It is cummulative over the past several centuries, adding at least 40% to the overall total. You are right that holding off the next glacial advance is a good thing– but sometimes it can be too much of a good thing. Anthropocene management is the only viable way forward– finding exactly what level of greenhouse gases keep up in the Goldilocks zone.
Goldilocks’ cup of porridge is cooling, for how long even kim doesn’t know.
===========
RG, you have overconfidence in the ability of GHGs to manage the energy budget, and in society’s perspicacity even if GHGs could do what you hope. But I admire your optimism, and faith in human control of these vast forces.
==========
From the article:
Another cycle of the Climate Change Scare Machine is laid bare. David Rose explains how those lobbying and advising the government on green policies are benefiting from green projects. It’s all in the Daily Mail. The Green Industrial Complex has simply bought everyone off, and, cleverly, done it with your money.
It’s the new business model really. Why work for customers and compete in the free market? Instead scare the public, sell them the “answer”, and to make sure they pay, convince the government that you need grants and gravy (or you’ll call them names). Pretty soon, the government forces the public to pay, disguises and splits the payments into a thousand parts, and tells the people it is for their own good. The fun ramps up when the government hires you back to advise it on how to keep the gravy flowing to you.
What is really mindboggling is that it’s so blatant. Many of these connections “exposed” by Rose are listed on the CCC website, the conflicts are obvious. Why it wasn’t exposed years ago? As I keep saying, the problem is not so much that there are people on the take (there always will be) the real issue IS the media. Someone tell me why the British Public pays the BBC news service?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/climate-fat-cats-exposed-with-naked-conflicts-of-interest-where-was-the-bbc/
No conspiricy here … move along.
Diogenese2, @ 12:50 PM on Dec. 19, 2013 on the AR5 thread @ the Bish’s has an interesting take on the twisting British politics which provoked David Rose’s attack on the CCC. D2 might be right; R2, might be the wrong druid he seeks.
============
Dang, it’s 1:50 PM on the ‘AR5 Inquiry-written evidence’ thread @ bishophill.squarespace.com
==============
Buffet has been buddy-buddy with Barry at times, so I’m taking this with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, here it is.
From the article:
Wind Power Rivals Coal With $1 Billion Order From Buffett
By Ehren Goossens Dec 16, 2013 6:01 PM CT
The decision by Warren Buffett’s utility company to order about $1 billion of wind turbines for projects in Iowa shows how a drop in equipment costs is making renewable energy more competitive with power from fossil fuels.
Turbine prices have fallen 26 percent worldwide since the first half of 2009, bringing wind power within 5.5 percent of the cost of electricity from coal, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a unit of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), yesterday announced an order for 1,050 megawatts of Siemens AG (SIE) wind turbines in the industry’s largest order to date for land-based gear.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/wind-power-rivals-coal-with-1-billion-order-from-buffett.html
102 conservative groups target wind power subsidies
4:37 PM 11/05/2013
Michael Bastasch
See All Articles
Email Michael Bastasch
Subscribe to RSS
A coalition of 102 conservative groups are pressing Congress to end federal subsidies to the wind power industry, arguing that 20 years of taxpayer support has yielded no benefit.
“The principal federal support for the wind energy industry is scheduled to expire at the end of this year,” reads the letter from the conservative groups led by Americans for Prosperity. “The undersigned organizations and the millions of Americans we represent stand opposed to extending the production tax credit (PTC).”
The federal Wind Production Tax Credit was extended until the end of 2013 as part of last year’s deal to avoid government spending cuts and sharp tax increases. The extension split Republicans, pitting lawmakers from wind states against those from non-wind states.
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley has been a strong proponent of keeping in place taxpayer subsidies for wind power, but has also supported phasing out the subsidies over time so the industry can become self-sufficient.
“Continued investment in wind-energy production emphasizes the value and success of the federal production tax credit,” Grassley said. “Wind energy has proven that it’s a force in America’s energy supply, providing clean, renewable, and home-grown power. Wind energy comes from local farms, it’s for local customers and, most often, it adds investment value to local communities.”
However, wind power has been receiving subsidies since 1992, according to conservatives, with little to show.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/05/102-conservative-groups-target-wind-power-subsidies/
Feinstein, Coburn Seek to Eliminate Corn in Biofuels Mandate
By Amy Harder
December 12, 2013
A duo of strange bedfellows introduced legislation Thursday that would significantly reform—and reduce in scope—the renewable fuel standard, a mandate that requires increasingly large amounts of biofuels to be blended with gasoline.
The bill, introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., would eliminate the corn-ethanol portion of the RFS but retain the smaller mandates that require volumes of advanced biofuels not derived from feedstock, such as cellulosic. Feinstein and Coburn have worked together in the past on eliminating subsidies for the corn-ethanol industry.
In a rarity for energy policy, this legislation is attracting support right out of the gate from both sides of the aisle. Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Kay Hagan, D-N.C., Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., are also cosponsors.
Another unlikely pair—Sens. Ben Cardin, D-Md., and David Vitter, R-La.—is working on separate legislation that also seeks to keep the advanced-biofuels goals of the program intact while removing altogether or reducing the corn-ethanol part. Timing on this legislation is unclear, a spokesperson for Cardin said Wednesday.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/feinstein-coburn-seek-to-eliminate-corn-in-biofuels-mandate-20131212
I can’t see that any of the sponsers are from corn belt states.
My gut says this ain’t gonna happen. This is a base rate guess. Attempts to cut, reduce, or otherwise horse around with ag subsidies have a very poor track record.
This, though, is an ag subsidy of a different color.
=================
Warmest November globally on instrument record and highest CO2, Methane, and N2O in millions of years. Odd way for the planet to be “cooling”. Climate energy imbalance continues to be set on accumulate…that’s why 400ppm CO2 matters.
