by Frank Bosse
Equilibrium climate sensitivity computed from the latest energy imbalance data.
The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a key issue for estimating climate sensitivity.
If EEI is positive then the Earth’s climate system gains energy; if it’s negative the system loses energy, largely due to the energy flow into or out of the oceans.
A recent paper, Dewitte et al (2019), henceforth D19, derives changes in the EEI during the period 2000-2018, using data from the satellite CERES mission.
They shift the CERES values so that their average matches an EEI estimate from another study that is based on in-situ ocean heat content (OHC) data from ARGO buoys, and drift-correct them.
D19 concludes:
“At first sight it seems surprising that the EEI is decreasing during a period of continued greenhouse gas emission.”
Fig.1: The slightly decreasing EEI trend (green) during 2000…2018. (Source: Fig. 14 from D19)
It is indeed surprising that the EEI not climbed during the last 19 years when taking into account the ongoing increase of forcing, arising mainly from rising greenhouse gas levels.
In D19 the authors considered the plausibility of this outcome. They bolster the result with inspection of OHC data, calculating the time derivative dOHC/dt (which represent ~93% of the EEI) and the trend in it.
It’s not the only paper which estimates a near zero EEI trend in the 21st century. Also a review paper ( Meyssignac et al (2019)) comes to this outcome, see their Fig. 12 for 2006…2016. For a further check I calculated the derivative dOHC/dt for two year intervals, which are a measure of the EEI ( not the absolute OHC, see this report, section 2b) from three observational OHC products ( Domingues/Levitus; Ishii; Cheng) from this source.
The fourth cited dataset, Resplandy et al (2018), I skipped due to the retraction of the related paper, the mindful reader will remember.
The development of the EEI deduced from Cheng, this dataset was also used in L/C 18:
Fig.2: The dOHC/dt development with a 15 years Loess smooth
The result gives a very similar picture, indicating a near zero (or even a slightly falling) trend during 1999….2018 for the EEI.
What does this mean for the climate sensitivity?
Equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity (ECS) can be estimated as the (scaled) slope of the relationship between observed Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) and the excess of effective radiative forcing (ERF) over EEI, provided that the influence of natural climate system internal variability is small enough over the analysis period.
When there is an EEI standstill over a given period, then during this time the slope of the relationship between the observed GMST and the ERF reflects the climate sensitivity in equilibrium.
Sensitivity estimate for 1999…2018
The observed time span is very short for this purpose, only 20 years. This limits the toolbox available for doing calculations. In Lewis/Curry (2018) (LC18) the authors take changes between base and -final periods for both ERF and GMST data, see their section 4.
This avoids some pitfalls from the dilution problem of regression approaches which biases the slope estimations low. However, that method is only suitable with long enough time windows. Therefore I apply the regression method, including all annual data, in this case not using OLS (for Ordinary Least Square) regression but Deming regression. This method takes into account the uncertainties in variables from both datasets used, ERF and GMST, and should avoid the regression dilution problem.
The short time window will make optimizing the S/N ratio very crucial due to the fluctuating non-anthropogenic influences. Therefore I tried to reduce the “climate noise” in the GMST dataset- HadSST4 based Cowtan and Way (C&W) in this case.
I adjusted it for ENSO, solar and volcano influences, very similarly as was shown here. The “filter” was developed by Grant Foster aka “tamino”, released here.
The ERF data used are the same as used in L/C18, updated by the lead author to 2018.
Results
Fig.3: Deming Regression of the ERF on filtered GMST for 1999…2018 when the EEI was in a temporary standstill. All estimated natural forcing and ENSO variability was filtered out in the GMST, therefore the total anthropogenic ERF is used.
The trend slope reflects the observed climate feedback parameter λ (in W/m²/K).
The R² of the calculated trend is 0.88, which is a remarkably high value, when one takes the short time span involved into account.
The derived ECS best estimate (based on an ERF of 3.8 W/m² when doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere) is:
3.8 W/m² / 2.21 W/m²/K =1.72 K
Conclusion
I calculated the climate sensitivity in a temporary standstill period (or slightly decreasing) as it was detected in the observations of the EEI during 1999 to 2018. The ECS value of 1.72K as the best estimate is in excellent agreement with the value found in LC18, 1.66K using the then current C&W GMST dataset (see Tab.3 of this paper).
The published ECS-values of the CMIP6 models have a mean above 4 K (see this recent paper) that is higher by a factor of 2.4 than observed here. This growing discrepancy between observed values of ECS reduces the credibility of the high model estimates.
Moderation note: As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.
Another nail in the “climate models do NOT run too warm” coffin.
Well if the surface temperature is still rising while the EEI is falling, then that’s a big flag saying “Maybe the cloud albedo has something to do with it”.
Temperature should rise for as long as EEI remains positive. As I have showed the speed of warming is decreasing, which is consistent with a decreasing EEI.
https://i.imgur.com/7PksH7H.png
The decrease in EEI happens at the right time to be an effect of the 65-yr multidecadal oscillation discovered in 1994 by Schlesinger & Ramankutti.
The logical conclusion is that GHGs are not controlling EEI.
The atmosphere contains some 2% of global energy – and changes for many reasons on many scales. Ocean heat content is a much better metric.
“Ocean heat content is a much better metric.” Yes, on the time scale of centuries. Also difficult to measure.
Curious George: Moreover the absolute OHC is not “a much better metric” for EEI but the time derivative of it (dOHC/dt). See the post.
The ocean heat content curve is inflected upwards showing increasing EEI. The limit to the instantaneous rate of change is the simplest idea in calculus.
RIE, +1
(we could actually see surface cooling as the ocean continues to warm)…
The majority of the global temperature datasets show signs of acceleration since 1979
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/08/global-temperature-update-6/
Such acceleration is also true for Argo measured ocean temperatures (The 0-2000 m layer represents around 80% of the global heat-sink)
Tamino cooks the data with his special recipe “of removing the influence of el Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variations”.
And HadCRUT4 does not show acceleration as anybody can check from the data. The others I have not looked, nor I care to look.
Your observations about EEI, CO2, and velocity of warming of the atmosphere are also consistent with the rate-of-change of the ocean heat content.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S2-_YVTcTZU/XiHZuLhRRbI/AAAAAAAAB_8/OHY54zMxmis-dwdPMO0__lwXv_RL8CcfQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Heat_Content.jpg
Good observation.
Javier said:
“Tamino cooks the data with his special recipe “of removing the influence of el Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variations”.
Are you that ignorant to not understand how to isolate a signal from the environment?
In fact I am not ignorant enough to not understand that since we do not know the direct and indirect effects of El Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variations on temperature we cannot properly subtract them from the temperature record. What Tamino does is guesswork disguised as statistical hocus pocus.
Javier said:
“we cannot properly subtract them from the temperature record.”
Yet, you think you can add all sorts of orbital features to recreate the temperature record. What an adorable little scheme to concoct — do as I say not as I do.
I don’t recreate anything, I just compare two things. The crucial difference in case you are unable to get it is that I don’t alter the data. Every time someone alters the data he is claiming that he knows better what the data should be. That is rarely the case.
Yes, and you can compare two things by removing the effects of what are referred to as nuisance variables (a statistics term). Tamino is removing these variables that have a zero-sum effect in the long-term. ENSO has a mean of zero and the impact of volcanic eruptions die off within a few years. The sunspot term is almost insignificant.
This is better than making up stuff like you are doing.
There’s plenty of bibliography indicating those assumptions might not be correct. If they are not correct the changes made to the data are incorrect. In science it is very important to know what parts of your hypothesis rest on assumptions that have not been proven correct.
When estimating the anthropogenic influence as it was the target of the post (to estimate the ECS) it seems to be helpful to adjust the GMST for this. It’s clear that ENSO, vulcano and solar is NOT anthropogenic?
Yes, helpful but impossible. Several assumptions have to be correct for those adjustments to be correct. Climate is extremely complex, and claiming that one is capable of isolating one or more variables is often found not to be the case.
As an example, nobody has been able to quantify the long term indirect effects of solar variability, yet paleoclimate data supports that it is a very important factor.
With the adjustments a fiction is created that we know the anthropogenic influence on climate. We don’t.
Javier:
You say “as an example, nobody has been able to quantify the long term indirect effects of solar variability, yet paleoclimate data supports that it is a very important factor”.
No it is an UNKNOWN factor. This is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to learn anything about solar variability from any proxy measurements within our atmosphere, Any circulating SO2 aerosols will interfere with the incoming solar radiation and give the false conclusion that the sun’s output has changed. .
You also said “With the adjustments a fiction is created that we know the anthropogenic influence on climate. We don’t” ,
Actually, we do..
If anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions increase, temperatures decrease. If they are decreased, as from Clean Air efforts, anomalous temperatures will increase. This a falsifiable and validated fact. .
“With the adjustments a fiction is created that we know the anthropogenic influence on climate. We don’t “
Thank you. Until we can establish all facts as actual facts for the last several thousand years, it seems an impossible task.
Robert: Ocean Heat Content *should* be a better metric. Unfortunately it’s measurement is poorly constrained, badly spliced, and unfortunately adjusted by people who are certain it MUST conform to their pet hypothesis.
It’s long past time Climate Science got a data standards agency like engineering disciplines have.
You will find that I focus entirely on Argo data compiled at the Scripps Institute using the Roemmich-Gilson climatology. You might find that it is much more precise than the +/- 5 W/m2 gap in the CERES energy in less energy out budget.
The simplistic notion of ECS finds no clear support in EEI for a simple reason: CO2 concentration is simply NOT a “forcing” in any rigorous physical sense of the term.
What about Phil Jones’ claim that the rates of warming of the last three warmings (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 ) are statistically indistinguishable? (question A at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm ). The first two were with before man emitted much CO2 (a 50 to one ratio of man’s Co2 emission between the start of the first warming and last – http://www.debunkingclimate.com/co2_rate_of_warming.html).
If man’s CO2 has any effect at all, why were the rates similar while man’s CO2 increased?
What about the Minoan, Roman & Medieval warm periods, all of which were warmer than now AND about 1000 years apart?
Why did whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly stop so that CO2 could take its place?
JimK:
You ask “What about the Minoan, Roman, & Medieval warm periods, all of which were warmer than now AND were about 1000 years apart? Why did whatever caused those earlier warm periods to stop so that CO2 could take its place?
The earlier warm periods were periods of LOW volcanic activity, so they were not spewing dimming SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere. All ended when volcanic activity increased, and the atmospheric levels of SO2 rose.
Since the end of the LIA, circa 1850, temperatures have been trying to rise to the earlier levels because of fewer volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions, but they have been prevented from doing so because their SO2 emissions have largely been replaced by those of the concurrent Industrial Revolution, from the burning of fossil fuels.
That is, until the mid-1970’s, when global Clean Air efforts began reducing SO2 aerosol emissions, and temperatures began to resume their natural rise..
NOTHING to do with CO2, just fewer dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere!
Hello JimK
I think your point is a good one and maybe it can be generalized if we let go of the cause and effect assumptions that are always constructed post hoc in a form of circular reasoning. If we look at the whole of the Holocene what we see is a series of violent and chaotic cycles of warming and cooling at centennial and millennial time scales.
In that context the current warming does not seem unusual.
Please see:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/
We know that the radiative forcing of CO2 is logarithmic as stated in IPCC TAR 1.3.1 p93. If we collate the rising global CO2 (Mauna Loa) against global temperature (NASA GISS V4) we witness the decline in CO2 radiative forcing as it transverses the logarithmic curve.
The first 37 ppm (300 to 337) forced 48% of the total global temperature rise from 1910, the next 37ppm (338 to 373 ppm) forced 28% of the total global temperature rise and the next 37 ppm (374 to (411) forced 23% of the total global temperature rise.
The declining EEI is another confirmation that CO2 is losing its ability to force temperatures as it increases and that the IPCCs CMIP5 analysis of global temperature rise is overestimated.
Paul,
Not relevant. Frank has used forcing values which are already calculated based on a logarithmic relationship with concentrations.
Dewitte et al’s error bar is 1-sigma, so at 2-sigma their value for the energy imbalance is −0.16 ± 0.22 W/m2dec. It’s not statistically significant at the 95% level, and that’s before considering autocorrelation, which will increase the error bars even more.
Also, their 2000-2018 trend for incoming solar irradiation is −0.07 ± 0.01 (1 σ) W/m2dec. But 18-19 years is about 1.5 solar cycles, and that extra half-cycle invalidates using a linear trend, just as calculating the linear trend of a sine function from 0 to 3*pi/2 doesn’t give an accurate view of the function’s longer trend, which is zero.
It seems very premature to get too excited about this result.
“It seems very premature to get too excited about this result.”
Especially while CO2 follows, not leads temperature, didn’t cause earlier WARMER periods but is claimed to cause the current one, and higher CO2 levels recently, didn’t make the recent warm period rate of increase greater than earlier ones (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 ) with lower CO2 levels.
Especially while CO2 follows, not leads temperature….
Oh please. We have an open spigot spouting CO2 into the atmosphere. In such a case CO2 clearly leads.
Since you were talking about model and observed results for net radiation at the TOA (R), I decided to look at 101 RCP 4.5 (42 models) runs for R trends with OLS corrected for autocorrelation for the time periods 2000-2019 and 1861-2019.
I was a bit surprised to find that none of the 101 runs for the 2000-2019 period had a significant trend (95% CI) and in fact not even close. For the 1861-2019 period all the runs had a very significant trend.
In other words having a significant trend like that in the graph for the unadjusted Ceres observed R for the 20 year period would have to be considered a very rare occurrence with the CMIP5 models and having no significant trend like that in the adjusted Ceres R would be a very common occurrence with the models. The original unadjusted Ceres trend from the graph does have a significant trend after adjusting for autocorrelation. The average trend slope, standard deviation of R and the ar1 values for the 2000-2019 and 1861-2019 periods for the RCP 4.5 models were:
For 2000-2019: slope=0.0054, standard deviation=0.282, ar1=-0.10
For 1861-2019: slope=0.0049, standard deviation=0.440, ar1=0.32
In such a case CO2 clearly leads.
CO2 went up off the chart while temperature has stayed near the coldest of the last ten thousand years. The climate system has powerful factors to control temperature, a trace gas is not one of them.
@davidappell “Oh please. We have an open spigot spouting CO2 into the atmosphere. In such a case CO2 clearly leads.”
But..but…David. The data do not support any “leading”. There is NO evidence that CO2 change has ever preceded – preceded – a reversal of temperature. Then, more erecently, we emerged from the LIA around 1840, well before human CO2 production took off in 1880. Temp then cooled to 1910, then rose 1920 to 1943, then cooled to 1965, despite the CO2 we produced in WWII and post war reconstruction.
David, of course one should not get “too excited” when looking at observations and doing some calculations. I wasn’t, I hope. However: in the last few weeks the excitement was about the new CMIP 6 sensitivity mean. And IMO one can’t bolster such high values when looking at any observed issue. BTW, demanding any statistically significance for such a short periode is a little over the top, isn’t it? The observations reportet in D19 point to a lower sensitivity, not less, not more. I hope the post is clear enough in this relation.
The observations reportet in D19 point to a lower sensitivity
The observations referenced in D19 are CERES-Ebafv4.0. That shows a strong upward trend in EEI. What would your sensitivity test return for the actual CERES data?
D19 adjusted the trend based on an assumption that a non-zero mode of relative regional changes comparing 2009-2018 with 2000-2009 indicated a satellite drift. However, I’ve now tested this assumption applying the same test across some climate models and, and as I suspected, this mode shift happens there too, with clear and all-sky in unison. All their mode test showed is that there is a systematic trend in the data. Testing their assumption that this trend was non-climatic against climate models should have been the first thing they did.
I suspect the authors don’t understand that most of the decrease in shortwave reflection in CERES is due to greenhouse gases, primarily water vapour, and therefore does happen quite systematically in the clear sky and all-sky.
PaulS – do you have a graph of this – CERES-Ebafv4.0. That shows a strong upward trend in EEI – for the 2000 to as close to present as possible?
JCH,
The data is freely available from here
Here’s a quick plot of global net flux (EEI):
https://bonjourplanetearth.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres4.jpg
Trend from 2000 through 2019 is 0.4W/m2/decade.
Thanks.
PaulS: You should email the lead author(s) asking about your diverging result for EEI.
frankclimate,
I’m just plotting the actual final CERES Ebafv4 net flux data directly. The authors are aware of the divergence from actual CERES data because their paper is about producing that divergence.
I may email the authors about the issue of testing their core assumption against climate models.
PaulS: As I wrote: “They shift the CERES values so that their average matches an EEI estimate from another study that is based on in-situ ocean heat content (OHC) data from ARGO buoys, and drift-correct them.”
I also made a cross check with available dOHC/dt datasets ( see Fig. 2) and this bolsters the outcome of the study too.
I’m more excited about high climate ECS than ever before. CMIP6 is like a breath of fresh, hyper elevational air.
JCH: “Sometimes all I need is the air that I breeze”…with opologize to “The Hollies” :-)
PS: “breath” of course.
BTW, demanding any statistically significance for such a short periode is a little over the top, isn’t it?
How? These are statistical results. They’re subject to the usual strictures and analysis on such data.
frankclimate,
Yes, the problem is that the basis for their drift correction doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Literally all they did was find a trend in the data and remove it on the assumption that trend=drift, without checking whether such a trend is an expected consequence of rising greenhouse gas concentrations (hint: it is).
There are some inconsistency problems across a number of datasets relevant to EEI, which really needs to be addressed more. You’ve plotted the Cheng OHC data, which does imply some deceleration, but Levitus OHC shows clear acceleration from the 2000s to 2010s. So two major OHC datasets are inconsistent with each other. Levitus is broadly consistent with CERES Ebafv4.
We can also look at altimeter sea level data, which has shown an accelerated rate over the past several years in context of no apparent acceleration in mass change. Sea Level – Mass component implies a acceleration in the thermosteric component which is very similar in magnitude to that found in CERES Ebafv4, but very inconsistent with Cheng and a bit greater than found by Levitus.
paulskio: thanks for your detailled resonse !
re D15: As I wrote: I took the outcome of this paper. If you worry about some conclusion the best way would be to adress it to the authors.
re OHC datasets: I had a look at the three datasets I cited and for the defined time window ( 1999…2017) all of them gave not an acceleration but a (tiny) downward trend in dOHC/dt:
https://i.imgur.com/duEvCcz.jpg
re SLR: it’s ( in the trendresiduals) strongly infected by ENSO. The research about steric SLR is ongoing AFAIK. If your conclusions hold is an open question.
