|
Post by icefisher on Jun 5, 2009 14:41:46 GMT
I have also answered this "where is the heat?" question multiple times now. If you need a refresh, check my very recent posts on this very thread. But we are still waiting for your physical description of how it got to the bottom of the ocean Socold.
|
|
|
Post by william on Jun 5, 2009 15:10:58 GMT
Planetary data continues to support the assertion that the planet has stopped warming and has started to cool. wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/uah_may09.pngIt appears something must be fundamental incorrect with the AGW hypothesis based on observations. As I said: One possible explanation is that there is another mechanism by which the earth can radiate thermal energy. For example the number of ions increases with altitude in the atmosphere. An ion will emit as a black body due to thermal motion, in addition to its characteristic quantum frequencies when it absorbs an electron. Evidence that the CO2 mechanism does saturate is that there are periods in which CO2 is high for millions of years and the planet is in an ice epoch and there are periods when the planet is not in an ice epoch when CO2 levels are low for millions of years. In fact the only period when CO2 levels have more or less correlated with planetary temperature is the current epoch. However when one looks in detail at the current ice epoch there are periods when planetary temperature does not correlate with CO2 levels on a long term basis. In this ice epoch as the planet cooled and the ice sheet formed on the Antarctic continent, CO2 increased and the ice sheet did not melt. The example of Venus is often repeat as an analogue to prove the mechanism does not saturate, however, as pressure increases the fixed bands of quantum absorption/emission broaden and the gas emits like a liquid. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90 atmospheres. Another explanation is that clouds have negative rather than positive feedback on the climate system. During the hockey stick warming period there was a large change in planetary cloud cover. The planet did warm during the hockey stick period. What is not known, is what was the cause of the hockey stick warming. www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/may-2009-global-temperature-update-004-deg-c/
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 5, 2009 16:07:17 GMT
steve: “I don't think there is anything wrong with your statement that "the earth has not warmed much from a long-term perspective". It has warmed about as much as we would expect given that CO2 levels have increased by about 120 ppm in 250 years.”
The bulk of the 120 ppm increase in CO2 has been added since 1945. It has not warmed as much in that period as expected by the AGW theory, and particularly the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory. WHERE’S THE HEAT?
steve: “What mini panic? Most of the panic at the time seemed to be from the WUWT crowd. If you searched back you'll find that back in February and March I was sticking firmly to my prediction for a 0.3C HadCRUT3 anomaly for 2008, and 0.4C for this year.”
I was referring to the mini panic in the 1970's, over a possible new ice age. Re-read the post and I think you will get it.
And maybe you could answer the question:
Didn’t the cooling period that set off a mini-panic last longer than your favored “steep rises”? Maybe your average conditions favor ice ages and it is irrational to panic at the sight of a little warming.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 5, 2009 16:15:47 GMT
steve: “The author of this piece has misunderstood what has been said by the scientists. Here's a quote from Tom Wigley, which doesn't of course address the reason why the ocean has been particularly damp for the past few years:” Maybe he wasn’t talking about Tom Wigley, but some other scientists and their followers, who tell us that the missing heat is “in the pipeline” and will be coming along any day now. The quote you give us from Wigley is not inconsistent with DiPuccio and Pielke, if by “Oceanic thermal inertia causes climate change to lag behind any changes in external forcing and causes the response to be damped relative to the asymptotic equilibrium response...” Wigley is saying that any “missing heat” in surface air temps is in the oceans and will show up later in the atmosphere. But as you point out, he doesn’t address the fact that the ocean has cooled recently. If AGW is a reality, the oceans should not have cooled. DiPuccio: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/th....and-ocean-heat/“Ocean heat plays a crucial role in the AGW hypothesis, which maintains that climate change is dominated by human-added, well-mixed green house gasses (GHG). IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. This process results in a gradual accumulation of heat throughout the climate system, which includes the atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and, most importantly, the hydrosphere. The increase in retained heat is projected to result in rising atmospheric temperatures of 2-6ºC by the year 2100. In 2005 James Hansen, Josh Willis, and Gavin Schmidt of NASA coauthored a significant article (in collaboration with twelve other scientists), on the “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35). This paper affirmed the critical role of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (1432). Monotonic Heating. Since the level of CO2 and other well-mixed GHG is on the rise, the overall accumulation of heat in the climate system, measured by ocean heat, should be fairly steady and uninterrupted (monotonic) according to IPCC models, provided there are no major volcanic eruptions. According to the hypothesis, major feedbacks in the climate system are positive (i.e., amplifying), so there is no mechanism in this hypothesis that would cause a suspension or reversal of overall heat accumulation. Indeed, any suspension or reversal would suggest that the heating caused by GHG can be overwhelmed by other human or natural processes in the climate system. A reversal of sufficient magnitude could conceivably reset the counter back to “zero” (i.e., the initial point from which a current set of measurements began). If this were to take place, the process of heat accumulation would have to start again. In either case, a suspension or reversal of heat accumulation (excepting major volcanic eruptions) would mean that we are dealing with a form of cyclical rather than monotonic heating. Most scientists who oppose the conclusions of the IPCC have been outspoken in their advocacy of cyclical heating and cooling caused primarily by natural processes, and modified by long-term human climate forcings such as land use change and aerosols. These natural forcings include ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), solar cycles (sunspots, total irradiance), and more speculative causes such as orbital oscillations, and cosmic rays. Temperature is not Heat! Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW, near-surface air temperature (referred to as “surface temperature”) is generally employed to gauge global warming. The media and popular culture have certainly equated the two. But this equation is not simply the product of a naïve misunderstanding. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. The highly publicized, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of the AGW projections made by the IPCC. However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale. Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year. Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat. Consequently the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time. Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator. This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance. Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue: heat accumulation. Heat is not the same as temperature. Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool. Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of molecular motion at a specific point. But it does not measure the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance. In the example above, there is twice as much heat in 2 liters of boiling water because there is twice as much kinetic energy. On average, the molecules in both vessels are moving at the same speed, but the larger container has twice as many molecules. Temperature may vary from point to point in a moving fluid such as the atmosphere or ocean, but its heat remains constant so long as energy is not added or removed from the system. Consequently, heat-not temperature-is the only sound metric for monitoring the total energy of the climate system...”
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 5, 2009 16:48:30 GMT
Right, I assumed you meant recently and my brain latched onto last January's cooler temperature. Papers in the 60's and 70's correctly understood that a) extra aerosol emissions caused cooling and b) extra CO2 caused warming. The media picked up on a) more than b), presumably because there appeared to be cooling at the time, and presumably because it was easier to visualise too much cooling.
Why do you say my "favored" steep rises? I mentioned the steep rises *after* the flattish spots. I'm merely observing that a prediction of warming due to CO2 was followed by warming of a similar amount to the prediction. That it occurred in fits and starts is interesting but not yet a serious problem for the prediction.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 5, 2009 17:28:33 GMT
steve: “The author of this piece has misunderstood what has been said by the scientists. Here's a quote from Tom Wigley, which doesn't of course address the reason why the ocean has been particularly damp for the past few years:” Maybe he wasn’t talking about Tom Wigley, but some other scientists and their followers, who tell us that the missing heat is “in the pipeline” and will be coming along any day now. Or maybe he is misrepresenting what the scientists are saying. Without a reference, who can tell. DiPuccio says: "Hidden" is not the same as "unrealized". The references I've looked at refer to "unrealized warming" not "unrealized heat". In the context of the current pause in ocean warming, claiming that "unrealised warming" is a solution to the problem is somewhat evasive, and I've said so. But the normal context for "unrealised warming" doesn't refer to this "flattish spot" (particularly as the papers were written prior to the flattish spot being spotted). It refers to the ongoing expectation of what would happen as a result of any source of continuous warming. Namely, that the atmosphere will warm reasonably quickly except for the fact that the ocean below keeps it cool. In that instance, referring to "unrealised warming" is not evasion, as DiPuccio claims. Let's be clear that Wigley did not use the word "missing" at all. He says that "The assumption of constant atmospheric composition on which the warming commitment idea is based is clearly unrealistic". I think that is saying exactly what I've been saying - the climate is variable which can result in the energy balance changing by amounts well above or well below any forcing change from CO2/aerosols for periods of up to a decade or so.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 5, 2009 18:22:12 GMT
Steve: “Right, I assumed you meant recently and my brain latched onto last January's cooler temperature. Papers in the 60's and 70's correctly understood that a) extra aerosol emissions caused cooling and b) extra CO2 caused warming. The media picked up on a) more than b), presumably because there appeared to be cooling at the time, and presumably because it was easier to visualise too much cooling.”
It wasn’t that there “appeared to be cooling at the time” there was cooling at the time. It was pretty damn cold. Do you deny that?
Steve: “Why do you say my "favored" steep rises? I mentioned the steep rises *after* the flattish spots. I'm merely observing that a prediction of warming due to CO2 was followed by warming of a similar amount to the prediction. That it occurred in fits and starts is interesting but not yet a serious problem for the prediction.”
I say your “favored” steep rises because the steep rises are what you seem to be saying are the norm, or the average climate condition under the AGW regime, only punctuated by flattish SPOTS, without any mention of the long period of climate cooling that occurred after the AGW regime began around 1945.