Gee, now I’m confused. That is based on the (adjusted, naturally) NASA land and sea surface temperatures.
And I could swear you warmists have been complaining forever around here that that is no real measure of “global heat content”. It’s all about the deep ocean.
You guys wanna pick one?
You have to heat the planet to kool it. Proof will be an El Nino in 2014. Then you’ll really know kooling has locked on.
We get both. Object all you want.
And this is fun.
“With a combined land and ocean surface temperature of 56.6 degrees Fahrenheit, November 2013 also was the 345th consecutive month – and the 37th November in a row – with a global temperature higher than the 20th century average, the NOAA report added.
…
No record cold monthly temperatures were reported.”
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/november-2013-global-temperature-was-hottest-record-20131217
versus
“According to statistics from the National Climatic Data Center, the U.S. had 9,023 daily record high temperatures through Dec. 1, compared to 9,932 daily record lows. About 1,000 cold temperature records were set or tied during the last week alone.”
http://science.time.com/2013/12/12/november-was-cold-but-the-climate-keeps-warming/
No record cold temps, or 100 record cold temps? What’s a poor skeptic to think?
“We get both. Object all you want.”
We get both? What is this, dodge ball? And here I thought it was supposed to be science.
You have to heat the planet to kool it? And a single El Nino will prove what?
I know it’s late, but even willard is generally more decipherable than this.
R Gates, the not-very-sceptical warmist
Higher GH gas levels in the atmosphere lead to modestly warmer atmospheric temperatures but much more energy being stored in the ocean. The thermal gradient “control valve” function of noncondensing GH gases is the primary way they keep more energy in the climate system.
That is what she said too…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/17/merkel-compares-nsa-stasi-obama
according to their record, it will be around here-somewhere-for-ever they say.
First time since 1964 there were no hurricanes above category 1.
Funny way for global warming to produce more severe weather, huh?
And gee, now I learn that the freakish lack of damaging hurricanes occurred partly during the warmest November in like ever?
Someday the children won’t remember what hurricanes are…
ROFLMAO
David Springer said:
“First time since 1964 there were no hurricanes above category 1.”
___
You are of course referring to the Atlantic Hurricane season. Of course, judging the amount of energy in the climate system by the number of hurricanes produced in one region of the world is myopic at best. Energy in the system is manifested in many ways. It should be noted that it takes the right mix of both ocean and atmospheric conditions to produce hurricanes, and that energy in the ocean is not in itself enough. It should also be noted that a continual stream of moisture during the normal September hurricane season moved large masses of water from the tropical regions up to regions of the front range of Colorado and new Mexico. This caused massive flooding in Colorado. So even though hurricanes did not form as atmospheric conditions were not favorable, the energy was still present to move large volumes of water to normally dry Colorado and cause floods.
Finally of course, we should note that there were a large number of hurricanes in the western Pacific this year (with very high ocean temperatures), and we even had what may have been the largest hurricane yet recorded, or certainly close, that took thousands of lives as it roared across the Philippines.
Ocean Heat content globally has been running quite high, as atmospheric GH gas levels are keeping the oceans quite warm.
I’d accuse Nic Lewis of belaboring the obvious but given the MSM won’t report facts contrary to CAGW I suppose it can’t be said enough that the observations support, at best, a very small positive water vapor feedback and at worst zero water vapor feedback.
Note that some of the CAGW cheerleaders are willing to accept that solar variation is the culprit i.e. the quiet sun thus lending credence from the loyal opposition to there may be something of merit in Svensmark and CLOUD. And just imagine, they now say, if the sun were active instead of quiet we’d be global warming on steroids (or something to that effect). Suddenly natural variation can be very large. I imagine the sun stays quiet for a century or more like it has done in the past in similar situations (Dalton and Maunder minimums) and another Little Ice Age is more likely in the offing than a Roman or Medieval warm period. CO2 then becomes a knight in shining armor which avoided catastrophic global cooling.
What is going to happen is genetic science and engineering will whip up critters that eat atmospheric CO2 and piss gasoline. It’s already happening. Literally. See here:
http://joulefuels.com/
Click to watch the video. It uses no arable land, no potable water, is carbon neutral, and already produces fuel without subsidy that is competitive with fossil fuels at $70/bbl oil. The players and contractors read like a who’s who’s in manufacturing (3M, DOW, Fluor), genetic engineering (headed by George Church in Massachusetts), and even automakers (Audi).
Soon the problem isn’t going to be too much CO2 in the air but rather too little. Carbon is a basic building block for a very wide range of materials from volatile to durable. Bacteria are little robots that have adapted to extreme conditions all over the planet and among the oldest and most successful are the original photosynthesizers – cyanobacteria. These are very complicated machines but machines nonetheless. As machines they can and are being reverse engineered so they may be reconstructed and programmed to do things humans want. This technology is in its infancy but it’s progressing at a rate reminiscent of Moore’s Law. It’s really all about refining and making cheaper and fully automated the laboratory equipment that makes custom design, assembly, and test of artificial genomes possible. It is getting cheaper and faster with no end in sight. Integrated circuits are now shuffling around reactants to a million test tubes on a wafer the size of a postage stamp. The first fully artificial genome was brought to life a few years ago. It was constructed of mail-order DNA snippets from a catalog. Fuel directly from sunlight, co2, and non-potable water so cheap it’s almost free is just the tip of the iceberg for this technology. Cars and aircraft and homes and cities can be constructed entirely of carbon compounds if we engineers only had the ability to say where to put what bit. Bacteria then become self-reproducing programmable factories for building stuff out of carbon compounds with perfection at every scale from microscopic and larger. This is the future if we don’t screw up somehow. The technological writing is on the wall.