PS: SLR ( steric) see this paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308
In Fig.3 b they estimate the steric part and it doesen’t contradict the dOHC/dt estimation. I can see no acceleration but also a (tiny) downwardtrend after 2000 in the trendresiduals.
PSPS: The uncertainty in the estimations of steric SLR is enlighted also here: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10712-016-9387-x.pdf . Care should be taken when arguing. IMO the consideration of the dOHC/dt data does not contradict C15 as they showed it also in the paper.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/steric_height.png
Source: Scripps/JPL
The average rate of change (d(slr)/dt – for the calculus challenged) in a highly variable system is 1.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr.
The accuracy of in situ measurement with instrument precision to within 0.001 degrees C cannot be compared with satellite measurement of EEI with a known imprecision of 4.3 W/m2.
PaulS: I understand your worries that the trend “adjustment” in D19 “kills” the trend in SW clear sky that one would await due to increasing WV as the result of the forced warming. However, in observations 2003-2008 there is also a slightly downward trend:
https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6267991/bin/nihms-1508414-f0004.jpg
as this paper https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/6267991 shows. IMO there is no valid reason in the end to reject the results of D19. Not from the dOHC/dt observations of 3 datasets, not from the SW clear sky observations. All of them point to the outcome of D19 at this time.
JCH, re sSLR: The time derivative of the sSLR is not the trendslope!
If one takes the right way as I showed it with the dOHC/dt it gives this figure from your cited source:
https://i.imgur.com/MYaGH5R.jpg
Unfortunately the years from 2000 to 2004 are missed, however the figure confirms my earlier statement that the sSLR is strongly ENSO infected ( see 2010 and 2015/16) and noisy/uncertain in the end. Honestly, do you believe that this rejects D19??
PS: I meant RIE, not JCH, sorry!
paulski0
Testing instrumental data by climate models? That’s the wrong way around. There is way too much hubris in climate science.
This accuracy issue is always going to be an issue with radiative balance and also ocean heat content. The problem is that the changes being measured are quite small as a percentage of the total values. Likewise for sea level. I personally think tide gauges are more accurate than satellite data. Here’s a post from a long time meteorologist on that subject. The longest tide gauge records with land subsidence records show no acceleration. In the comments he deals with the “acceleration” sides’ arguments.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/sea-level-rise-catastrophe/
https://i.imgur.com/mghin0Q.png
Et tu JCH?
Another Stokesy?
–
You guys are good
–
“A number of tide gauge stations on the East coast of Korea have shown inconsistent relative SLR in recent years. The Pohang Tide Gauge Stationhas observed the highest relative SLR since the year 2010. The Pohang Tide Gauge Station is located at the breakwater structure at Guhang Port, Pohang . It is thought that the Pohang tidegauge is considerably impacted by surface displacements, which may influence sea level records. “
Sea level records are available from 1977–2017; however, the hourly SLRdata provided by KHOA only show a rapid acceleration in sea level records since 2013.
Just about every tide gauge requires multiple scientific studies in order to adjust the data to have anything worthwhile. One study puts the Pohang gauge at 3.1 mm/yr.
dpy6629: Since satellites measure sea level at a new site every ? sec as they orbit the Earth 16 times a day, they collect more data than tide gauges do. Therefore satellites can reduce the uncertainty associated with random noise far better than tide gauges do. The 90% ci for a decade long trend at a single tide gauge is hopelessly wide and always includes zero. IIRC, it typically takes about 3 decades of data from a single tide gauge to be sure that sea level is actually rising. However, the trend for a single decade of satellite altimetry is always statistically different from zero. Now assuming you have data to correct for vertical land motion at tide gauge sites, one can combine data from many tide gauges, but those gauges aren’t distributed evenly and show regional patterns of SLR.
The problem with satellite altimetry is that converting time to distance involves huge correction factors for the ionosphere, humidity in the tropopause, waves on the ocean surface and orbital drift. Much of the needed data comes from reanalysis and the sources of data incorporated into reanalysis have been constantly changing. If there is a changing bias in reanalysis, it can produced a biased SLR trend. So satellite altimetry reduces the impact of statistical uncertainty at the cost of a much greater has much greater potential for systematic error. There are parallel with measuring atmospheric warming at the surface or from MSUs in space. However, instead of two groups competing to create the most believable record and processing data independently, we may have only one team doing the heavy data processing and five groups gridding that data somewhat differently.
If you look at AR3, you”ll find almost no mention of about five years of satellite altimetry data, because the orbital drifting problem wasn’t understood at that time and no SLR was being detected, Then they began determining satellite altitude by measuring the distance to fixed calibration sites around the globe (ironically equipped with tide gauges and GPS). A programming error was also detect. Finally the data from the first satellite was reanalyzed and the SLR reported by it was cut in half. All of these systematic issues produced corrections far bigger than the statistical uncertainty in the trend. The reduction in SLR from the first satellite reduced overall SLR in the satellite era below 3 mm/yr, but did allow claims of detection of acceleration in SLR.
So, IMO we really need the coarse record of SLR from tide gauges over the entire satellite altimetry record to rule out the possibility that a large systematic error might exist in the processing of satellite data. Unfortunately, satellite altimetry data is now being used to select “realiable” tide gauges. The story of correcting these systematic errors is not clearly documented anywhere and I picked up hints in various places. So the above story could be seriously, but not intently, inaccurate.
Greenhouse gas theory says that the atmosphere warms and the oceans warm through very slow isopycnal mixing – over 1000’s of years – until the whole planet is warm enough that energy in equals energy out. In this scenario there is an almost constant imbalance accumulated at TOA due to effective greenhouse gas forcing equal to the rate of warming of oceans – some 0.6 W/m2. It is waiting in the wings despite short term variability. And cloud cover change is a positive feedback to AGW.
Effective radiative forcing in the early part of last century was much less than in the latter half. CO2 saturation or not?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/Fig8-18-1-1024×643.jpg
Global oceans are warming – showing an increase in EEI in the Argo era. Indeed from negative to positive. The simplest of calculus.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoGlobalSummaryGraph.gif
“A positive derivative means that the function is increasing. A negative derivative means that the function is decreasing. A zero derivative means that the function has some special behaviour at the given point. It may have a local maximum, a local minimum, (or in some cases, as we will see later, a “turning” point).”
“And cloud cover change is a positive feedback to AGW.”
No. It’s a positive feedback to solar forcing.
Do you have actual science or is assertion enough for you.
tallbloke said “No. It’s a positive feedback to solar forcing.”
Weaker solar wind since the mid 1990’s has driven warm ocean phases, which have reduced low cloud apart from in the Arctic where cloud cover has increased. It’s a negative feedback to indirect solar variability.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/17/Sunshine/UK.gif
Robert
You need to focus on data.
Data shows oscillations e.g. ENSO-PDO, AMO, MJO. But a lot of head-scratching goes on trying to explain where these oscillations come from. Without looking to nonlinear pattern formation. The alternatives are generally “it’s just noise” or astrophysics.
Phil Salmon:
You said “Data oscillations e.g. ENSO-PDO, AMO, MJO. But a lot of head scratching goes on trying to explain where these oscillations come from”
There are no oscillations!
What appears to be oscillations is simply the climatic response to changes in atmospheric SO2 levels from random volcanic eruptions, (primarily), or increases or decreases in anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions.
Fish thrive; fish die. Up; down.
Wrong place.
Burl Henry
There are no oscillations
My point exactly!
https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/04/week-in-review-science-edition-116/#comment-907114
Burl
If there are no AMO and PDO oscillations, then why did these authors (and many others) study these oscillations going back many centuries?
Proxy reconstructions of the AMO and the ENSO-PDO clearly show a widely varying time period from a quarter century to almost a century:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024804
https://www.clim-past.net/6/1/2010/cp-6-1-2010.pdf
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008GL034475
This argues against strong external (e.g. astrophysical) forcing, suggesting instead either weak forcing (with complex emergent waveform) or internal feedback-driven oscillation.
Phil Salmon:
You were wondering why many authors have studied these “oscillations”.
People tend to search for patterns in complex data, even though no pattern
may actually exist. Smoothing of the data, and the use of Graphical programs can lead to what appears to be oscillations.
With respect to ENSO temperatures, all increases are due to decreased levels of .SO2 in the atmosphere, either from the lack of volcanic eruptions, or from Clean Air efforts., and all decreases are due to increased levels of SO2 from VEI4 or larger eruptions, or anthropogenic activity.
And yet, people claim to see oscillations in this random activity.(AMO, PDO)
https://i.imgur.com/XMQ3y9C.png
Burl
With respect to ENSO temperatures, all increases are due to decreased levels of .SO2 in the atmosphere, either from the lack of volcanic eruptions, or from Clean Air efforts., and all decreases are due to increased levels of SO2 from VEI4 or larger eruptions, or anthropogenic activity.
I assume this is self-parody.
You can’t be serious surely??
Phil Salmon:
No, I am being completely serious. I have the data and the analysis to prove it.
Burl
Do you believe in the existence of the ocean? I have data to prove that, in case you don’t.
Phil Salmom:
I said that I had data for my comments.
Check out this pre-print link: https://www.Osf.io/bycj4/.:
Robert
Are those all the graphs for all the oceans?
I see global temps mirroring tropical ones but the polar ones are not really moving. In other words it is a misnomer to say all global temps are rising when it is only tropical ones doing so.
We have the same sort of averaging problems with sea level rise, when many places are falling, and with land temperatures where the substantial rise in some places overcomes the modest falls on others.
I understand in recent times that tropical oceans have received higher than average sunshine which would explain the higher temperatures
Tonyb
Tonyb –
The amount of ocean area outside of this graph, mostly the Arctic Ocean, is a fairly small percentage of the global oceans, and 2004 thru 2013 is the “’cause” of DaPaws:
https://i.imgur.com/z1JKmgC.png
If the tropical oceans simply received more sunlight, what would prevent it from immediately radiating back to Captain Kirk?
Between orange dashed lines – the 97-98 El Niño event and the prolonged and deep La Niña that followed it: its cold aftermath
Between the cyan dashed lines – the KimiKamiKaze
Between the red dashed – 15-16 El Niño and its hot aftermath.
https://i.imgur.com/0V8pYV6.png
“Are those all the graphs for all the oceans?”
I don’t know what this question means. The graphs cover all the oceans globally and zonally. The data is from the Scripps ‘Global Marine Argo Atlas’. – http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Marine_Atlas.html –
The tropics is where oceans warm and global ocean heat content is what counts in this context. Oceans contain some 90% of the planet’s energy content, some 8% as latent heat in liquid water and water vapor and 2% in the atmosphere. So to first order the Earth’s transient – it changes all the time – energy imbalance is:
Δ(OHC) = energy in – energy out
Which is a first order differential equation.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/lin4.jpg
The Argo data shows that the Earth energy imbalance has increased in recent years. Indeed – changed from negative to positive. The paper under discussion neglects ocean heat past 2010 and the result is – on primary evidence – complete nonsense published in a pay for play journal with an impact rating of 4.1.
First some basic terminology confusion. Energy out is as reflected shortwave (SW) and emitted infrared (IR). The net conventionally refers to the sum of those and is – by convention – warming up.
Net = -SW -IR
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
Eyeballing it – coling in the very early years of the record – variability in the interim – and some warming since about 2013. Note that incoming energy from the sun is by contrast relatively constant and may – to first order – be neglected. This avoids the dodges required to close the +/- 5 W/m2 imprecision in the measured energy in less energy out budget.
The measurement of outgoing energy at the top of atmosphere is precise to 0.1 W/m2 SW and 0.16 W/m2 IR. It shows less (more) reflected (emitted) SW (IR) in the early record – variability but little change in the interim and less (more) reflected (emitted) SW (IR) in recent years. SW change is larger than IR in a pattern than suggests changes in low level cloud cover.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_longwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
“This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Large reductions in clear-sky SW TOA flux are also found over much of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in the northern hemisphere. These are associated with a reduction in aerosol optical depth consistent with stricter pollution controls in China and North America. A simple energy budget framework is used to show that TOA radiation (particularly in the SW) likely played a dominant role in driving the marked increase in temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
The cloud mechanism involves closed and open cloud convection cells in marine boundary layer stratocumulus. Closed cells persist for longer over cooler ocean surfaces before raining out from the center leaving open cells.
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/43000/43795/clperu_amo_2010107_cu.jpg
“Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
It is a cloud radiative forcing just like any other forcing. So once the mechanism has been identified – Bénard–Rayleigh convection over upwelling regions of oceans – we may legitimately wonder how that influences the planetary energy budget over decades to millennia.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
What it suggests to me – inter alia – is that the very idea of climate sensitivity in a spatio-temporal chaotic system is relatively daft. Complexity theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a thresholds at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer.
The cloud mechanism involves closed and open cloud convection cells in marine boundary layer stratocumulus. Closed cells persist for longer over cooler ocean surfaces …
This persistence is linked to Lyapunov stability (refer to his original work “Ob ustoichivosti dvizhenniye” or On the stability of movement) which we have discussed before. Chaotic-nonlinear phenomena work for stability around attractors, not only sudden system change.
Complexity theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a thresholds at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks
You’re putting the cart before the horse.
I used to think something similar – that the climate system starts stable but gets pushed to the threshold (Hopf bifurcation) where period doublings begin and which leads to full blown chaos and turbulence. But looking particularly to the publications of Matthias Bertram and others I have changed my view to the opposite. Climate is fluid flow – Rayleigh-Benaud convection etc., so chaotic turbulence is in fact the norm, and the starting point. So the role of feedbacks is not only to cause chaos (although the theory of Turing reactions shows us that this can happen with his promoter-inhibitor-range model) but instead – feedbacks added to a chaotic system can reduce “chaoticity” to borderline chaos where emergent pattern appears. In other words, high dimensional chaos (turbulence) can be reduced to low dimensional chaos – where the interesting pattern phenomena occur – by feedbacks, especially positive feedbacks. Bertram identified two things, positive feedback and external periodic forcing, as being able to reduce the dimensionality of a turbulent chaotic system and result in emergent pattern.
So it’s the opposite. The feedbacks and periodic forcing don’t push a stable system to chaos. They take a high dimensional chaotic (turbulent) system down to low dimensionality and borderline chaos where nonlinear pattern formation occurs.
This as I have argued before could be the origin of the natural oceanic oscillations, such as PDO, AMO, ENSO etc. This allows oscillations to be explained as chaos-related rearrangements of internal energy, not requiring changes in external forcing. (If external periodic forcing is weak, the emergent oscillation can be very different and more complex than the periodic forcing).
The chaos literature refers to negative feedback as “friction” which contributes to inducing transition to chaos (e.g. in Turing systems) and positive feedback as “excitability” which reduces dimensionality and causes oscillations.
What strange tales you fabricate from jargon. You need to focus on data. These cloud cells are bistable – open or closed – changing domain albedo in a physical system.
phil salmon in post above says “chaos literature refers to negative feedback as “friction” .” In control systems ‘friction’ is no feedback. Rather it is a point where whatever feedback is operating, it is halted until the friction element is overcome. Then the response is very likely overshoot, at times leading to a somewhat chaotic oscillation. At other times, and with other inputs operating, ( -in my specific field-) to total system breakdown.
See also ‘climate friction’ here: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PalOc..10..365R/abstract
Melita
Thanks for the clarification of terminology. Another term used for negative feedback in chaotic systems is “damping”. This can be an important ingredient for nonlinear pattern formation. In biological systems, e.g.us, interaction of inhibition with growth promotion, each with a different spatial distribution (such as one short range the other long range) comprises a Turing reaction and is where much biological complexity comes from.
phil salmon
Not exactly. Damping (again in control theory) is used with feedback to prevent going into chaos via large overshoot. (I have, as the eternal fool, fiddled with this parameter to adjust between long power brown-outs or the christmas-lights effect). In another example from a text book in my early days, it referred to the population of cats versus rats that were both introduced on an island. The population oscillations were not damped, but increased to a point (chaotic?) were the rats were wiped out and only a small population of cats survived then hunting sea food.
However damping appears in one important but unacknowledged ‘dragon-king’. The obliquity measurements from 1100bce till ~1000ce show a damping from an abrupt change in the form of an exponential decay superimposed on the secular obliquity.
Robert
You need to focus on data
Data shows oscillations e.g. ENSO-PDO, AMO, MJO. But a lot of head-scratching goes on trying to explain where these oscillations come from. Without looking to nonlinear pattern formation. The alternatives are generally “it’s just noise” or astrophysics.
Then you focus on a hypothetical mechanism that best explains observations of a physical system. Sometimes this takes decades and still ends in more questions. Some have a procrustean bed to which all data is made to conform.
By Procrustean bed I guess you mean something like a hospital bed? Shaped like a hockey 🏒 stick?
Phil Salmon: Data shows oscillations e.g. ENSO-PDO, AMO, MJO. But a lot of head-scratching goes on trying to explain where these oscillations come from.
Robert I Ellison: What it suggests to me – inter alia – is that the very idea of climate sensitivity in a spatio-temporal chaotic system is relatively daft. Complexity theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a thresholds at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.
There is now not an oscillation or consistent flow that is accurately described by a dynamic mathematical model. So there is plenty of room for seemingly contradictory hypotheses or modeling approaches. Claims of “thresholds” and other dynamic concepts don’t have strong support. It is not that there is total.ignorance, but that there is no accurate systematic description (as aimed for by the General Circulation Models.) Model space and measurement space and conceptual space do not map accurately into one another. “what it suggests to me … ” is well-phrased.
Suggestions and possibilities.
As I have suggested to you before – and tol Phil here – only hypothesis and observation count. How else does natural science progress? Numerical climate models – while potentially if not yet useful – are simply extended hypotheses. I’ll stick to my paradigm – it is way beyond hypothesis – that climate shifts abruptly with somewhat inscrutable causes and mechanisms.
https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm
Robert I Ellison: Numerical climate models – while potentially if not yet useful – are simply extended hypotheses.
I agree, but I would drop the “simply”.
