|
|
Post by william on Apr 16, 2010 23:51:28 GMT
Actual measured global warming is less than 40% of what is predicted by the models. Possibility 1: The heat is hiding somewhere on the planet. Check your closet. Possibility 2: Planetary feedback to a change in forcing is negative rather than positive. AWG aficionados are in denial. The IPCC has over estimated warming due to a doubling of CO2 by a factor of 4. The IPCC is a political body that ignores scientific data that disproves their predictions and is working towards their own agenda, whatever that might be. www2.ucar.edu/news/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change |
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 17, 2010 0:02:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 17, 2010 0:46:32 GMT
There's also possibility #3: Aerosol forcing has countered some of the ghg forcing. AR4 provides some context:  If you take the total greenhouse gas forcing (~2.64wm-2) and multiply that by a climate sensitivity of 0.75C/wm-2 you get about 2C warming. That means that indeed the warming over the 20th century (0.8C) is less than 40% of the warming expected by greenhouse gases alone. But there's also those blue bars - the negative forcings in the "total aerosol" section, and the others. The diagram gives the total of all forcings as 1.6wm-2. Multiplied by climate sensitivity of 0.75C/wm-2 that leads to about 1.2C warming. Slightly more than observed, but there's also the thermal lag to take into account too. 0.7C/wm-2 would mean strongly positive feedbacks by the way. Negative feedback, a sensitivity about 0.23C/wm-2 would, with the same forcing 1.6wm-2, lead to just 0.4C warming, which is half of the observed. The Schwartz study isn't looking at the same thing as the Trenberth article. The missing heat Trenberth is talking about is in recent years. Britain and Siberia may have had cold winters but obviously that's just the slim end of the pile because globally each of the winter months were very warm. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 17, 2010 0:50:54 GMT
What will it take for these folks to understand that there is a "missing link" in their understanding of climate? I don't understand how someone with a PHd by their name can be so out of touch with emperical reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 17, 2010 1:40:08 GMT
I do not understand Socold. www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2010/energy.jpgWhat is suddenly creating the increase in aerosol forcing? What is reflecting the sunlight back into space? Perhaps it could be an increase in planetary cloud cover? Will RealClimate apologize for the sarcastic and incorrect comments concerning Svensmark's mechanism that hypothesizes increased GCR causes increased planetary cloud cover? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 17, 2010 1:55:14 GMT
What will it take for these folks to understand that there is a "missing link" in their understanding of climate? I don't understand how someone with a PHd by their name can be so out of touch with emperical reality. my bold Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat.
* First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean.
* Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”. Science).
Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there.
There is no “heat in the pipeline” [or "unrealized heat"] as I have discussed most recently in my post
Continued Misconception Of The Concept of Heating In The Pipeline In The Paper Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009 Titled “Global Sea Level Linked To Global Temperature”
Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo are not recognizing that the diagnosis of upper ocean heat content changes (with it large mass) makes in an effective integrator of long term radiative imbalances of the climate system as I discussed in my papers
My post on Apr 6That is not what climate models predict, and please explain how heat bypasses the top 700m of ocean when 85% of the heat resides there.
Clouds (eg water vapor) cannot be modeled. The sun is Low LOSU and on and on. You are right though, and rather than be honest they come up with all the excuses including the favorite "aerosols". It hasn't warmed as advertised, and as this 2010 El Nino fades into the coming year and temperatures plunge, the cycle will repeat and in the coming years we'll be treated to the same bullshit "its high school physics" meme. The truth is, they don't know as much we've been told they know, but because they bet the farm, their reputations are at stake so it is doubtful we'll see much in the way of admission of error. Then there is the funding of their retirements; nah, "scientists" are pure as the wind driven snow. No self interest there.... I stand by the axiom:  I liked this post by Steve Goddard so much I'm adopting it. In most fields of science, people develop theories based around observations.