I ask you again: Didn’t the cooling period that set off a mini-panic last longer than your favored “steep rises”? Maybe your average conditions favor ice ages and it is irrational to panic at the sight of a little warming.
And:The bulk of the 120 ppm increase in CO2 has been added since 1945. It has not warmed as much in that period as expected by the AGW theory, and particularly the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory. WHERE’S THE HEAT?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 5, 2009 18:30:04 GMT
steve: “Let's be clear that Wigley did not use the word "missing" at all. He says that "The assumption of constant atmospheric composition on which the warming commitment idea is based is clearly unrealistic". I think that is saying exactly what I've been saying - the climate is variable which can result in the energy balance changing by amounts well above or well below any forcing change from CO2/aerosols for periods of up to a decade or so.”
OK, I have re-read the Wigley quote and have changed my mind. His “urealized warming” BS looks suspiciously like the "missing heat is in the pipeline” BS, so I believe that DiPuccio was talking about him, even though he did not mention him by name.
Where did you come up with “for periods of up to a decade or so”? How do you account for ice ages that occurred when CO2 was present in the atmosphere in much higher concentrations than it is now?
I am trying really hard not to be sarcastic steve. Help me out. Answer the questions.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2009 0:09:34 GMT
I think that is saying exactly what I've been saying - the climate is variable which can result in the energy balance changing by amounts well above or well below any forcing change from CO2/aerosols for periods of up to a decade or so. I am trying to imagine how you happened to come up with a decade. Perchance not because its been a decade?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 6, 2009 2:04:59 GMT
I think that is saying exactly what I've been saying - the climate is variable which can result in the energy balance changing by amounts well above or well below any forcing change from CO2/aerosols for periods of up to a decade or so. I am trying to imagine how you happened to come up with a decade. Perchance not because its been a decade? I am trying to imagine how you happened to come up with a decade. Perchance not because its been a decade? ;D Isn't it nice to have an irrefutable hypothesis? Now ask a true believer to go back five or ten years and locate the section in IPCC or any other CO2 AGW propaganda that allows for ten years of no warming or cooling.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 6, 2009 2:14:54 GMT
icefisher: "I am trying to imagine how you happened to come up with a decade. Perchance not because its been a decade?"
Do I detect a note of sarcasm? tsk,tsk
About a decade, more or less, plus or minus a few years might be about right for an excusable no warming flat "spot" in the AGW theory. Personally, I would think of a "spot" in terms of a timescale as a few days or a week, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 6, 2009 9:14:09 GMT
steve: “Let's be clear that Wigley did not use the word "missing" at all. He says that "The assumption of constant atmospheric composition on which the warming commitment idea is based is clearly unrealistic". I think that is saying exactly what I've been saying - the climate is variable which can result in the energy balance changing by amounts well above or well below any forcing change from CO2/aerosols for periods of up to a decade or so.” OK, I have re-read the Wigley quote and have changed my mind. His “urealized warming” BS looks suspiciously like the "missing heat is in the pipeline” BS, You "What's this about missing heat in the pipeline - WHERE'S THE HEAT" Me: "Nobody says there is "missing heat in the pipeline" [long detailed explanation that should answer all your questions] You "What's this about missing heat in the pipeline - WHERE'S THE HEAT" If you can show me that you understand the difference between "unrealised warming" and "missing heat" then I'll be happy to continue this. I don't think the cooling spells lasted longer than the warming spell. It's not that important because the point is that it's now warmer. I came up with a decade because it is roughly the length of the longest periods of cooling/no warming that the models show.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 6, 2009 9:20:18 GMT
And:The bulk of the 120 ppm increase in CO2 has been added since 1945. It has not warmed as much in that period as expected by the AGW theory, and particularly the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory. WHERE’S THE HEAT? If you read my posts, I've been quite clear that while you cannot say that it has not warmed as much as expected by the AGW theory, the lack of observations of, and incomplete understanding the impact of aerosols is unsatisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2009 14:12:15 GMT
I'm merely observing that a prediction of warming due to CO2 was followed by warming of a similar amount to the prediction. That it occurred in fits and starts is interesting but not yet a serious problem for the prediction. I agree its only a "serious" problem if history repeats itself like it has been doing for the past decade. Right now its just a "big" problem. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2009 14:20:06 GMT
I came up with a decade because it is roughly the length of the longest periods of cooling/no warming that the models show. Do you have a reference for those models? It would be nice to know which ones have not been falsified and what the basis of their variation is from the others and what that might imply about future warming.
|
|