The seasonal cycle in poleward ocean heat transport is probably the best hint we have ATM.
“The ERF data used are the same as used in L/C18, updated by the lead author to 2018.”
The link goes to the original LC18 forcings file, which had 2016 as the end year. Do you mean that you updated the data for 2017-18? Not saying the analysis is wrong, I just would like to know what are the values used for those two years.
Alberto, thanks for commenting. I asked Nic Lewis if he extended the ERF values and he responded quickly. For the ERF anthro : 2017:2.86 ; 2018: 2.91 W/m² ( rounded to 2 decimals).
Thanks!
Planetary energy content increasing – indeed accelerating. Mostly in oceans.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g001.png
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
“(a) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) global mean surface air temperature anomaly relative to 1951–1980 climatology and (b) Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) cumulative planetary heat uptake for March 2000–September 2017.”
“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.”
Lewis Carroll – The Hunting of the Snark
Isn’t climate sensitivity the rise of air temperature caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide?
Bosse “says: Equilibrium climate sensitivity computed from the latest energy imbalance data.” I wonder about the accuracy of calculations on something as difficult to measure as global energy imbalance???
On the other hand, the IPCC gives in the Feb 2018 updated version of AR5 WGI: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
on page 666 “. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater” Actually the difference should be considerably larger?
Boris: The deduced ECS values include all feebacks.
Pingback: Climate sensitivity in light of the latest energy imbalance evidence — Climate Etc. – Climate- Science.press
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Frank,
Your article gives the impression that you have used the CERES data from D19 in your calculations. However, as far as I can tell on inspection, you have not used the D19 construction at all in any of your calculations, other than to use it to defend a conservative assumption that net flux (EEI) can be assumed to be unchanged over the period. Is my understanding correct?
If it is, can I ask why you did not use the CERES data directly to get to your estimate of climate sensitivity? It provides a complete and internally consistent dataset for this purpose – apart from the forcing and the temperature time series.
kribaez, I took the outcome of D19 into consideration in so far, that there was a stalling ( or even slightly decreasing) of the EEI was observed in the described time span, pointing to an equilibrium. You are right, I didn’t use the CERES data itself for the ECS calulation.
PS:The cited paper (D19) makes some data ( also drift) corrections on the provided CERES set, therefore the use of the uncorrected CERES data would make not much sense to answer your second question.
Frank, thanks for an interesting post. I suspect that you did not use the CERES data directly because over a short period of time it had too much noise and that it was much easier to handle by merely assigning it no change over the period of interest. I am not sure that a statistically not significant trend can be given that assignment. Smoothing makes a better visual case for no change but the degrees of freedom get reduced and the confidence interval has to be large.
I notice that you use the Tamino adjustment without reference to the exact filter that he used to produce that adjustment. The filter makes no effort to filter out multi-decadal variations. Do you have a direct reference to the Tamino filter? I have a special interest in attempts to extract secular trends from climate data.
Finally a quick nitpick: how did you get a 3.8 watts per meter squared value for F2XCO2?
Ken, thanks for commenting. The last issue at first: The 3.8W/m² comes from LC18, p. 6056 where the ERF for a doubling of CO2 was a bit lifted when using the related ERF ( foremost CH4) data.
Tamino filter: It’s easy to calculate, I linked the reference, a post. When scrolling down you find a link to the data for “raw” and “adj” data. Subtracting generates the “filter” Hope this will help.
The 3.80 W/m² forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 concentration comes from Etminan et al (2017) “Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide- A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing”, Geophysical Research Letters. LC18 used their CO2, CH4 and N2O concentration-to-forcing formulae.
Thanks Nic, it seems to be that I remembered correctly.
Frank, I am still missing something here in your reference to LC18 and your 3.8 value for F2XCO2. I used the same formulae from Etminan et al (2017) that was used in LC18 and I obtained a value of 3.71 watts per meter squared for F2XCO2. The formula for CO2 in that paper makes some minor changes for the relationship of forcing to CO2 concentrations and depends in a subtractive manner on N2O concentrations but not on CH4 (to which you refer in noting your 3.8 value). I am thinking that you have used a correlation between WMGG and CO2 forcing.
With regards to the Tamino filter I was looking for an explanatory formula and not the simple empirical subtraction of data- I already have that information.
I believe your value for ECS for that short period of time would equal that for TCR during that period of time since you have assumed the subtraction from ΔF in the denominator to be 0. By assuming 0 without any confidence intervals (CI) you have not placed any CI on your ECS estimate. I want to determine the CIs taking into account white and red noise for your trend data and that presented for the original CERES-Ebafv4.0 data by Paulskio.
Ken, re 3.8 W/m²: This is an outcome of LC18, as the lead author underlined above. Sometimes one should synthesize on still known issues or asking the authors.
re Tamino filter: the same. The author didn’t publish the “formula” , it’s a multiple regression as it was described in Forster/Rahmstorf (2011) , “more sophisticated” as the lead author wrote on his blog. I took the outcome.
In your last paragraph I lost you starting with:” …since you have assumed the subtraction from ΔF in the denominator to be 0.”
“In your last paragraph I lost you starting with:” …since you have assumed the subtraction from ΔF in the denominator to be 0.””
ECS=F2XCO2*ΔT/(ΔF-ΔN)
TCR=F2XCO2*ΔT/ΔF
In your calculation of ECS, is ΔN assumed to be zero? The equations above are for differences but in your regression with the feedback parameter being the slope I believe ΔN has to be of value=0. Otherwise F-N=λT and not F=λT.
Frank, the TCR values in LC(2018) are close to the values expected from using a F2XCO2 value of 3.71.
Ken, The lead author of L/C 18 stated that the value of 3.8 W/m² for 2*CO2 was used. Please don’t ask ME further if it was a different one!
“Τhere is an almost constant imbalance accumulated at TOA due to effective greenhouse gas forcing equal to the rate of warming of oceans – some 0.6 W/m2”.
0,6 W/m²
How long will it take to warm a cubic meter of water?
How long will it take to warm a 1 meter deep ocean το +0,1°C ?
0,6 W/m² = 0,6 Joule/sec*m²
Cp.water = 1cal/gr*°C
1 cal = 4,1868 Joule
Cp.water = 4,1868 Joule/gr*°C
1 cubic meter of water is 1.000 liters, 1.000.000 gr
Time needed = (1.000.000 gr *0,1°C*4,1868 Joule/gr*°C) /0,6 Joule/sec = 697.800sec
697.800 sec/3.600 sec/h = 193,83 h
193,83 h /24h/day = 8,07 days
Let’s now warm an average 3.000 meters deep ocean.
8,07 days*3.000 = 24.229 days
How many years?
24.229 days /365 days/year = 66,4 years.
The paper says:
I would say:
Best to all,
w.
“Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models,” Zelinka et al, GRL 03 January 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a useful concept, gives “scientists” something to chatter about, as is “earth energy imbalance.” Change is the nature of reality, not equilibrium, but some people are actually scared because the “climate system” is “out of balance.” Oh my, what a disaster we would have if it was not!
Oh my, what a disaster we would have if it was not!
How so? Planetary energy balance allowed humanity to develop civilization during the Holocene.
Wishful thinking? or worse?
There is a huge imbalance during the coldest and warmest periods of the climate cycles. The long term cycles are balanced in the long term averages, but the short terms are way out of balance.
“Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13 W m−2 (Kopp and Lean 2011), constraining EEI to 50% of its mean (~0.25 W m−2) requires that the observed total outgoing radiation is known to be 0.2 W m−2, or 0.06%. The actual uncertainty for CERES resulting from calibration alone is 1% SW and 0.75% LW radiation [one standard deviation (1σ)], which corresponds to 2 W m−2, or 0.6% of the total TOA outgoing radiation. In addition, there are uncertainties resulting from radiance-to-flux conversion and time interpolation. With the most recent CERES edition-4 instrument calibration improvements, the net imbalance from the standard CERES data products is approximately 4.3 W m−2, much larger than the expected EEI. This imbalance is problematic in applications that use ERB data for climate model evaluation, estimations of Earth’s annual global mean energy budget, and studies that infer meridional heat transports. CERES EBAF addresses this issue by applying an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system (Loeb et al. 2009).” https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/DQ_summaries/CERES_EBAF_Ed4.1_DQS.pdf
Closure of the energy budget is problematic. Both NASA’s and in this paper.
I remained puzzled by the instrument drift correction in this paper. Instrument drift is routinely filtered out – along with other systematic errors – in the CERES calibration routines.
Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13 W m−2 (Kopp and Lean 2011)
This makes no sense until you specify what it is you’re measuring or calculating. A data point’s uncertainty is not the uncertainty of an average or trend, and if it’s the uncertainty of a single measurement of solar irradiance, it’s quite small (0.13/~1360.8 = 0.01%).
That was a quote from people at the coal face of NASA’s monitoring program.
Robert I Ellison: Closure of the energy budget is problematic. Both NASA’s and in this paper.
I agree.
Funny – when Trenberth said this, he was excoriated and widely misinterpreted.
David Appell: Funny – when Trenberth said this, he was excoriated and widely misinterpreted.
Who exactly excoriated Trenberth? What were the misinterpretations? His “travesty” comment, if that is what you are referring to, was taken as evidence that the science was not complete. He was criticized for saying it secretly but not publicly.
Pingback: Fun with Spurious Correlations | Thongchai Thailand
Pingback: The Mathematics of AGW | Thongchai Thailand
Does Judith moderate people who agree with her?
yes. Its all about violating blog rules or not.
https://i.imgur.com/cR6XLvA.png
Let’s deconstruct. We have a person accusing Aussie farmers of arson and murder to support his climate activist opinions. So I tell him what I think of his opinion and where he can stick it.
They catch somebody starting vegetation on fire. Why was the person setting the vegetation on fire? Sometimes it’s a cultural burn zealot out to saves lives and nature from those evil greens who are suppressing controlled burns. They hear that message in the Australian press over and over and over.
https://i.imgur.com/qTpETQr.png
Here is the whole story – not just an unsourced snip. Yes farmers have done some back burning adjacent to National Parks – that are described as locked up and neglected. They are not doing it in conditions we have at present. And the guy with a lantana thicket around his house was not a farmer.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/locked-up-and-forgotten-farmers-taking-fire-management-into-their-own-hands-20191115-p53b0t.html
I’m more that a little bored and annoyed by climate activists capitalizing on this greens and climate activist inspired mismanagement. You may have noticed.
Note the November publication date.
I have to say I entirely sympathise with Robert Ellison. Maybe not his later comment but his sentiment: “The proof of a lack of burning and clearing….over the past 20 years”…and probably longer.
Conflating bushfires with climate change is dangerous and stupid. There is no evidence that climate change, whether manmade or natural, has increased the risk of bushfires, and it is the weakening of fire control methods that is the real reason there is an increasing risk and incident. It should be noted that in WA and NT which is generally hotter and drier do not have as severe bushfires (although this too is declining recently owing to weakening policy thanks – I am afraid – to environmental concerns).
A story to illustrate this: My father used to serve in the SES (state emergency service) a volunteer service that fought bushfires and did burn backs. About 15 years ago there was a severe fire in Victoria and some of his mates went over to help out. They were appalled at the woeful state of their fire control methods. They even spoke to one chap who was being prosecuted for clearing understory around his house shortly before the fire, which came through, burnt all of his neighbours houses down except his, and they STILL wanted to prosecute.
The fact is, Australian bush has adapted to fire and fire is it’s primary method for rejuvenation. The first Australians constantly lit fires, both for hunting and preserving fire. The bush was almost always on fire, somewhere and prevented understory from building up. There is even an eagle in the NT which hunts by using bush fires.
I’m also extremely fatigued by using these bush fires to push a climate change agenda. It’s the same stupidity that led to the Wivenhoe dam overflowing when the rains came after they were told that drought was the new normal. Have the debate on climate and whether we are impacting it sure, but don’t conflate it with other environmental issues we should take seriously such as bush fires. Flying less will not stop them.
Maybe you can drive out with RIE and tell the man who owns 3500 acres of land and a home, and whose wife is the mayor, and who has in in-law who is a firefighter injured while fighting the fire, to stick it up his ____ in person.
I’ll tell you what is obviously dangerous, and there is about 17 million acres of proof the syear: insisting prescribed burning is the only way to deal with bushfires in the changed Australian climate is extraordinarily dangerous.
But yes, poetry and dreamtime.
As for the NT:
Government set to revise total number of hectares destroyed during bushfire season to 17 million
The NT bushfires in the 2018-2019 season:
https://i.imgur.com/fdBft2c.png
1. Fuel moisture determines a large portion of flammability.
2. Precipitation determines a large portion of fuel moisture.
3. Climate models do not predict much Aussie precipitation change.
4. Observations indicate 2019 the record driest Aussie year.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Australia-yearly-precip-vs-41-climate-models-550×413.jpg
If one believes in climate change from greenhouse gasses as captured by climate models, then one does not believe this event is due to climate change, but rather represents natural variability.
On the other hand, if one is prone to confirmation bias, and we all are, then one is prone to ascribe natural variability as climate change.
But even a brief Wiki experience will remind you of numerous fires past, including the “Black Thursday Fire” of 1851:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/WP_Black_Thursday.jpg/800px-WP_Black_Thursday.jpg
Intense bushfires are not uncommon in southern Australia. The region is one of the three most fire-prone in the world. Within the last two hundred years, the area has experienced and documented at least twenty-five major fires, beginning with Black Thursday in 1851.
Utterly ridiculous.
https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/43/6543-004-0B8A19DF.gif
I am still going with the above. It rains. Stuff grows. It burns. It’s chaos. Fix chaos? No. Moderate it? That would be population control of plants.
There is only one person accusing Aussie farmers of arson in such extreme conditions. And who I advised should take his opinion and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Now attempting to imply that my anger at that obnoxious slander is related to climate change attitudes is hugely disingenuous. Not unprecedented where this person is concerned.
Conditions are extreme. But then extreme conditions in a wildly fluctuating climate are not unprecedented. The rains will come. the bush will regrow healthier in many respects and wildlife will flourish. Hopefully it is a salutary experience that will engender better land management practices.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/04/week-in-review-science-edition-116/#comment-907076
“On a reduction in per person and emissions intensity basis, our target will exceed those of the United States, Japan, the European Union, Korea, and Canada. Between 2005 and 2030 Australia’s emissions per capita will fall by 50–52 per cent and emissions intensity of the economy by 64–65 per cent. This is a significant achievement given that emissions are linked with population and economic growth, and Australia’s population and economy are growing faster than most other developed countries. Australia’s population is expected to grow at 1.5 per cent per annum to 2030, significantly higher than the OECD average of 0.4 per cent. Furthermore, the Australian economy has entered its 25th consecutive year of growth. This is the second longest continuous period of growth of any advanced economy in the world.” https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/factsheet-australias-2030-climate-change-target
We can reduce net emissions to zero by 2050 – that’s under discussion now – while maintaining population and economic growth in the most economically dynamic region on Earth. And while exporting coal from an Indian owned coal mine to India – entirely in accordance with their Paris country commitments*. That may be their climate activist problem. So yes. Some tree hugger hippie from the New England Tableland can… 😊
* https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/10/climate-sensitivity-in-light-of-the-latest-energy-imbalance-evidence/#comment-907576
My bet, you’re a coward.
“I’ll tell you what is obviously dangerous, and there is about 17 million acres of proof the syear: insisting prescribed burning is the only way to deal with bushfires in the changed Australian climate is extraordinarily dangerous.”
Prescribed burning is not the only way. The bushfires in NT and WA are normal. The reason they are not so destructive is because prescribed burning does occur there as well as other more extensive land management policies. Fire breaks are also important. Encouraging locals to clear dead wood is another….or it used to be. Now, in some places, you can be fined for doing that unless you are aboriginal. That is crazy.
But without the extensive burns offs that were the norm pre-European settlement, we have to accept and be prepared for these huge fires, and that means first and foremost, protecting life and property.
There is no evidence that climate change has driven this years bushfire season. Rainfall shows no significant trend. You can go to BoM climate online and download rainfall records. Dalgety is right in the middle of NSW:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/water/rain/australia/rain-dalgety..gif
Sydney has some of the longest and best records:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/water/rain/australia/rain-syd-obs-hill.gif
In general rainfall in Australia has, if anything, slightly increased.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/water/ozrain17.jpg
“But yes, poetry and dreamtime.”
No – pragmatism and reality. It’s delusional to think that reducing emissions is going to have any meaningful impact on Australian bushfires. They will ALWAYS occur…as society grows in bushfire regions, so we become more exposed. The latest fit of alarmism is crazy dangerous for developing robust effective policy.
agnostic
I enjoyed both your comments and your graphs.
So now it’s a macho pissing contest?
In the previous solar minimum in 2009, significantly more people died in Australia.
“The most deadly conflagration, which claimed 121 lives, was sparked by a faulty power pole near the township of Kilmore East, 37 miles (60 km) north of Melbourne.”
“On February 7, Victorians were told to brace for a record heat wave—with temperatures soaring to 115.5 °F (46.4 °C)—combined with gale-force winds of up to 56 miles per hour (90 km/hr). That day more than 47 major fires erupted across the state, 14 of them claiming lives or causing significant damage. With its abundant forests and hot, dry climate, Australia had often suffered from deadly bushfires, most notably the 1939 “Black Friday” blaze in Victoria, in which 71 people were killed, and the 1983 “Ash Wednesday” fires in Victoria and South Australia, where 75 people perished. The scale of the 2009 fires—attributed to extreme weather conditions coupled with a severe and protracted drought that had created tinder-dry vegetation across the state—was unprecedented and left the country in a state of shock.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/Australia-bushfires-of-2009
Full SORCE Mission
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_level3_tsi_6hour_2400x1800.png
The conditions were hardly unprecedented. The 1851 black Thursday fires occurred in similar conditions on a 47 deg C day and burnt 5 million hectares, ten times the area of black Saturday. Black friday burnt 4 times the area in similar hot and windy conditions
This is a nice post in two ways.