In climate science, people frequently seem to craft the data to conform to their theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 17, 2010 2:05:50 GMT
Ayup.......you hit the nail on de head Magellan.
|
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on Apr 17, 2010 2:25:09 GMT
I don't understand how someone with a PHd by their name can be so out of touch with emperical reality. I have a PhD in a science; my brother has a PhD in a science; my wife has a PhD in a science, and roughly half of my friends and associates have PhDs in a science. Among this admittedly relatively small and non-random sample, there are far more horses’ asses among the PhDs than among the non-PhDs. As often as not, a PhD is a teaching/research union card and a certificate of personal vanity. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Apr 17, 2010 4:10:51 GMT
In my time as a physic's undergrad all lab work was mundanely worked through with carried errors.
If you failed to work the errors through you simply got a D or if the experiment was poorly worked through also you got an E.
When I see multiple hundred joules per M2 in and out of the earth's atmosphere with no worked errors and a final number for the net flux in that is near as dam 1 joule per M2 which is of the order of one 400th of the in and out flux and no errors I know these folk are bullshit merchants.
An old pilot and racing driver once told me "when under pressure believe your instruments" There is no hidden or lost or missing energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 17, 2010 5:03:46 GMT
You'll notice that nowhere in that forcing/feedback chart is the reality...latent heat and convection carries over half of the energy across the troposphere already. Why on earth would anyone be foolish enough to expect CO2 to restrict the portion carried by convection and latent heat?
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 17, 2010 7:43:51 GMT
Possibility 2: Planetary feedback to a change in forcing is negative rather than positive. AWG aficionados are in denial. The IPCC has over estimate warming due to a doubling of CO2 by a factor of 4. The IPCC is a political body that ignores scientific data that disproves their predictions and is working towards their own agenda, whatever that might be.
Or over-estimated it by a factor of 2 to 3 - which is very much in line with what I've been saying from all along.
Britain had the 13th coldest winter in the last 180 years. Siberia had the coldest winter in recorded history. Arctic Sea ice has started to increase. GCR is at the highest level since space age measurements have been taken.
But we've still had record high UAH anomalies in 3 out of the last 6 months. Temperatures will fall as the El Nino fades (they always do) but they are not going to plunge to 1970 or even 1980 levels. If the solar theorists were correct we should be at 1900 levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 17, 2010 12:10:01 GMT
In reply to glc's comment: Solar magnetic cycle climate change is not instantaneous. How long did it take for the planet to warm in the 20th century? Based on analysis of step forcing changes caused by large volcanic eruptions, it is estimated that the top 150 m of the ocean has a e-folding time of around 5 years (+/- 1 year). There will be a delay as the El Nino heat leaves the ocean and the ocean cools. I notice Lockwood has published a new paper that recants his previous paper's conclusion that the sun did not cause a portion of the 20th century warming. Scientists do not want to be on the scientifically incorrect side. It will be interesting to follow the observations, the new papers, and the group think changes. www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 17, 2010 13:09:35 GMT
nonentropic writes "In my time as a physic's undergrad all lab work was mundanely worked through with carried errors.
If you failed to work the errors through you simply got a D or if the experiment was poorly worked through also you got an E."
Boy were you ever let off easily. In Cavendish Labs, all experiments were awarded a mark out of 100. Any numeric answer which did not have a +/- associated with it, received an automatic 0. Mind you, if the value of the +/- was just plain wrong, you could still receive up to 95.
In first year labs, supervisors would come and ask questions, Heaven help the poor student who used the expression "near enough". A large cardboard medallion would be produced, and hung on the offending apparatus with the words "Order of Near Enough".
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 17, 2010 13:25:06 GMT
That's why I said the Schwartz study isn't looking at the same thing as the Trenberth article. The Schwartz study is looking at temperature change over the past 100 years. The Trenberth article is looking at ocean heat content reduction in the last 6. |
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 17, 2010 14:11:00 GMT
socold, Schwartz use both long term and short term forcing changes to calculate the "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System". The time constant Schwartz finds is 5 years +/- 1 year. www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdfSee this section. The implication that the e-folding time is 5 years is the planet has has had sufficient time to reach equilibrium for the past CO2 increases. There is no off ramp due to say a 20 year e-folding time to explain the lack of warming. I would assume Trenberth and others are coming to the realization that it will not be possible to perpetuate the 3C to 4.5C warming as a response to a doubling of CO2 hypothesis. The current facts on the ground do not support that hypothesis. If the planet cools the process of mind change will accelerate. |
|