First, it provides yet another triangulation on an observational ECS something around 1.7, albeit in this case the statistics are hampered by the short data duration. Climate ETC has posted several others over the years that are less formal than Lewis and Curry but providing the same qualitative answer. I did one some years ago using Monckton’s irreducibly simple equation and reasonable observational values for cloud and water vapor feedback. (Stated alternatively, IPCC ECS 3 on Bode (f/(1-f) yields Bode 1.65. But if cloud feedback ~0 (Dessler 2011) and WVF is about half modeled (consistent with more observed precipitation than modeled by about 2x, then Bode is actually somewhere around 1.25-1.3 [derivation in that guest post] so ECS must be somewhere around 1.7.) DocMartin posted a very early different derivation here on 5/16/2013 obtaining 1.71. Loehle had yet another both here and in Ecological Modeling 276:80-84 in 2014 obtaining about 1.7
2. The CMiP6 models are even more out of whack with observations than CMIP5. My personal as yet untested hypothesis as to why: the smaller grid cells are still unable to get convection ‘right’ by by about 5-6 rather than 7-8 orders of magnitude. So still parameterized. But this time dragging in more of the pause into the hindcast parameter tuning. As Lindzen has ironically pointed out, the slower the tuned observed temperature change the higher the modeled ECS will become.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
There is a line of comment becoming more frequent in the MSM to the effect that the IOD and ENSO are being changed (perhaps by increasing frequency) due to AGW. I haven’t seen SAM included yet but that’s only a matter of time, I suspect. These assertions are made in the MSM without evidence. This notion is critical in relation to the current drought and consequent lethal fires in Aus.
I cannot yet find credible publications on this notion, yet it will gain public currency because it is emotionally appealing. Perhaps someone on this website can fill in the hollows (drivebys excluded)..
It is a world of nonlinear oscillations. In more more modern term – shifts in spatio-temporal patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation such as are found in any turbulent fluid medium. Much of it seems to be triggered by the polar annular modes. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006) Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
How this conflates with climate sensitivity to anthropogenic changes to the Earth system is really simple.
A “small forcing can cause a small change or a huge one.” National Academy of Sciences, 2002, Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises, p74
Again – this is based on data and not some discombobulated theory of chaos. The climate system behaves like the broad class of complex dynamical systems. That is – after all – how chaos is recognized. Michael Ghil illustrates transitions with a zero dimensional EBM.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/unstable-ebm-fig-2-jpg1.jpg
Solutions of an energy-balance model (EBM), showing the global-mean temperature (T) vs. the fractional change of insolation (μ) at the top of the atmosphere. (Source: Ghil, 2013)
The model has two stable states with two points of abrupt climate change – the latter at the transitions from the blue lines to the red from above and below. The two axes are normalized solar energy inputs μ (insolation) to the climate system and a global mean temperature. The current day energy input is μ = 1 with a global mean temperature of 287.7 degrees Kelvin. This is a relatively balmy 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The EBM uses physically based equations to determine changes in the climate system as a result of changes in solar intensity, ice reflectance and greenhouse gases. With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions to glacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years. There are warm interludes – such as the present time – of relatively short duration and longer duration cold states. The transition between climate states is characterised by a series of step changes between the limits. It caused a bit of consternation in the 1970’s when it was realized that a very small decrease in solar intensity – or an increase in albedo – is sufficient to cause a rapid transition to an icy planet in this model.
Ghil’s model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society.
In the real world it seems to involve more meridional NAM patterns driving AMOC change and triggering ice sheet growth. Against a backdrop of reduced ice and snow melting in low insolation NH summers.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-71-e1523915527771.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076350
The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance. The shift in mean and variance – a symptom of dynamical complexity – in Australian rainfall in the 1970’s is proving problematic.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rranom.aus.0112.62064.png
How and when this pattern will shift again – or how anthropogenic changes to the system will affect transitions – is not a problem tractable with simple math and simpler assumptions. Or indeed with any of the current tools.
With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions to glacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years.
Your instability hand waving and quoting of Ghil’s model add nothing to the well known Milankovitch pacing of interglacials. They happen exactly 6500 years after obliquity peaks, at the times (post MPR/MPT) when precession linked insolation is maximal.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/figure-35.png
https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/080417_0233_paleoclimat9.jpg?w=1044
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/04/paleoclimate-cycles-are-key-analogs-for-present-day-holocene-warm-period/
Glacial-interglacial flicker happens when the earth is balanced between warm and glacial attractors. At such times small Milankovitch forcings are indeed a small trigger causing a big climate change. Ghil’s simple model states the obvious. Attractor landscape analysis would be a more sophisticated and powerful method to apply.
Flickering as an early warning signal
Dakos V, van Nes EH, Scheffer M. Flickering as an early warning signal. Theoretical Ecology. 2013 Aug 1;6(3):309-17.
How and when this pattern will shift again – or how anthropogenic changes to the system will affect transitions – is not a problem tractable with simple math and simpler assumptions. Or indeed with any of the current tools.
So it’s outside of science. But we’d better wreck transport and power generation and drive 4 billion back into subsistence poverty, just in case.
JC SNIP Now you cite a Javier post on Milankovitch ‘forcing’ of glacials. Exactly 6500 year lag aye? 🤣You had better read some more on AMOC – and note that I did note the effect on the physical system of low NH summer insolation. You seem to have that simple idea wrong as well.
Climate is completely deterministic but seemingly random and unpredictable. The only rational approach – and you fail utterly – is to identify physical mechanics of the system. Simple rules of deterministic chaos may give some obscure clue – but on its own it is no substitute for understanding process through hypothesis and observation.
“Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change” Dakos et al 2008
“Flickering as an early warning signal” Dakos et al 2013
Well which the hell is it? And why? And how the hell would you map this infinitely dimensioned state space? You are fooling yourself with this obtuse nonsense.
Perhaps we are “Living dangerously on borrowed time during slow, unrecognized regime shifts”. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534712002170
The JC snip seems a bit over enthusiastic. The comment related to a jargon based thesis – rather than something grounded in the real and physical world.
Robert
Is it really so hard to understand the idea that glacial-interglacial alternation could represent flicker between attractors, as a system moves toward the periphery of one basin of attraction toward another attractor basin. Stochastic noise or periodic forcing (Milankovitch) causes the system to flicker in and out of the new approaching attractor even before that attractor becomes the stable state.
If this proposition were true, then in palaeo history we would expect to find glacial-interglacial flicker at other times in earth’s history, when the climate moves either into or out of, deep glaciation.
And this is what we do find, toward the end of the Marinoan glaciation about 600 million years ago, as the earth recovered from the deep Cryogenian glaciations and the stage was set for the Cambrian explosion (as oxygen levels increased, a “climate change” caused by organisms that turned out to be beneficial) that glacial-interglacial flicker, Milankovitch-paced, did indeed happen:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2502
Ice sheets grow and recede. Slowing of heat transport north initiates ice sheet growth. Ice and snow survives in low insolation summers. There are albedo and carbon dioxide feedbacks. There is a theory that dust initiates deglaciation in cold, arid and low carbon glacials. All the rest is waffle. Unless you have a physical explanation for this ‘flicker’? One that doesn’t involve strange attractors.
>”It is a world of nonlinear oscillations”.
Golly. Thank you for stating the bleeding obvious with such condescension. I had hoped for actual references but that’s clearly too much.
In short, it’s speculation. Within a week, the MSM will have it as fact and further economic destruction will be added to bushfire conflagration.
Meanwhile, this is the best I’ve found so far:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062447
Anyone else care to give it a go ?
There were a dozen odd references. But Tessa Vance from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC I have followed for years. I have posted both of these recently and frequently.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content-e1540939103404.jpg
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/ipo-proxy-vance.png
I suggest that Jonathan Nott at James Cook University provides corroborating geomorphological evidence. There are many other I have discussed in the context of intense internal variability over millennia. I take a long view. The Hurst law is especially interesting in this context.
“Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed on the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
There is an apparent correlation between SAM, the IPO and ENSO indices of Tessa Vance and colleagues, surface temperature and solar activity as seen in cosmogenic isotopes over a 1000 years. There are changes triggered by SAM as discussed briefly and referenced above.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/sam-abhams.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0420-9
But change the system did in the mid 1970’s – and it is not difficult to posit an anthropogenic influence on top of natural variability.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0420-9
But you focus on an innocuous opening line and use it in a childish effort to ridicule and disparage. I am far from impressed. I went on to define nonlinear oscillations in more modern terms. It is a world of nonlinear oscillations. In more more modern term – shifts in spatio-temporal patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation such as are found in any turbulent fluid medium. I suspect that what you are looking for is not science but confirmation of your skeptic bias.
Robert I Ellison: How and when this pattern will shift again – or how anthropogenic changes to the system will affect transitions – is not a problem tractable with simple math and simpler assumptions. Or indeed with any of the current tools.
I agree with you on that. You quote mathematics a lot but seem to forget the limits of what can now be known.
But not the following: Climate is completely deterministic but seemingly random and unpredictable.
Since all measurement techniques, and hence measurements, are affected by random variation, it is not possible to determine whether climate is completely deterministic. With measurements as they are, even tipping points and mechanisms are impossible to quantify exactly.
I forget nothing. You forget that that it is a real physical world evident in data – even if this data is less than perfect. But we infer from shadows cast on Plato’s cave wall that everything in this real world obeys the laws of motions.
Pingback: Heroic Greta will be our Joan of Arc - Fabius Maximus website
Whatever the sensitivity – Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5 (SSP5) seems our inevitable future. The future is seriously cyberpunk.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/19/cyberpunk-is-the-future/
“SSP5 Fossil-fueled Development – Taking the Highway (High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation) This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300681-gr5_lrg.jpg
What we need to do is accept that SSP5 is best social, economic and environmental path to a future for the planet, its people and its wild places.
Accelerating technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry – is a starting point. But let’s not wait. Let’s geoengineer the hell out of the place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=lCOHRCZOM6Y&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=DKIwUGHHASY&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzcfPax4As&feature=emb_logo
How did you not get that what’s in the videos is geoengineering?
True. Soil banking, my Grandpa called it that as he got his government check, is geoengineering. Trees are right up there with the biggest geoengineering project. It’s scary. Ray guns and stuff. Buck Rogers.
Robert I Ellison: very, extremely, completely, in a grand way – in common usage
Such usages are common in mockery, irony, and sarcasm. I asked which was your intention, support or mockery.
And all these are very serious measures.
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com.
“Equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity (ECS) can be estimated as the (scaled) slope of the relationship between observed Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) and the excess of effective radiative forcing (ERF) over EEI, provided that the influence of natural climate system internal variability is small enough over the analysis period.”
When there is an EEI standstill over a given period, then during this time the slope of the relationship between the observed GMST and the ERF reflects the climate sensitivity in equilibrium.”
–
CO2 goes up as a percentage.
Radiative forcing should go up as a percentage.
Temperature should go up with the radiating forcing and the CO2.
We can measure the CO2 increase.
This gives the rate of radiative forcing increase.
Why does one need a neutral EEI?
If the CO2 is going up at a relatively constant rate you could just say the EEI is at a standstill and use the figures over those years.
No need to “prove ” it with complicated drift corrections.
You should also show the uncorrected value where one does not take out other factors with a filter.
So you could give the natural figure for the last 20 years with ENSO et al as a comparison.
–
On a similar vein what stops you using the filter and a correction for the increasing or decreasing ERF over earlier periods [if measured or measurable for comparison?
Or is that what Nic and JC did?
Robert I. Ellison |
“The atmosphere contains some 2% of global energy – and changes for many reasons on many scales. Ocean heat content is a much better metric.”
Another Pielke junior?
OHC is better than atmospheric heat content?
Because one varies much more?
–
They are both equally useful.
And useless.
They do let us approach the concept of ECS in 2 different ways and that then usually helps to lessen the error of either alone.
There is no way around the concept of ECS double the CO2 and check the temperature change.
The answer however is impossible to get to without a large grey area.
People who make a living out of exaggerating the upper levels of this grey area are not very nice people*. [not you]
All we can do is plug and play as many variables as we are able to measure accurately and restrict the range to the sensible area.
OHC content fails badly here in 2 respects.
It is poorly quantified and the merest minuscule change by error of measurement makes giant changes in the ECS.
It can be estimated on average by the TOA outgoing energy but this is highly dependent on both cloud cover and current temperatures.
The TOA itself with accurate records would seem to be the best and only near accurate guide over time.
–
Oceans because that’s where the heat is and because it is measured so precisely. The rate of ocean heat change is the only way to close the TOA energy budget.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/statusbig.gif
Robert I Ellison: Oceans because that’s where the heat is and because it is measured so precisely. The rate of ocean heat change is the only way to close the TOA energy budget.
How precisely is ocean heat change measured? 1% relative error? 15% relative error?
The AAO index is falling again, which means a threat to Australia.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
You have to see the average sea level pressure over southern Australia in December 2018.
https://traveler.um.maine.edu/reanalysis/monthly_maps/output/maps_65.png
There is currently a growing fire threat in southern Australia.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_mslp_1-day.png
They had winter fires last year, so maybe it will burn for most of the year.
Because of the mean greens preventing prescribed burns! Lol.
Once everything has burned, they’ll be Okay.
The vast majority of the land area does not burn, and fires do not kill everything. So it’s right back to burning if conditions are conducive, which they often are in Australia.
Prairie fires used to spread across vast parts of the Dakotahs. When I was a kid, old people used to talk about them. They became very rare and containable. Roads. Recently that had one get out of control.
It was started by a prescribed burn.
Minnesota has forests. Hear about many forest fires?
https://i.imgur.com/UPGH0ct.png
I own a forest, some of it old growth. There is no record of a fire there since Europeans settled the area in 1836. My fuel load is natural. There are a few trees that clearly have been hit by lightning, and they were on fire for a brief time. It goes out. A drought in 2011 had me worried. Fortunately I did not try to do a homemade prescribed burn.
Does it mean, what we see, as a heavy drought prognosis?
Drought in Australia and strong frost in Canada.
I think Australian bush fires are mostly arsons.
Otherwise how Australian ecology survived thru the previous millennia?
How cangourow survived without people?
When rainfall is higher for several years, vegetation expands in Australia. When drought comes, dry bushes and branches are flammable.
Heads I win, tails you lose. If it doesn’t rain, nothing grows, no wildfires. It’s chaos. Population explosion of plants, that then die by fire. Like the predator prey chaos deal: https://northerncanadiantundra.weebly.com/uploads/9/5/4/9/95495824/unknown_orig.gif
That’s kangaroo – and very few fires are deliberate.
http://media.bom.gov.au/social/upload/images/Pyrocumulus_diagram_branded-resize.jpg
and very few fires are deliberate.
You cannot really know that for sure.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022
Do you have evidence for that?
In the US 85% of fires have a human origin. How is that different in Australia?
“Our analysis of two decades of government agency wildfire records highlights the fundamental role of human ignitions. Human-started wildfires accounted for 84% of all wildfires, tripled the length of the fire season, dominated an area seven times greater than that affected by lightning fires, and were responsible for nearly half of all area burned. National and regional policy efforts to mitigate wildfire-related hazards would benefit from focusing on reducing the human expansion of the fire niche.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/02/21/1617394114
Let’s try to change climate instead. That ought to work. [/sarc]
Australia has a law against setting bushfires: 21 years in jail; if people die, a person can be charged for that as well.
But here’s a hint at what is going on:
https://i.imgur.com/eubOsco.png
JCH: But here’s a hint at what is going on:
What is far fewer than 380?
Are there arsonists who have not yet been apprehended?
“What is far fewer than 380?”
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2020/01/murdochs-mendacious-myth-building-on.html
Arson implies a criminal who enjoys starting fires. A person with a problem.
There is a loophole in the Australian law.
Australia celebrates starting fires. They love them. They think they’re a cure-all solution. Look at the press. About all you see is calls for more burning. The PM said the other day all he is hearing from people is calls for more burning. Burning prevents bushfires.
So how can it be surprising that landowners/homeowners violate burn bans?
Matthew
I checked back before the current bush fire hysteria and came across this official document that used 4 years of data and was published in 2011
http://www.bushfirecrc.com/sites/default/files/managed/resource/bushfire_arson.pdf
It states that some 36 percent of oz Bush fires are arson which equated to some 18000 cases annually. Obviously these varied considerably in size and importance.
90 percent are started by males.
This seems an extremely large number of apparent arson attempts and puts the current figures into perspective.
it would be very useful to have the input from aussies such as Robert as it may be this report has subsequently been discrrdited but no searches showed this happened.
Tonyb
tonyb:| January 14, 2020 at 11:31 am |
Thank you for the link to the report, which includes this note about definition: The changing meaning of arson
The word arson itself came into the English language in the 17th century, originally with two meanings – malicious damage to another’s property by fire, and a threat to the state by incendiaries. Arson gradually lost its treason element, although reminders of this meaning still survive in Australian legislation where an important symbol of rural unrest
– the burning of haystacks – is still specifically mentioned. Despite its ancient origins, arson has been a particularly difficult crime to define by law, chiefly because of its overlap with crimes of criminal damage and offences against person. The real problem, however, lies in defining intent. When somebody sets fire to a building, the intent is to burn that
building and it is unlikely that the whole city will burn down, but when somebody sets fire to vegetation the consequences are far less knowable. The legal meaning of the word arson has changed again in recent years to try to encompass the difference in intent between structural and vegetation fires. Arson now has two meanings in law – malicious damaging of property by fire, which applies mainly to structural arson, and the lighting of
fires “reckless as to the consequences”, which applies mainly to bushfire arson.
This seems to be a case where common usage is not adhering carefully to the legal definition.
JCH: Arson implies a criminal who enjoys starting fires. A person with a problem.
The legal meaning quoted from the short article that tonyb linked includes “reckless as to consequences”, which unfortunately does not have any precise implication. Where I live, a fire-prone region of San Diego County, California, a lot of people are reckless as to the consequences of using power tools and toys in and around shrubbery. They cause fires (hence “human-caused” fires), but it is hard to tell whether such recklessness should be called arson.
Nevertheless, I grant the main claim that the incidence of human-caused fires in Australia this season has been exaggerated in the media and in gossip. But this incidence also, on the readings linked here, does not seem to be negligible.
Australia may be hotter and drier – the two are related through a reduction in soil moisture and evaporative cooling – than it has been since the beginning of the last millenium. In such conditions no responsible person is lighting fires for whatever purpose outside at all. I gave a link to what is known – when asked – just above about sources of ignition in the current bushfire emergency. Very little was deliberate. Deliberately lighting of fires in such conditions is very high on the Australian list of mongrel acts.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/1187828-3×2-340×227.jpg
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-30/total-fire-bans-explained-for-city-dwellers/8220210
As Tony’s reference says, most non-sanctioned – you need a permit to burn bushland – deliberately lit fires are lit by poorly educated antisocial young men or children. Tony’s reference seems aimed at more effective targeting of bushfire prevention. An effort that has been ongoing for as long as I can remember.
Fire in Mediterranean type landscapes is inevitable. Cultural burning is far preferable to catastrophic wildfires. In both Australia and California.
So no evidence, then. Just what someone said in the press. And that is enough for you to say as a matter of fact. Tsk tsk.
The story has reputable sources. And where else would you expect to find information on an ongoing event. Blah blah blah.
Tony B’s reference may be correct – but a distinction needs to be made about the location of mostly minor fires being near urban areas and lit by children and disaffected young men – and catastrophic fires in emergency conditions.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/fire.png
According to your figure:
Accidental + Incendiary + Suspicious = 84.7% Human caused.
Exactly the same figure Balch et al., 2017 find for the US.
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/02/21/1617394114
Thanks for demonstrating you are wrong.
JC SNIP But we were talking about the current fire season. Fire bans reduce both accidental and suspicious fires. Fines of up to $1000,000 apply and/or 14 years in jail.
“A total fire ban means no fires out in the open. That includes a backyard or courtyard, deck, balcony, public park, picnic area, reserve, beach or nature strip.
Rules differ slightly from state to state. The list below contains the strictest rules.
Gas and electric barbecues
On a day of a total fire ban, you can use a gas or electric barbecue outside, as long as:
An adult supervises it
There is no flammable material within 5 metres
You have either a hose connected to a water supply or a container with at least 10 litres of water for immediate use
The barbecue is located within 20 metres of a home or other private dwelling or a picnic area
These rules apply to gas and electric barbecues that are fixed or portable. Remember, rules may vary from state to state.
Other barbecues and grills
During a total fire ban, you cannot use a barbecue outside that uses wood, heat beads, charcoal, or any kind of solid or liquid fuel. This includes Weber “kettle” charcoal barbecues.
During a total fire ban you cannot use a wood-fired pizza oven outside.
Other kinds of outdoor cooking
You cannot cook with a outdoor pizza oven or spit-style rotisserie that uses wood, charcoal or heat beads. You cannot cook a hangi.
Fire pits
You cannot light or maintain a fire pit or fire bowl.
Incinerators
You cannot light or burn rubbish in an incinerator.
Smoking
You can smoke outside. Flicking a lit cigarette out of a car window during a total fire ban is illegal and attracts a fine.
Working outdoors
No general purpose hot works, such as welding, soldering, grinding or gas cutting can be done in the open.
You can use a chainsaw, lawn mower or grass cutter in a suburban or built up area, but not in bushland or areas with non-green vegetation. The area must first be cleared of flammable material. You can use a generator.”
That’s $100,000 – I added an extra zero.
This is the law in a society that celebrates starting fires to prevent fires:
https://i.imgur.com/rhEMKPl.png
Not uncommon tales:
https://i.imgur.com/m7nDDgb.png
Robert I Ellison: In such conditions no responsible person is lighting fires for whatever purpose outside at all.
Well sure. But how many fires are being set by people who are either irresponsible or naive? There seems to be no accurate account of how many this season.
It’s not clear what his point is. We have practical laws on fire? But – again – here is the whole story – not just an unsourced copy and paste. Note the mid November publication date. Yes farmers do back burning adjacent to National Parks – that are described as locked up and neglected. They are not doing it in conditions we have at present. And the guy with a lantana thicket around his house was not a farmer.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/locked-up-and-forgotten-farmers-taking-fire-management-into-their-own-hands-20191115-p53b0t.html
We need to throw much more resources at cultural burning. Some of us predicted this catastrophe – now we need to heal country.
In the current situation, there are claimed to be ~380 people picked up for having something to do with the current fires, including violations of burn bans, who were not charged with arson.
If somebody fears their property could be consumed by a bushfire, and they’ve heard this persistent message that prescribed burns can prevent bushfires, then it very understandable in their desperation they could start a fire that quickly becomes uncontrollable by them and the firefighters:
Interpret this government message:
https://i.imgur.com/PR3GxpH.png
The number seems to be getting bigger – but it is still false. I’d laugh – but very rural Australians are amused by the clowns in the social media circus. An Australian Federal Police fact check published yesterday.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/afp-fasct-check.png
https://factcheck.afp.com/police-figures-show-far-fewer-people-australia-have-been-charged-bushfire-arson
The area burned so far is some 13 million hectares. An area the size of England.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/area-burned.png
… very few rural Australians…
Wytaliba had been back burning before fatal fire: Sparks
https://i.imgur.com/hj5A4p5.png
https://i.imgur.com/irT4Oqi.png
“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
No fire on the ground? We exceeded our Kyoto target by locking up the bush. Now we are reaping the whirlwind. Despite having a much more sustainable path to 50% CO2-e reduction per capita by 2030.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/extraordinary-bushfire-footage-emerges-from-wytaliba/video/b908d3585b8854da24ca7eefad1a0249
It’s not the same number. 180 arson charges was a falsehood spread by conservative media in Australia and elsewhere in an attempt to deflect blame from climate change.
380 is the number of people who were involved with a fire in this event who were not charged with arson, and the number is not from that source.
I don’t see how the gentleman could be more clear:
The figure is not from official sources? Now why didn’t I suspect that?
We have video of the fire. JC SNIP
You can tell from the thickness of the timber stands that this is neglected country.
You can tell that. One is just astounded by genius.
Cultural burning tends to leave the large trees in place. They concentrate on burning the grass debris on the ground and the lower shrubs: the undergrowth; otherwise known as the hazard or fuel load. They describe the finished product as a forest one can see through.
And my source is just as official as yours.
The man who wrote the article lives on 3500 acres of land. He says for three years in a row their rural fire department performed significant prescribed burns. Sounds like his wife is the mayor and an in-law a local fireman.
Why don’t you drive out there and, face to face, tell him to stick it up his ___. That’s apparently allowed by the blog rules.
Burning changes recruitment and ultimately the structure of ecological communities.
e.g. https://www.une.edu.au/connect/news/2019/11/reviving-fire-as-a-tool-for-shaping-ecology-and-culture
Relevant everywhere – but specifically in this ‘New England Tableland’ bioregion and adjacent escarpments of the eastern Australian ranges.
“Kenny et al. (2004) indicate a minimum threshold of 25 years for Wet Sclerophyll Forests because the most sensitive species in the analyses of Kenny et al. (2004) were obligate seeding Eucalyptus spp. In the Northern Escarpment Wet Sclerophyll Forests, obligate seeding eucalypts are absent, but the obligate seeder gymnosperm Callitris maclaeyana occurs uncommonly. Data are not available for the maturation time of Callitris maclaeyana. However, in cultivation no fruits have been produced by 21 year old planting (Floyd pers. comm.). Therefore, in areas in which Callitris maclaeyana occurs, a threshold of 25 years is suggested and in where this species is absent a threshold of 11 years is recommended. Clearly, these fire interval thresholds are a starting point to develop fire regimes models that incorporate season, intensity and the ‘mosaic’ concept as advocated by those concerned with all biodiversity components (Clarke 2008).For those species that resprout, the consequences of repeated short interval fires are poorly known and rarely factored into species’ risk assessment. Limited data on three commonly occurring resprouting shrubs shows that up to 15% of populations are killed by fire (Knox & Clarke 2006), hence seedling recruitment must occur to maintain current populations. Our study has predictably shown that seedlings of resprouters are slower to mature, but their ability to resprout prior to this maturation remains unknown. Similarly, whilst many rainforest shrubs and trees show ‘tolerance’ to a fire event, through vigorous resprouting, it is not known if recurrent fire causes mortality and recruitment failure. These topics are fertile ground for further research, not only in the NET Bioregion, but throughout fire prone south-eastern Australia.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290802039_Post-fire_recovery_of_woody_plants_in_the_New_England_Tableland_Bioregion
Yes, dry vegetation is very flammable. But what ignites the wildfire?
There are natural causes, like lightnings, but lightnings come with thunderstorms.
It literally does not make any difference. It’s what makes the fire spread that matters. In dry-land areas, minimal annual precipitation, some years have 4th of July fireworks, and some years have fireworks bans on the 4th of July.
Fireworks start fires every year.
In ban years they are exceedingly difficult to put out. In non-ban years the fires are very easy to put out.
The difficulty of putting fires out must be considered together with ignition. Apparently, aborigines managed fires much better than either Labor or the Coalition.
Apparently, aborigines managed fires much better than either Labor or the Coalition.
Prove it.
https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6C98BB75496A5AD1CA2569DE00267E48
That’s a recitation of a lot of mythology, and something that may have worked, but poorly, in a climate that no longer exists.
Prove it.
Congratulations. My respect to a person who can comprehend that much in 14 minutes or less.
Global warming always makes droughts worse, because it increases evaporation rates.
And that evaporated water is lost forever.
Cultural burning conserves biodiversity. It is practiced across the northern savanna – and is funded by the Australian government under the climate solutions fund. What is needed is more sophisticated carbon accounting over the rest of the landscape. Along with a better understanding of the role of fire and cultural practices in the Australian landscape. It is an idea at the core of revaluation of land management practices. What we are doing is clearly not working.
Lightning is essentially a constant. So is arson.
https://i.imgur.com/utdvevE.png
Meanwhile, fluctuations in surface temperature anomalies oscillate around 0.3 C. This is a constant trend.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
It is therefore a contradiction in the data.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim_full.html
Each day sunlight drills into the oceans to various depths. Then a nearly equivalent amount of energy has to get out: leave. And amount slightly less than went in is coming out. Your SST claims don’t refute that.
It is certainly not a constant trend (oscillation). Look up the HadSST4 or HadSST3 data. Or NOAA’s SST data.
300 ZJs in 32 years. 10 ZJs per year. Total SLR 3mm/year. Half for htese ZJs. 10 ZJs equals 1.5mm SLR. 100 ZJs equals 1.5 cm SLR.
But the oceans are warming too. Yes they are. Everything will be Okay.
The data prior to 1987 isn’t that good. But its slope is consistent with past old fashioned SLR data.
The problem will be SLR. Focus on that. The oceans will absorbing for the next 50 years. Where is the money? On the coasts. Fix that.
But the oceans are warming too. Yes they are. Everything will be Okay.
I don’t think you have a clue.
JCH:
“The study, published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences,
said that last year the ocean was 0.075 Celsius hotter than the historical average between 1981-2010.” In the same article they talk about Hiroshima. I wonder where the idea for that came from?
Call me a fool. I can’t care. Less than 0.1 C in about 25 years. I predict by the year 2045 an additional 0.1 C rise from 1/01/20.
Thermal mass. Warm the atmosphere. That was nice. Now warm the oceans to their full depth. I am a fan of mass.
Like I said.
In nature, mass wins 90% of the time. Give me sustain. Depth. Give me always.
https://i.imgur.com/bjTykKs.png
Current SST anomalies in the tropics.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Tropics%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Sea Surface Temperature (SST) and SST anomaly maps are generated from NOAA Optimum Interpolation SST version 2 (OISST V2). OISST is a 0.25° gridded dataset derived by blending satellite, ship, and buoy measurements. The SST anomalies is based on a 1971-2000 climatology calculated by NOAA.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced2_sstanom_1-day.png
What is your point? There is nothing there that indicates the OHC update is wrong.
I did back of the envelop calculations of 2 different ECS estimations using Frank’s temperature and forcing data and the Ceres net radiation at the TOA in the original form (and as presented in a posted graph to this thread) and the adjusted data that Frank presented from DeWitt. With the original Ceres I calculated an ECS=6.72 and with the adjusted data I calculated an ECS=1.35. Neither of these values appears very realistic and says little or nothing about the correct net radiation but rather more about using a short time period for making ECR estimates.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #394 -
“The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) represents a balance between incoming solar radiation reaching the TOA and outgoing reflected solar and thermal radiant energy emitted by the earth–atmosphere system. When the climate system is forced by natural or anthropogenic factors (e.g., changes in solar output, volcanic eruptions, and human activities), an imbalance in the TOA ERB results (Hansen et al. 2011; Loeb et al. 2012; Trenberth et al. 2014; von Schuckmann et al. 2016). Superimposed on this climate change signal is the large internal variability of the climate system, which also causes variations in the ERB. Internal variations can occur over a range of time–space scales, associated with synoptic weather events, atmosphere–ocean interactions [e.g., El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)], volcanic eruptions, and low-frequency multidecadal fluctuations [e.g., Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO)].” https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/10/climate-sensitivity-in-light-of-the-latest-energy-imbalance-evidence/#comment-907559
We have a short term record of TOA flux with a budget closure error an order of magnitude greater than the metric of interest – supported by truncated ocean data – being applauded by skeptics who believe that it has some relevance to sensitivity to CO2. Puzzling indeed.
This system is hugely variable. This is steric sea level rise calculated from Argo data. The average rate of change (d(ohc)/dt) is 1.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/steric_height.png
The most recent increase in ocean heat content was largely due to cloud cover reduction over a warmer eastern Pacific (Loeb et al 2018). The question is was this random or a pattern evolving over decades to millennia.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/nile-e1527722953992.jpg
We have got to the idea that the TOA energy dynamic is hugely variable and it is turned back to an idea of low sensitivity to CO2. A daft idea for a couple of reasons. The delusion that they understand what climate forcing at TOA at any time is. And that the TOA energy dynamic shifts with patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation.
The German industrial conglomerate’s CEO, Joe Kaeser, had promised to review Siemens’ involvement in the project in light of climate activists’ opposition. But in a statement late Sunday, Kaeser said that “there is practically no legally and economically responsible way to unwind the contract without neglecting fiduciary duties.”
Siemens on Dec. 10 signed the contract to supply signaling systems for a rail link between the Carmichael coal mine and a port. The vast mine is owned by Indian company Adani, and the contract is worth about 18 million euros ($20 million) to Siemens.
Kaeser wrote that there were competitors — “thus, whether or not Siemens provides the signaling, the project will still go ahead.”
https://apnews.com/7d970aa195807a8e76825c8d2d4a5dfa
Joe Kaeser is on the right path.
Coal and other fossil fuels are the reason billions of people have a really good life.
Those who do not have low cost abundant energy are the real victims. There is no excuse for forcing people to stay in energy poverty.
“Unto Heaven be Peace, Unto the Sky and the Earth be Peace, Peace be unto the Water, Unto the Herbs and Trees be Peace”
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/India%20First/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
You wrote: Conclusion: I calculated the climate sensitivity in a temporary standstill period
You calculated the climate sensitivity in a temporary standstill period during a flat place in a thousand year cycle that had many periods that were flat or sloped up or down for short periods. You picked a short time during the most recent very well regulated ten thousand years.
Over longer time periods, climate has made changes that totally do not correlate with CO2. You can only get a none zero sensitivity by limiting the time period to one that shows correlation. Other time period selections can easily be chosen to show anti correlation or zero.
Give up on CO2 as “THE” control knob for climate and look for the real natural causes that have been working forever.
There are internal response cycles that have time periods and amplitudes that depend on the amount of water and ice that take part in alternating warm and cold periods. A little ice age used a little water and ice and the complete ice cycle from warm to cold to warm again took a thousand years. A major ice age used a lot of water and ice and the complete cycle from warm to cold to warm again took 130 thousand years. CO2 cannot explain even a fraction of that. The oceans are huge carbonated drinks and the vapor pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere followed temperature just like the CO2 in a carbonated drink container. This is simple basic science, well known by many, not counting climate scientists.
What else are we to expect?
Solar activity has been declining since 2000.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN-EEI.htm
“What else are we to expect?”
http://solarcyclescience.com/Predictions/PredictSSN_23_24_25.png
Sunspots are only an approximate proxy. We have real data on solar irradiance.
“Oceans contain some 90% of the planet’s energy content, some 8% as latent heat in liquid water and water vapor and 2% in the atmosphere”.
Interesting
Let’s assume atmosphere and ocean having approximately the same volume
From Wikipedia
“The ocean contains 97% of Earth’s water, and oceanographers have stated that less than 5% of the World Ocean has been explored.[7] The total volume is approximately 1.35 billion cubic kilometers (320 million cu mi) with an average depth of nearly 3,700 meters (12,100 ft).[8][9][10]”
Let’s calculate the oceanic waters energy content:
Water’s specific heat is 4,19Joul/gr K
cp = 4,19Joul/gr K
Oceanic waters volume is 1,35 billion cubic kilometers
Air’s specific heat is cp = 1.0 kJ/kg K or cp = 1,0 kJ/ cu m K
Let’s compare the atmospheric and oceanic energy contents by comparing water’s and air’s specific heat
so there is 4,19 Joul/gr K * 1.000.000 gr/cu m =
4,19 *1000 kJoul/cu m K = 4.190 kJoul/cu m K
1,0 kJ/ cu m K / 4190 kJoul/cu m K = 1 /4190 = 0,0002387 or 0,02387 %
Atmospheric energy content is some 0,02387 % of the oceanic energy content.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
You seem to be mistaking heat capacity for heat content.
What goes around…
L. Resplandy, R. F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M. Brooks, R. Wang, L. Bopp, M. C. Long, J. P. Dunne, W. Koeve & A. Oschlies, 2019, Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z
Novel method for estimating OHC changes. Now the authors need to work on reducing those uncertainty limits. I am unaccustomed to seeing 1 sigma limits that huge in a published paper.
The novel method is it’s scientific interest. But there are all sorts of poorly constrained parameters in Earth system science. If you have missed that then I’d suggest you go away and reconsider everything you thought you knew with certainty. As for ocean heat?
“A fundamental measure of global warming is the heat uptake by the ocean, which represents more than 90% of the excess energy gained by the Earth1. This ocean warming has been quantified using hydrographic temperature measurements, including data from the Argo float program, which expanded coverage after 20072,3,4. As shown in Fig. 1, the most recent temperature-based estimates of ocean warming5,6,7,8 show good agreement for 2007-2016 (1.09 ± 0.10 to 1.16 ± 0.2 × 1022 J yr−1), but a larger spread when extending back to include the sparser 1990s data (0.90 ± 0.09 to 1.36 ± 0.10 × 1022 J yr−1 for 1993–2015). The spread is mostly caused by gap-filling methods and systematic errors5,8,9, which together introduce uncertainties up to 25–50% in warming trends10. Because temperature-based estimates use the same upper-ocean observations and linear warming trend for depths below 2000 m (ref. 6.), they may share additional unknown systematic errors8. An alternative method based on the top of the atmosphere energy balance11 is also not truly independent, because it is subject to large systematic errors when estimating long-term trends and therefore depends on the same hydrographic measurements for calibration11,12,13,14. Here we introduce a third method, based on changes in the abundances of gases in the atmosphere, which respond to whole-ocean warming through the temperature dependence of gas solubility in seawater. This method is not limited by data sparseness, because fast mixing in the atmosphere efficiently integrates the global ocean signal.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z
I’ll try again.
I will be curious to see if any near term papers use the APO method of estimating ΔOHC.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-019-56490-z/MediaObjects/41598_2019_56490_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
You mean if any other recent papers use this method.
Resplandy, L., Keeling, R.F., Eddebbar, Y. et al. (2019) Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition. Sci Rep 9, 20244 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56490-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z
It is worth being aware of the actual sea surface temperature.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_sst_1-day.png
JCH
“Each day sunlight drills into the oceans to various depths. Then a nearly equivalent amount of energy has to get out: leave. And amount slightly less than went in is coming out.”
–
Help appreciated here.
Still clueless. (Me).
Heat in should equal heat out.
–
Obviously true equilibrium can never exist due to rotation of the earth, a gaseous atmosphere, a mixed surface of water, earth, ice, clouds and vegetation.
But unlike what JCH says, when you get past the reflectance, absorbance and different rates of transmission of energy for different substances physics still holds true.
An equivalent amount of energy has to get out. Leave. Not a nearly equivalent amount of energy.
There is no free energy.
Energy does not make new energy of itself.
You do not get 1 calorie of heat making 2 calories making 4 ad infinitude.
Like land in real estate they do not make any more.
–
There is no real trapping of ocean heat as JCH implies. Oceans heat up, oceans cool down. Temperature variations occur due to winds current and salinity and seasons.
The Arctic freezes in winter and melts in summer. It doesn’t magically put aside an extra grab bag of calories into Davey Jones locker to fool warmists and release later on.
https://i.imgur.com/LZ4dl44.png
If you have a positive imbalance, then more energy is coming in than is leaving. That’s why they call it an imbalance.
One or the other is lager and one or the other is smaller. In 2019, a lot of energy stayed in the oceans.
What you’re praying for is a negative imbalance. More energy would be leaving the oceans. OHC would be going down. Not the trend; the actual content.
“If you have a positive imbalance, then more energy is coming in than is leaving. That’s why they call it an imbalance.
–
Semantics.
The energy coming in depends on factors like cloud cover [albedo] and distance from the sun and sun power output [pretty stable on a large scale but small changes can have a big effect on the human tolerable range].
There is no imbalance.
The earth takes in X energy a day, it radiates x energy a day.
[It responds pretty promptly].
The atmosphere can be warmer or colder due to the GHG in it [mostly water vapour and relatively stable].
If you take the whole mass of air, water, earth and ice that receive x energy per day the earth gives out x energy per day.
How hot the atmosphere [and that is totally different to a hypothetical impossible earth surface with no atmosphere] gets is dependent on its GHG properties. It neither makes new energy or stores any energy that otherwise would have been heating up the other components of the earth that receive energy.
The earth, through the TOA CO2 radiates out exactly what comes in each day.
Why else does it get cold at night?
One or the other is lager and one or the other is smaller. In 2019, a lot of energy stayed in the oceans.”
–
But did it?
Really?
Energy does not stay anywhere unless trapped as in potential energy.
Heat in the oceans is moving.
If a current carries hotter water deeper then cold water takes its place to be heated up and radiate heat so that water now warms up while the hotter current gradually cools.
The total energy of the system is pretty much unchanged.
It has to be.
It doesn’t get extra power in and the energy does not make new energy and still has to be lost according to physical principles.
Any energy that “stayed in the oceans” was balanced by energy being lost from somewhere else.
–
Loss of inputs from clouds is a big variable because now we are talking about less power in in total.
Nothing makes more power [well cloudless days lets more of whats available in.
GHG merely put a warm filter in between the continual normal otherwise balance of energy in and out.
[yes they do heat the atmosphere].
Sorry about the rant.
There is an imbalance. It is caused by the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. The OHC could never make this sort of increase without an imbalance of some sort:
https://i.imgur.com/LZ4dl44.png
In the world you are describing there could be natural variably, one thing getting colder while another becomes hotter, or the other way, but there could be no longterm trend to colder or hotter.
The energy coming in depends on factors like cloud cover [albedo] and distance from the sun and sun power output [pretty stable on a large scale but small changes can have a big effect on the human tolerable range].
The energy coming in (to the lower troposphere) also depends, obviously, on the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Oceans heat up, oceans cool down. Temperature variations occur due to winds current and salinity and seasons.
If the air in contact with the ocean surface warms, does the sea surface warm?
Does any of that warmth make it below the surface?
A second thought is that there is problem always with the concept of TOA The Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).
Frank states “If EEI is positive then the Earth’s climate system gains energy; if it’s negative the system loses energy, largely due to the energy flow into or out of the oceans.”
This only applies to a system which is not producing its own heat.
Now the earth is not a cold -273.15 C rock. It has a baseline temperature, not much but it sends off some infrared itself all the time .
So the energy leaving earth should always be greater than that being received by the sun when we are just staying in balance
Ie we should always be in some sort of EEI negativity.
Now I do not know how Spencer et al account for this,
Perhaps an adjustment is made to remove the expected amount of earth heat radiation.
I just know that it seems incorrect to state that emmisivity from the earth is less than radiation input from the sun.
Anyone?
Δ(H&W) = energy in – energy out + heat of combustion of fossil fuels + heat of nuclear fission + heat of radioactive decay in the mantle + heat of respiration
Is that all? None of it is measured with sufficient precision for a detailed budget. Heat and work include latent, potential and kinetic energy as well as the internal energy of molecular electron orbits and energy chemically bound in organic matter. Some of the latter is sequestered. Much is consumed and the energy released. Practically – kinetic energy as heat in oceans is the metric for energy imbalances.
Robert I Ellison: Is that all? None of it is measured with sufficient precision for a detailed budget.
But ocean heat content is measured precisely?
Δ(OHC) ≈ energy in – energy out
The right hand side has a closure error of some 5 W/m2.
Robert I Ellison: The right hand side has a closure error of some 5 W/m2.
OK
My question was about your claim that ocean heat content is measured precisely.
Argo temperature sensors are accurate to a 1000th of a degree. Now all you need to understand is interpolation algorithms, grids and validation. Try educating yourself just a little and you might then be in a position to ask informed questions.
Here’s a place for you to start.
Roemmich, D. and J. Gilson, 2009: The 2004-2008 mean and annual cycle of temperature, salinity, and steric height in the global ocean from the Argo Program. Progress in Oceanography, 82, 81-100.
Tidal heating (also known as tidal working or tidal flexing) occurs through the tidal friction processes: orbital energy is dissipated as heat in either the surface ocean or interior of a planet or satellite. When an object is in an elliptical orbit, the tidal forces acting on it are stronger near periapsis than near apoapsis. Thus the deformation of the body due to tidal forces (i.e. the tidal bulge) varies over the course of its orbit, generating internal friction which heats its interior. This energy gained by the object comes from its gravitational energy, so over time in a two-body system, the initial elliptical orbit decays into a circular orbit (tidal circularization). Sustained tidal heating occurs when the elliptical orbit is prevented from circularizing due to additional gravitational forces from other bodies that keep tugging the object back into an elliptical orbit. In this more complex system, gravitational energy still is being converted to thermal energy; however, now the orbit’s semimajor axis would shrink rather than its eccentricity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating
Earth’s tidal heating is also associated with Earth’s rotational speed (liquid nucleus) and moon’s gravity.
So it is due to Jupiter’s gravity that the Earth has relatively constant living conditions.
Then the Greeks were correct in making Jupiter their main god.
angech wrote:
nature maintains the average surface temperature of the earth at 63’F.
Try 60.5 F (=289 K). Remember we’re adding 1 K for modern warming.
You say Energy can not be lost or created. As far as the surface of the earth is concerned that is incorrect. If I say nature maintains the average surface temperature of the earth at 63’F, then the earth loses that radiant heat to the black sky daily. The 63’F radiant from the surface travels until it hits a solid. That could be an oxygen atom, CO2 molecule, Ice molecule and the heat is transferred to the cooler of the two. That molecule is radiating that towards the black sky. Eventually all that heat makes it to the black sky. The sun is creating radiant heat and radiating it to the black sky. When it strikes the earth, it is transferred to the earth solids. The radiant heat striking the earth from the sun is larger than that radiated by the by the earth to the black sky.
Radiant heat is reflected by water. The amount of radiant heat reflected back to the black sky depends on the area of the surface of the earth covered by water, which is controlled by the height of the oceans.
In simple terms.
During the Ice Making stage Mother Nature takes heat from the Oceans and puts it directly into the atmosphere.
During the Ice Melting stage Mother Nature takes heat from the sun and deposits it in Oceans.
“You say Energy can not be lost or created.”
-No, not me.
“The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.”
–
“As far as the surface of the earth is concerned that is incorrect. If I say nature maintains the average surface temperature of the earth at 63’F, then the earth loses that radiant heat to the black sky daily. The 63’F radiant from the surface travels until it hits a solid. That could be an oxygen atom, CO2 molecule, Ice molecule and the heat is transferred to the cooler of the two. That molecule is radiating that towards the black sky. Eventually all that heat makes it to the black sky. The sun is creating radiant heat and radiating it to the black sky. When it strikes the earth, it is transferred to the earth solids. The radiant heat striking the earth from the sun is larger than that radiated by the by the earth to the black sky.”
–
No as explained above.
nature maintains the average surface temperature of the earth at 63’F.
Energy in from the sun balances energy from the earth out .
That is how nature maintains that average.
Otherwise the earth would end up nearly as hot as the sun, indeed possibly hotter.
TOA dictates the level at which energy in is supposed to be in equilibrium with that going out.
No matter what you’re talking about, energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is rule #1.
I said the amount of radiant heat striking the earth is relatively constant. The amount of radiant heat retained by the earth is not constant because the oceans reflect radiant heat. The amount of heat retained by the earth is controlled by the surface area of the earth covered by water.. Thus the amounjt of radiant heat retained by the earth is controlled by the depth of the oceans.
Land also reflects radiant heat.
David Appell: No matter what you’re talking about, energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is rule #1.
Inaccuracies in the measurement of global heat flows render that a fairly useless rule. Energy frequently moves without being measured.
The amount of radiant heat the sun produces is relatively constant.
–
The amount of radiant heat emitted by the earth is relatively constant as well.
–
Energy in = energy out.
What the energy does and where it goes and why it is present in some layers more than others is weather and climate.
–
The amount of radiant energy energy reaching the earth is not constant because of clouds which alter albedo when present
Nothing to do with ocean reflectivity which is always there.
Ocean heat content is very important ,very complex and very widespread as you say.
But the land component is also very important and very overlooked, both above and below the sea.
The only way to deny the imbalance is to create energy: out.
In a non CO2 increasing world. I.e.
–
“In the world you are describing there could be natural variably, one thing getting colder while another becomes hotter, or the other way, but there could be no longterm trend to colder or hotter.”
–
Recurrent long term trends are due to long term causations and other long term trends due to our friend’s chaos theory explanation.
–
Surely?
–
After all you do argue that the suns input is constant so how else does one explain past long term climate change.
The input is not constant due to clouds (Spencer), chaos (Cheifio) and cycles (Milanchovic)
Where do I argue the sun’s input is constant? It’s pointless arguing with somebody who just makes things up. The sun is a variable star, so it is creating radiative imbalances plus or minus on frequent basis. Reflected SW is accounted for. The variability of SW is accounted for.
https://i.imgur.com/mDk4q7e.png
JCH | January 15, 2020 at 10:03 am |
Where do I argue the sun’s input is constant? JCH | January 14, 2020 at 2:17 pm |
There is an imbalance. It is caused by the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. It’s pointless arguing with somebody who just makes things up
–
Basically here
Where you state the imbalance is due fossil fuel use only.
No variable sun, no cloud albedo effect.
Just fossil fuel use.
“JCH | January 14, 2020 at 2:17 pm |
There is an imbalance. It is caused by the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels.”
–
We both know the sun is a variable star. We both assume the the output is relatively constant for these arguments.
Your accompanying graph gives the “constant” assumed solar input does it not?
No comment about variable stars there either.
–
JCH | January 15, 2020 at 10:03 am |
“Where do I argue the sun’s input is constant? “
Is this really a statement on your part that the sun is the cause of global warming and cooling then?
I thought not.
Pingback: Climate Sensitivity | rmdobservations
An unusual drop in temperature in southwest Canada.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2020011412/gfs_T2ma_nwus_1.png
The Earth’s surface is warming because of the orbital forcing trend.
Earth’s distance from the sun, Earth’s sidereal rotation and the existence of a vast ocean altogether make Earth livable.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sure.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Shakun_Marcott_HadCRUT4_A1B_500.png
If one were allowed to set aside the redish prognostication vertical, for arguments sake (yes models are impeccable, we know); the rest of the chart kinda makes Mann’s-Mann-splained hockey stick look like the beginning stages of a convoluted wavy, flagy thingy; doesn’t it? If one were to pan back scale for comps it would become self evident when juxtaposed to this singular peak presentation, that is. So how good are the models?
D Appell on hockey stick: “it only reconstructs past temperatures”
Poor comprehension skills for one supposedly skilled at physics; I didn’t say Mann’s stick, uh, “projected”. I suggested the “hockey” could be; “the beginning stages of a convoluted wavy, flagy thingy”. Comped against, as example, an 800k year scale of temperature.
The Mann et al model does not predict or project future temperatures, it only reconstructs past temperatures.
You could easily hide the recent warming within the resolution of the proxies of the studies on that chart and make it look like nothing at all happened.
The first image is the Pacific Ocean in 2008. The second shows open and closed cloud convection cells over the Pacific Ocean west of Peru. The third shows surface and satellite observations of cloud cover over the PDO region as well as surface observations of sea level pressure (SLP) and sea surface temperature (SST). The source of SST variability is upwelling in the eastern Pacific – in both hemispheres. This responds to the velocity of north and south Pacific oceanic gyres. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947). When gyre velocity and upwelling slows – the surface warms either in a canonical El Niño as warm water piled up against Australia and Indonesia surges east – or as surface warming above the thermocline as we have seen over the past few years of a quiescent Pacific.
Cloud cover over a large part of the global tropics is anti-correlated with SST as cloud convection cells persist as closed cells for longer over cooler water. SST in the Pacific varies over decades to millennia – and I presume there is an anthropogenic component.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/pdoenso.jpg
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87456/pacificoceandetail_tmo_2016032.jpg
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
The high will return to southern Australia after passing a cold front with thunderstorms.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00995/7rdy9zxztdld.png
The CERES-EBAF ed 4.1 TOA-imbalance has a positive trend 2000-2019.
I think the CERES team know what they are doing, that they are aware of all kinds of drifts, and compensate for them.
And then come these D19 guys and adjust the positive trend to a negative trend, and claim that it is supported by Argo OHC data.
It is not!
In the Argo-era (2005-2019) the 0-2000 m OHC has a positive curvature (quadratic regression) in IAPv3, RG 2009 Argo only, NOAA/levitus, etc
Thus, Argo OHC support original CERES-EBAF data, and not those “tampered with” by Dewitte et al 2019
Here is RG 2009 Argo only 0-2000 m temperature. The green line is 12 month smooth
http://sio-argo.ucsd.edu/Temperature_2019.png
A clearly upward curvature. I recommend to remove the first three years due to incomplete global coverage and widespread pressure sensor errors. Still, the positive derivative of the flatter part, 2007-2019, almost nails the positive trend of CERES-EBAF TOA imbalance (After recalculating it to energy content change)
Olof, I recommend to read the in the post linked report about the measure of EEI from OHC data. Spoiler: It’s NOT the smoothed OHC record itself.
Clearly the average rate of change in steric sea level is 1.1 +/- 0.2 mm/yr. And both this post and the paper are ultimately very trivial narratives of short term and dodgy data in a hugely variable system. Yes we know what the first derivative is Frank.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/steric_height.png?w=434&zoom=2
RIE: I’m not quite sure.
It is obvious enough for most anyone Frank.
I’m afraid it’s not. I linked all one should know in the post, however there’s still so much ignorance. However all is said.
Clearly you are incorrect about the rate of change in ocean warming. And don’t have a clue about why it changed in the Argo era.
Olof,
“I think the CERES team know what they are doing, that they are aware of all kinds of drifts, and compensate for them.
And then come these D19 guys and adjust the positive trend to a negative trend, …”
That is one story. There is an alternative narrative however which suggests that your faith in the infallibility of the NASA team might be misplaced.
Back in 2016, classical evaluation of the CERES EBAF Ed 2.8 data would suggest a low climate sensitivity and a slowly declining (positive downward) net flux imbalance. Neither of these things fitted the narrative from other parts of the NASA climate tribe.
The modification of the CERES EBAF data when EBAF went from Ed 2.8 to Ed 4.0 included a change in the interpretation of CRE which had the effect of massively reducing outgoing SW over the post-2000 period, and converting the EEI from a slightly decreasing to an increasing function of time, similar to what is seen today in the latest version. The magnitude of this change from Ed 2.8 to Ed4.0 can be seen in the all sky comparison in Figure 9 of Loeb et al 2017:- https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1 It is huge relative to other flux changes over the period.
It may be entirely coincidental but that amendment aligned the CERES data product with the GISS-ER estimate of climate sensitivity.
The challenge by DeWitte et al would have the effect of taking the CERES EBAF SW data back towards where CERES EBAF said it was just a few years ago in the Ed 2.8 version of the data product, as well as aligning it more closely to the ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis. It is worth noting that there is evidence that this latter is overpredicting atmospheric temperature gain over the period relative to other satellite products, so it might still be argued that DeWitte’s suggested reduction of the change in outgoing SW might be insufficient rather than aggressive.
A massive decrease in SW out? Nice narrative but no cigar.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/loeb-2018.png
The 20 year period of 2000-2019 for 101 CMIP5 RCP 4.5 model runs had no runs with a statistically significant autocorrelation corrected trend (not even close to p<0.05) for TOA net radiation, while the CERES data for that period had a very significant trend corrected for autocorrelation.
Either there is a large disconnection between Ceres and the models or the Ceres trend might be an artifact.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/10/climate-sensitivity-in-light-of-the-latest-energy-imbalance-evidence/#comment-907639
Robert,
“Nice narrative, but no cigar.”
Either you require new spectacles or you are arithmetically challenged.
We are concerned with the changes in values over time.
The EBAF adjustment in SW out was at the time more than sufficient to change a negative net flux gradient into a positive gradient.
If we start with the DeWitte values, the change in net flux over the period works out to be ca -0.3 W/m2. This yields an effective ECS of ca 1.35 deg C. If we test the sensitivity of the 0.8 shift in SW out which was introduced in 2017, the net flux becomes about 0.5 W/m2 positive change over the period and, all else being equal, the implied sensitivity increases to over 6 deg C.
Given the magnitude of the effect and the fact that we are talking about the RELATIVE PRECISION of one of the two most important series estimated from CERES, I think the adjective “massive” is more than justified.
The trend is warming in SW in the early years – little change in mean in the middle period – and some more warming in recent years. It is mostly a SST/marine boundary layer stratocumulus feedback. You can see the difference between Ed4.0 and Ed2.8 in the graph above from Loeb et al 2018. Minor. How you convince yourself there is some major conspiracy going on is a mystery. Why you imagine that a) the earth is ever more than transiently in energy balance or b) you can say anything sensible about Earth system sensitivity to greenhouse gases from variability resulting from ocean and atmospheric circulation shifts is a double mystery. Except that the system is sensitive to small changes? That might mean it is a turbulent fluid flow problem. As for glasses and math – act your age.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
Robert,
No major conspiracy needed, just a touch of confirmation bias.
I would suggest that you examine the Figure 9 which I referenced with a little more care.
The adjustment in OSR is ca -0,8 W/m2 over the 2000-2016 period. Fig 9(b).
The adjustment in OLR is negligible,, Fig 9(d)
The adjustment in OSR is nearly all transferred into a positive adjustment in net flux change, converting it to a positive rise in Ed 4.0 and subsequent versions. Fig 9(f).
The total non-TSI forcing change over this period is about 0.85 W/m2. This is offset by a small reduction in TSI, yielding a total TOA forcing change of just over 0.7 W/m2. Hence the EBAF adjusted increase of net flux from a near zero temporal gradient to an amount similar to the estimated forcing change has a massive impact on any assessment of climate sensitivity using conventional calculation and mainstream epistemology.
Your continual reposting of EBAF reanalysis plots made after this substantial adjustment seems to me to be unhelpful. It would be much more helpful, to me at least, if you could point to a solid justification for the adjustment. The Loeb paper offers an explanation but little justification for the CRE and optical depth changes, and no attempt at cross-validation against other 4-D assimilation ADM models or other reanalysis data. DeWitte for one evidently does not accept the validity of the resulting OSR series.
I suggest you look at Figure 9 – it is just above.
“Rather, further analysis shows that the single largest contribution to the anomaly differences during the Terra-only period is due to the diurnal corrections used in Ed2.8.” op. cit. A reduction of 0.2 W/m2 in reflected SW prior to 2002. As clearly shown in the Loeb et al 2018 Figure 9.
Pingback: Beaten by science, climate change deniers turn to science fiction | Red, Green, and Blue
Figure 13 shows the monthly running annual mean incoming solar radiation following [5] (purple curve) and the global mean TOR (green curve) for the period 2000–2018. The TOR is obtained as the sum of the OLR and the RSR.
https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-11-00663/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-11-00663-g013.png
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm
The visible effect of the Sun’s explosions on total outgoing radiation is visible.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
The minima between high cycles 21/22 and 22/23 were short-term.
http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/norp/html/solar_cycle.html
Strongest outgoing radiation is visible during strong La Niña, at the turn of 2010/11. It was the beginning of the 24 solar cycle.
“The 2010–12 La Niña event consisted of two peaks over successive summers; the 2010–11 peak was one of the strongest on record, comparable in strength with the events of 1917–18, 1955–56 and 1975–76. In October and December 2010, and February and March 2011, monthly Southern Oscillation Index values were the highest on record (records commenced in 1876). The 2011–12 peak was weaker, but still of moderate strength, in both atmospheric and oceanic indicators.”
Ireneusz Palmowski:
A few comments on your 3;02 pm post:
You mentioned a 1917-18 La Nina. The correct years are 1916-1917.
This La Nina (as essentially all are) was caused by the dimming volcanic SO2 emissions from the eruptions of Colima (VEI5) 1913 Jun , Sakura-Jima (VEI4) 1914 Jan, and Tungurahua (VEI4) 1916 Apr, as well as a 5 Megaton increase in anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions, 1915-17. (For volcanic eruptions there is typically a 12-15 month interval between the date of an eruption and the maximum cooling resulting from it)
The 1955-56 La Nina was caused by Bagna (VEI4) 1952 Mar, Spurr (VEI4) 1953 Dec, and 10 Megatons more anthropogenic SO2 emissions, 1954-56. .
The 1975-76 La Nina was caused by Volcan de Fuego (VEI4) 1974 Oct, eruption and 6 Megatons more SO2 emissions, 1975-76
Volcanos associated with the 2010-2012 La Ninas were Sarychev (VEI4) 2009 Aug, Eylafiallajohull (VEI4) 2010 Mar, Merapi (VEI4) 2010 Nov, Grimsvotn (VEI4) 2011 May, Peyhue Clayton Caulle (VEI5), 2011 Jun, Nabro (VEI4) 2011m Jun, and 2 MT more SO2 emissions, 2010-2011
This cluster of eruptions were responsible for the severity of the 2011 La Nina.
(A preceding volcanic eruption can be associated with all La Ninas since 1850).
“Incoming solar” will be reduced by SO2 aerosol emissions whenever there is a volcanic eruption
Ireneusz, I don’t understand, “Figure 13 shows the monthly running annual mean incoming solar radiation following [5] (purple curve)”.
340,4 W/m2 incoming solar radiation, So = 1362 W/m2, what it is I don’t know, please help me to understand.
Christos you are a better mathematician.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/pmod/from:2000
Cristos, it seems that the trend is more important than accurate data.
Christos, maybe you’ll better understand current satellite data.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html
Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gsm2_prd.gif
Thank you Ireneusz. It is very important what you have posted. I am working on it right now.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ireneusz, please help me with this:
“The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis”.
Is it measured on a one degree equal area map on “The subsolar point on a planet”?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think it is about the average available energy per 1 degree of surface.
“Product shows the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It is derived from the AVHRR instrument. The available solar energy only varies with the solar zenith angle.”
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/asm2_prd.gif
Ireneusz, I agree with your saying ” it seems that the trend is more important than accurate data”
I agree with that, the trend is most important.
And, what I think, there is now an orbital forced warming trend.
About the satellites’ measurements – they are excellent, I never doubt, I believe in satellites’ measurements.
What I would like to say is that satellites are not capable to “see”, satellites are not capable to measure the reflected from a planet’s surface solar short waves radiation.
The reflected from a planet’s surface solar short waves radiation never reach the satellites high resolution sensors, and therefore the reflected from a planet’s surface solar short waves radiation cannot be measured.
What satellites can “see” and measure is a planet’s albedo.
Albedo is not a primer solar SW radiation reflection. Albedo is a surface quality, it is a secondary reflection and it can be seen and measured by the satellites’ sensors.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The trend is more important than accurate data.” Maybe we need only trends and no data. I like a description of climatology as a Cheshire Cat’s Grin with no cat.
We need data, but when we are not sure they are accurate enough, defining the trend is more important than defining the data accuracy.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ireneusz,
“The SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) 1/15/2020”.
The satellites’ measured SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) is the confirmation of Te = 255 K.
Let’s do the calculation:
Te.earth = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.earth = [241 (W/m²) /σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Albedo is already counted, because the 241 (W/m²) is the absorbed, and 4 also, because it is the global surface average.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Te.earth = [ 241 (W/m²) /5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.earth = ( 4.250.440.917,108 ) ¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.earth = 255,33 K
So this 255,33 K is the earth’s emitting temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
And notice, that the calculation being made by the use of the planet effective temperature incomplete formula:
Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
This planet effective temperature incomplete formula is still in common use right now.
Let’s do the calculation again this time with the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Calculation:
The SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) 1/15/2020
Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor
Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation period
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth is
:
Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Albedo is already counted, because the 241 (W/m²) is the absorbed, and 4 also, because it is the global surface average.
Τe.earth = [ 0,47*241 (W/m²) (150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τe.earth = [ 0,47*241 (W/m²) (150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τe.earth = [ 0,47*241 (W/m²) (3,4996) /*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.earth = ( 6.991.176.225,75 ) ¹∕ ⁴ K =
Te.earth = 289.16 K
Conclusions:
“The SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) 1/15/2020” is very well measured.
Satellites do not “see”, and therefore satellites cannot measure the actual SW solar reflection.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you for your work.
Can anybody give me the name of the farmer I accused of murder?
https://i.imgur.com/KORZoqg.png
And Professor Curry just let’s him roll on. Perhaps she can restore the comment where I, in writing, accused a specific Australian farmer of committing murder.
“JCH | January 12, 2020 at 7:34 pm |
How many of the alleged arson fires were started by landowners/civilians who have been persistently hearing this completely unproven nonsense about lack of prescribed burns being the problem?
Misled into hating the evil greens so they started a fire at the worst possible time.
The PM says all he’s hears is “not enough prescribed burns.” It’s Australian madness.”
A slander of a group is still slander. And I can tell you how many fires were deliberately lit by farmers in this extreme fire season. Zilch. It’s just utterly ridiculous. And recklessly starting fires where people die is murder.
More than a million hectares of eastern Australia have been burnt in the Spring 2019 bushfires, despite the efforts of thousands of firefighters backed by tankers and aircraft. Can we learn anything from Aboriginal people who, barefoot and armed only with deep cultural knowledge, managed the continent’s landscapes with fire over millennia?
While using fire to study the integration of indigenous knowledge and modern science, University of New England PhD candidate Michelle McKemey concluded that there should be a practical alliance between Aboriginal cultural burning practices and contemporary fire management.
“If can we bring back widespread cultural burning, we help Aboriginal people reconnect with Country while performing a valuable management service, and potentially reduce the risk of out-of-control bushfires,” Ms McKemey said.
Ms McKemey’s doctoral thesis, developed over five years in full partnership with her Aboriginal collaborators, examined the ecology of fire when burning is undertaken using indigenous cultural burning principles. Her research found that cultural burning, conducted with the intention of supporting totem animal and plant species, supports ecological outcomes while reducing future fire hazards.
Her work uses the cultural burning practices used in Arnhem Land, where knowledge of “firestick” land management has been maintained relatively intact, as a resource to support the work of the indigenous Banbai people of New England as they revive their understanding of cultural burning.
“Banbai” refers to people who regularly ate echidnas. It is hoped that reintroducing cultural burning will provide a way for the Banbai rangers to support echidna habitat, and more generally fulfill their cultural responsibilities to care for their Country. https://www.une.edu.au/connect/news/2019/11/reviving-fire-as-a-tool-for-shaping-ecology-and-culture
These are people he calls primitive but who are backed by 50 years of fire ecology research. The Banbai country includes the New England Tableland Bioregion where his one tree hugging hippie primary source – in a regional newspaper – lives. The area is in Australia’s cannabis triangle.
I – and others – have cited science. But no amount of science will convince a zealot.
Dear JCH – why don’t you limit yourself to your own blog. Here it is difficult to distinguish you from a troll. I know that you are a genius who can comprehend a government publication and condemn it in fourteen minutes as “a recitation of a lot of mythology”, as you did at this post on January 13, 2020 at 11:45 am, and we should really appreciate your enlightened input – but we are not that proud of you.
Curious George: Dear JCH – why don’t you limit yourself to your own blog. Here it is difficult to distinguish you from a troll.
Personally I look forward to reading the contributions of JCH.
^—This reply from Robert Ellison—^
I also agree with Matthew Marler – I generally enjoy JCH’s contributions. but the vociferousness of RE’s challenge to the notion that farmers are committing arson because they have heard there aren’t enough prescribed burns is warranted IMO. In these times where ecological preservation has contributed to this disaster – I worry that the wrong policies will be favoured because of popular misconceptions such as those JCH has mentioned.
I KNOW farmers – they are on the land, in tune with it, learning from it. Fire danger is something we all know about acutely in Australia. The most recent fire season is for sure not the first and just as certainly not the last, and farmers and all of us who live in bush fire regions know that in certain conditions even THINKING about fire is enough to start one. There are fire danger warning boards all over the place, reminding us.
Aboriginals burning off the bush almost continuously is not new knowledge. We have to accept that unless that practise is introduced as widespread as possible then bushfires like the ones we have just had are inevitable.
Incidentally – there is book “Dark Emu” I highly recommend. The indigenous Australians didn’t just hunt, they also farmed. Aboriginal agriculture was sophisticated and fascinating:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOt8_VVYFNP8E0V_FIy9BnDvJJucqMRy1YsyG55__a4jX1T3EE
Australia has a problem that is not going to be fixed with prescribed/cultural burning.
Australia’s climate extremes will not be fixed by our target of a 50% reduction in per capita emissions by 2030. What will help is much better land management.
In a dry century.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png
Where climate shifted in the 1970’s to a wetter mean with a larger variance.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rranom.aus.0112.47212.png
Where 2019 was an extreme dry year.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/raindecile01.aus.0112.37338.png
We have had fire, flood and snow in the past week. This too will pass.
JCH – “Australia has a problem that is not going to be fixed with prescribed/cultural burning.”
Actually, yes it is.
Either that or like building on flood plains, you prepare suitable defences, or don’t build in fire prone areas.
Prescribed/cultural burning is exactly what created the Australia we have today over tens of thousands of years. Pretending that isn’t the case is “denial”.
Agnostic
I agree. I came across a report from California about bush fires and Eucalyptus referencing Australian sources. They calculated there is up to 8 tons of Eucalyptus tree debris per acre which is highly flammable, especially when old and dry. The debris had almost the same calorific value as coal
The brush and debris needs to be cleared as has been carried out for thousands of years and the use of Eucalyptus trees curtailed, especially in certain areas.
With 25 million Australians, many are now living in vulnerable areas so regular clearance becomes more-not less- essential.
I am from the UK and know from experience the problems caused when our citizens insist in living in desirable areas on flood plains. It is very expensive to protect them and sooner or later they will be flooded or cause others to be flooded. Whilst different ends of the spectrum, flood plains and fire prone areas have many similarities
tonyb
There is another attempt to reconcile Dewitte et al.’s finding with other recent OHC data by Pierre Gosselin:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/02/unsettled-scientists-find-ocean-heat-content-and-earths-energy-imbalance-in-decline-since-2000/
It also reinforces D19’s conclusions.
These are anomalies in outgoing energy – reflected and emitted. Up is warming by convention. It is accurate to within some 0.1 W/m2 as cross calibrated between CERES instruments on the Terra and Aqua platforms.
Net = -SW – IR
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
This is incoming TSI. There is considerable annual variation due to Earth orbit eccentricity. And finer scale variability seen in anomalies. The mean is relatively constant over such short periods – and doesn’t change much over longer periods.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_incoming_solar_flux_march-2000tojune-2019.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_incoming_solar_flux_march-2000tojune-2019.png
It shows a warming world and large variability caused by ocean and atmospheric circulation (Loeb et al 2012, Loeb et al 2018a).
Perhaps instead of counting unicorns you should wonder how ocean and atmospheric circulation change TOA energy dynamics.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Again, the D19 result isn’t statistically significant (at the usual 2-sigma level).
Salvatteci et al. 2018 used alkenone proxies to show unprecedented cooling of the seas off Peru, caused by a cooling Humboldt current from Antarctica,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080634
Here is figure 3 from this paper, (d) is the ocean temperature off Peru.
https://i.imgur.com/taqxvI9.jpg
This cooling is without equal over the whole Holocene, as fig. 3d shows.
Cool surface waters in the Nino 1-2 region off Peru is the key ingredient in the Bjerknes feedback underlying the ENSO. So a cooling Humboldt might have contributed to some of the very large classic type (not Modoki like 2016) el Nino events such as in 1072, 1982, 1997.
It’s curious however that although Salvatteci et al shows Humboldt cold supply to be ongoing, there have been no big classic (Bjerknes) type el Nino events since 1997. (2016 was an over-rated el Nino of the Modoki type – no engagement of the trades-upwelling Bjerknes feedback, and exaggerated by the change to Pacific SST baselines in 2014 which gave an artificial step up to Pacific, and global, temperatures.)
Pingback: Climate Sensitivity In Light Of The Latest Energy Imbalance Evidence – Truth is difficult but essential…
I made one statement that nobody has challenged.
The new ice age began about 18,000 years ago.
To prove that incorrect you must explain the why the 250 meters at the top of the Vostok ice core has high CO2 levels
I am just talking about an ice collum that is growinng over the antarctic continent. It is what I say is proof the new ice age has begun.
After a sharp increase in global temperature (as a result of El Niño) in 2016 there was a decrease in reflected radiation (probably due to the loss of sea ice).
The decrease in RSR together with OLR is visible during the solar minimum in 2009.
https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-11-00663/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-11-00663-g012.png
How muck solar could the missing sea ice have reflected, and why did reflection oof solar resume once El NIña and positive PDO relaxed back to La Nina/neutral conditions and an essentially neutral PDO? How did missing sea ice do that?
The conclusion is that the Earth reacts quickly to changes in the energy budget.
“Based on CALIPSO satellite observations of cloud properties, this study found that cloud coverage in ice-free regions in the Arctic linearly increased with the area of ice-free water during the melt seasons in the past 10 years, while sea ice coverage varies significantly year-to-year. The observations suggest that when sea-ice retreats, cloud fraction of the ice-free region remains fixed at nearly 81%. The high cloud coverage over melted areas significantly reduces the albedo feedback.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w
Perhaps you could do some reading and get back to us with an answer.
https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/634665/Huang_et_al-2019-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf;jsessionid=6691CE6A1F86BC8D180D96620A0FFCEE?sequence=1
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022013
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL081871
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Unpaywall – btw – frequently works a treat in providing access to legal copies.
https://unpaywall.org/
Ireneusz Palmowsii:
You said “After a sharp increase in global temperature (as a result of El Nino) in 2016 there was a decrease in reflected radiation (probably due to the loss of sea ice)”.
No, the decrease in temperature was caused by the VEI4 volcanic eruptions of Fuego 2014 Nov, Chikurachki 2015 Apr 22, and Wolf 2015 May 25 which spewed dimming SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere, reducing the reflected surface radiation..
(The preceding El Nino was caused by an ~30 Megaton DECREASE in atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions, due to a national mandate by China)
The subsequent rise in temperatures after 2017 was caused by volcanic-induced warming, caused by the settling out of the volcanic r aerosols from the atmosphere, and the following period of no VEI4 eruptions until July 2018.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability. It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.
But at very high latitudes, where the sea ice covers the ocean there is a very poor insolation.
Thus the sea ice’s higher reflecting ability doesn’t cool significantly the Earth’s surface.
On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface. This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.
The open sea waters have emissivity ε = 0,95.
The ice has emissivity ε = 0,97.
On the other hand, the snow has a much lower emissivity ε = 0,8.
And the sea ice is a snow covered sea ice with emissivity ε = 0,8.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
Also we should have under consideration the physical phenomenon of the sea waters freezing-melting behavior.
Sea waters freeze at – 2,3 oC.
Sea ice melts at 0 oC.
The difference between the melting and the freezing temperatures creates a seasonal time delay in covering the arctic waters with ice sheets.
When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.
This time delay enhances the arctic waters IR emissivity and heat losses towards the space because of the open waters’ higher emissivity ε = 0,95,
compared with the snow covered ice ε = 0,8.
Needs to be mentioned that Earth’s surface emits IR radiation 24/7 all year around.
And the Arctic region insolation is very poor even in the summer.
That is why Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
On the other hand it is the open Arctic sea waters that have the cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself. Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance. It is a negative feedback.
The melting Arctic sea ice slows down the Global Warming trend. This process appears to be a negative feedback.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Arctic air from Canada shifts southeast.
If at the beginning of the solar cycle 25 will be La Niña, as in 2010, and the TSI will remain low, the EEI will fall even more.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
With a LaNina the EEI shall increase, not fall. Why? The stored heat increases when a LaNina emerges… in the western Pacific below the surface. Think about this… :-)
During La Niña OLR will rise above the equator.
Frank
Not all La Niña’s increase poleward oceanic heat transport. They only do so if they follow a large El Niño of the classic, Bjerknes type. Here the east equatorial Pacific warm tongue (off Peru) is followed by a cold tongue 😛 in the same place. Then the energised Bjerknes feedback pumps the El Niño-heated water poleward. The most spectacular ENSO cycle of this classic type was the 1997-1999 one.
The 2016 El Niño was by contrast la Modoki El Niño with warming in the central, not eastern equatorial Pacific. It arose from a quite different, non Bjerknes mechanism and will not be followed by any high latitude warming.
phil, sorry for the delay. Yes, the CP ElNinos show a somewhat different behaviour than EP events. However, in both cases the below the IPWP stored heat comes to the surface and is ( partly) radiated off the system to the space. Indeed AFAIK this part is bigger during EP events. 2016 was EP+CP. In every case a LaNina increases the stored heat. Deal? :-)
Earlier ERB data for the tropics shows warming in SW of 2.1 W/m2 – and cooling in IR 0f 0.7 W/m2. Global CERES data has the same pattern. It’s a low cloud pattern. Where there is cooling in IR – a greenhouse gas energy imbalance may be moot. The source of much of this cloud variability is identified in several observational studies I have cited along the way.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong-et-al-2006-e1510341656183.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong2006figure7-e1542128275460.png
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3838.1
“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.” https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
But data never seems to be accurate enough if it contradicts some wild conjecture or another. And I’m afraid that the line between sense and nonsense has been crossed far too often here to be any longer worth the candle.
I tried to think of an intelligent comment here, but my virtual reality headset isn’t working. All I can see is water vapor.
The temperature on the tops of tropical storm clouds in the South Pacific is around -85 degrees C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/images/goes17_ir_08P_202001181845.jpg?2141869
Sorry.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00996/b7b9ny166cyy.jpg
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1215819416002334725
Atomsk, you state on other place that you are a “huge fan” also of this paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL072908 .
This makes me wonder because there is at least one huge mistake included. They state in section4:” Other well‐mixed greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosols are not included—it is assumed that their radiative effects largely compensate each other…” when they describe the used “model”.
This is not correct when looking at the actual ERF data. It becomes clear, that the ERF (CO2) is about 70% of the present total anthrogogenic ERF.
When ERF anthropogenic total is attributed to ERF CO2 it becomes clear, that the assumed transient sensitivity ( 2.4 in the “model” of the paper) is on the upper end of the AR5 range. Is this the reason why you are a huge fan? Therefore you will be a little bit disappointed: The corrected TCR in the used model is 1.68, well below the CMIP5 mean.
However, IMO this is also a huge review issue, not only your mistake.
Any factually contributions?
Re: “Any factually contributions?”
That’s it?
You could have honestly admitted you were wrong about what I said. Instead you choose to take the tact you did above. So I’m done responding to you for awhile; it’s clear you struggle to honestly admit mistakes, which likely bleeds over into the approach you use to reach your pre-determined conclusion of low climate sensitivity. You’re not to be trusted.
“Any factually contributions?”
The answer translates to “no”. Thanks!
Looks like Judith Curry conveniently removed the comment in which I corrected your distortion of what I said:
http://archive.is/uBeXu#selection-23493.0-23551.262
“(I’m not a huge fan of the last two papers listed)”
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/01/16/2-of-global-warming-since-1979-due-to-other-things/#comment-106364
It’s good to know you’re protected on this forum, frank, such that you can make up false claims about what others say and mock them, without being called on it.
Well, I see this. However, the anthropogenic ERF increased during 1999…2018 by about 0.56 W/m² and the the climate variations are dominated by unforced changes? What role are accredited to forced changes? IMO this is a justification of a small sensitivity.
The mean and variance of global climate time series shifted with the mid 1970’s Pacific Ocean climate shift. Canonical Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamical behavior of geophysical time series.
e.g. https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1001/
This is a natural system that may be biased to one state or other by anthropogenic forcing. The system shifts irregularly at scales of days to millennia. It is not random and thus does ‘sum to zero’. In such a system – ‘sensitivity’ is moot.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rranom.aus.0112.23670.png
The energy implications are observed and involve SST/cloud feedback over the vas upwelling region of the tropical and subtropical Pacific.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
Globally coupled as tremendous energy cascades through powerful subsystems. The coupling medium is a continuum of turbulent fluid dynamics from microeddies to atmospheric rivers and stratoshic jet streams.
http://www.wyattonearth.net/images/392_stad_wave.png
‘The plot above shows the hypothesized stadium-wave propagation through ocean, sea ice, and atmospheric indices. Roman numerals indicate timing of each of four stages in evolution of a positive, or warming, regime and each of four stages (negative numbers) in a negative, or cooling, regime. Names of selected legend entries are shown in text box to right of figure. For more complete understanding of the plot and the stadium-wave mechanism, please refer to Wyatt and Curry (2014), section 4. Figure adapted from figure 3 of Wyatt and Curry (2014) paper…
Selected Legend Entries :
WIE=W.Eurasian sea ice (Greenland, Barents, and Kara Seas)
ngAMO = cool N. Atlantic SST (negatively signed Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) likely linked to the Atlantic sector of the global oceanic ‘conveyor belt’, the Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
ArcSib = Siberian Arctic sea ice (Kara Sea dominant)
AT = zonal winds over mid and high latitudes of N. Atlantic and Eurasia
EIE = E. Eurasian sea ice (Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas)
PDO = Pacific SST pattern (Pacific Decadal Oscillation)
ArcT = Arctic surface temp
NHT = N. Hemis. surf avg T’ http://www.wyattonearth.net/thestadiumwaveoverview.html
A planet reflects incoming short wave solar radiation.
A planet’s surface has reflecting properties.
1. The planet’s albedo “a”. It is a surface quality’s dependent value.
2. The planet’s spherical shape. For smooth planet’s the solar irradiation reflection is 0,53*Jincoming.
What we had till now:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Here Jsw.absorbed = (1-a)*Jsw.incoming
And Jsw.reflected = a*Jsw.incoming
What we have now is the following:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Here Jsw.absorbed = Φ* (1-a)*Jsw.incoming
And Jsw.reflected = 0,53*a*Jsw.incoming
Where Φ = (1-0,53) = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ is a planet spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Conclusion:
A planet’s absorbed fraction of the SW incoming radiation in total is:
Jsw.absorbed = 0,47*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
For Planet Earth Jsw.absorbed = 0,47*(1-a)*1.362 W/m2 = 0,47*0,7*1.362W/m2 = 448,098 W/m2
Averaged on the entire Earth’s surface we obtain:
Jsw.absorbed.average = [ 0,47*(1-a)*1.362 W/m2 ] /4 =
[ 0,47*0,7*1.362W/m2 ] /4 = 448,098 W/m2 /4 = 112,029 W/m2
Jsw.absorbed.average = 112,029 W/m2
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not even close. You would first need to understand why the average insolation over the planet is about 340 W/m2.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/800px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
It is 1362 W/m2 /4 = 340,5 W/m2
Instead of 1362 W/m2 /4 we can use the average insolation over the planet 340,5 W/m2.
Then we shall have:
Averaged on the entire Earth’s surface
Jsw.absorbed.average = 0,47*(1-a)*340,5 W/m2 =
0,47*0,7*340,5W/m2 = 112,029 W/m2
Jsw.absorbed.average = 112,03 W/m2
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
ASW = (1 – α) 340 W/m2
So you have figured out since yesterday – cf your discussion with IP – that a point measurement perpendicular to the sun of 1360 W/m2 when projected onto a sphere is 340 W/m2 average insolation. Good for you.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/10/climate-sensitivity-in-light-of-the-latest-energy-imbalance-evidence/#comment-907728
“Φ is a planet spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.”
And its inverse is a rejecting factor? 🤣 Sounds very like night and day. That has already been accounted for. Start with NASA’s static energy cartoon.
Earth is a spherical celestial body, a planet.
Earth is not a blackbody. Planet doesn’t emit IR radiation as a blackbody.
There is not “like a blackbody emitting behavior”.
Either it is a blackbody emitting behavior, which is reserved for the blackbody, or it is not a blackbody, and it does not emit as a blackbody.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
All bodies above absolute zero emit electromagnetic radiation. But why would this very basic idea be relevant to reflected SW.
It is 12:53 pm in Athens now.
Sorry, I should stop, I’ll answer tomorrow.
Thank you Robert.
Christos
That wasn’t a question.
The scientists who came up with the blackbody emitting behavior thing were working the night shift, Christos. Keep at it and you will clear up the misunderstanding. It would be helpful if you had some fancy colored charts.
Thank you Don.
Robert: “All bodies above absolute zero emit electromagnetic radiation. But why would this very basic idea be relevant to reflected SW”.
Blackbody does not reflect electromagnetic radiation.
Planet reflects electromagnetic radiation.
Blackbody emits all the incident radiation on an instant.
Planet also responses by emitting on an instant. Planet does not emit all the incident radiation on an instant. A tiny part of the incident radiation energy is conducted in the planet’s underlying layer.
Blackbody averages all the incident SW radiation that very instant over entire surface. Thus the blackbody’s emission temperature is unique for the entire blackbody surface.
Planet does not average the incident SW radiation. Thus planet instantly responds with a much higher emission temperature. It is the instant emission temperature planet develops on the every solar irradiated spot.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Blackbodies are theoretical perfect absorbers and emitters. The real world absorption (by surface and atmosphere) of SW (ASW) depends on albedo (α) – which is currently some 0.3. The average global insolation is some 340 W/m2.
ASW = (1- 0.3) 340 W/m2 = 238 W/m2
This is the most basic of planetary energy dynamics – and thus climate. Descriptions of this most basic of geophysics are available from reputable sources.
e.g. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
For something more comprehensive.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ed53/e5500b6cbc095ef196d688bbf03d982dd92e.pdf?_ga=2.106678979.1701605798.1579548425-863582841.1574714234
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #395 -
Albedo is not constant on our dynamic planet. Ice, clouds, dust, vegetation, aerosols…
“This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Large reductions in clear-sky SW TOA flux are also found over much of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans in the northern hemisphere. These are associated with a reduction in aerosol optical depth consistent with stricter pollution controls in China and North America. A simple energy budget framework is used to show that TOA radiation (particularly in the SW) likely played a dominant role in driving the marked increase in temperature tendency during the post-hiatus period.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
It is still just large TOA variability associated – primarily – with internal shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Atmospheric temperature adjusts rapidly to changes in anthropogenic warming. But on a planet cooling in IR and warming in SW – as clouds respond to warmer SST – the simple idea of a greenhouse gas induced EEI may be moot.
Thank you Robert. Thank you Don.
Robert: “Blackbodies are theoretical perfect absorbers and emitters. The real world absorption (by surface and atmosphere) of SW (ASW) depends on albedo (α) – which is currently some 0.3. The average global insolation is some 340 W/m2.
ASW = (1- 0.3) 340 W/m2 = 238 W/m2”.
Blackbody does not have albedo.
Blackbody instantly and evenly distributes on the entire blackbody’s surface the incident radiation.
A planet has albedo. For Earth it is a = 0,3.
A planet has spherical shape, so planet reflects like a sphere. Planet cannot reflect as a disk, because disk reflects differently.
Disk and sphere are different shapes, they cannot reflect the same way.
Because of the spherical shape planet reflects more effectively.
0,53 is the spherical shape’s reflection coefficient.
Blackbody has not shape.
When instantly averaging the insolation over the entire global surface you assume a planet being a blackbody.
Earth is a spherical celestial body, a planet.
Earth is not a blackbody. Planet doesn’t emit IR radiation as a blackbody.
There is not “like a blackbody emitting behavior”.
Either it is a blackbody emitting behavior, which is reserved for the blackbody, or it is not a blackbody, and it does not emit as a blackbody.
You cannot have them both in one piece.
Either it is a blackbody, or it is a planet.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hugely irrelevant in the real world. Which part of theoretical blackbody properties – more of which you have invented just above – don’t you understand? And we all know there is night and day. Hence the averaging of insolation over time to estimate energy hitting the planet. Obviously.
All this obfuscation in defense of a number of 112 W/m2 for absorbed shortwave. Not even close is what I originally said. It is more like 238 W/m2.
“When instantly averaging the insolation over the entire global surface you assume a planet being a blackbody.”
Get your story straight Christos. 😒
Thank you Robert.
I am working on it right now.
What do you mean: “Hence the averaging of insolation over time to estimate energy hitting the planet”.
It is averaging over the entire Earth’s surface area when dividing the solar flux on the top of atmosphere So = 1362 W/m2 with 4:
1362 W/m2 /4 = 340,5 W/m2
Please explain.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“When instantly averaging the insolation over the entire global surface you assume a planet being a blackbody.”
Get your story straight Christos. 😒ditto 😊
Thank you Robert.
I am working on it right now.
What does that mean:
1362 W/m2 /4 = 340,5 W/m2
Does not that mean “When instantly averaging the insolation over the entire global surface you assume a planet being a blackbody”.
Do not you instantly average the solar flux So = 1.362 W/m2 on the top of the atmosphere over the entire global surface.
And what do you mean when averaging the solar flux So = 1.362 W/m2 on the top of the atmosphere over the entire global surface.
What is exactly the meaning for doing so.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I don’t know where to post this, so forgive me if I just use this comment section for my question.
I wondered alot about the Nature of CO2 forcing from a perspective of incoming radiation vs outcoming radiation and wondered about the temporal response of it in day/night cycles. From my understanding of planck curves [Meaning no planck temperature curve ever intersects another and the hotter, the more energy overall + maximum shifts into shorter wavelengths], the absolute amount of energy in CO2 absorption bands which is incomnig from the sun is way higher than the absolute amount of energy outgoing from the earth.
This means CO2 absorbs more incoming radiation than it prevents outgoing radiation in the daytime (is that the reason CO2 was first believed to cool the planet?). Then in nighttime there would be an absolute positive of keeping radiation from going into space (no incoming radiation, only outgoing). So from my understanding there would be a net warming effect, solely based on the fact that it dampens the amount of cooling of earth in the nighttime which would also effect global mean temperatures, but only through higer averages in the night [which in turn is longer outside the equatorial area, leading to warmer winter nights]. Is there meaningful research in the area of frequency response [day/night] cycles of GHG or are any potential phenomena just averaged out in linearity assumptions?
Please refer to my post “Earth’s Atmospheric Window and Surface Temperatures” at https://hotgas.club
It’s a bit long to post here.
Eddie Banner
“Equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity (ECS) can be estimated as the (scaled) slope of the relationship between observed Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) and the excess of effective radiative forcing (ERF) over EEI, provided that the influence of natural climate system internal variability is small enough over the analysis period.”
It’s not internal, and the whole signal is a negative feedback to indirect solar variability. Stronger solar wind conditions forced a cold AMO phase 1965-1995 and increased low cloud cover, and the upper 2000 meters Ocean Heat Content remained almost flat. Weaker solar wind since 1995 has forced a warm AMO phase and reduced low cloud cover, and the upper OHC has increased.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/meantemp_0-2000m.png
The decline in EEI values since about 2014 is a temporary increase in indirect solar driving a positive NAO/AO regime since then.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif
Pingback: Un Po’ Di Sana Lettura
Possible dumb question :
If we can actually reliably and in absolute terms measure the Earth Energy Imbalance, surely it is then a very simple matter to see how / if this tracks CO2 levels ?
The closure error for incoming – outgoing energy is in the order of 5 W/m2.
Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: February 3, 2020 - Master Resource
Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – February 3rd 2020 | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #396 – Climate News Live