Be in no doubt
A reader, Simon, made some interesting points when he commented on my assertion that scientists “incite” policy, saying:
The relatively recent trend of activism by individual scientists is solely because of the way their work is being misrepresented and their concern over the changing environment.
What he calls “concern over the changing environment” is the motivation for activism, so I’m glad we agree on that. But if they only looked more closely rather than satisfying their expectations at first glance they wouldn’t detect any change beyond the ordinary. Because no unprecedented climatic fluctuations have been reported. So why be concerned?
He refers to scientific activism as a “recent trend”, blatantly ignoring the fact that the whole climate scam was started by activists, and describes activism by “individual scientists” to imply they are few. In fact, they are thickly distributed throughout the UN, the IPCC, national and international scientific organisations and national governments, and their pronouncements and opinions are broadcast constantly.
How much more must they do before Simon notices them?
He is either deluded or his eyes are shut. Scientists everywhere get into policy, not just those who leave science to become activists. But not all scientists are biased.
The activism of scientists was well established when the UNFCCC was written in 1992 — even earlier, when the WMO and the UNEP set up the IPCC in 1988. Who could deny that their very purpose was climate activism, when the IPCC was prevented by its founding principles from investigating the truth of anthropogenic climate change. They were forced to take it as gospel and simply find evidence for it. Which is not normally considered a scientific approach.
Climate illusions
The opening paragraph of the treaty on the Framework Convention asserts:
that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.
From then and for ever, IPCC investigators have been prevented from examining the truth of those assertions. If they don’t accept them, they don’t get used by the IPCC. Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.
Definition of an activist
The IPCC’s first chairman was Bert Bolin, a meteorologist (in other words, a scientist), who “cajoled a reluctant world into recognising the urgency of the issue [of climate change],” in the words of one commentator. A pretty good description of an activist, I would say. It’s been the same ever since.
Look among the ranks of lead writers, principal authors and other contributors to the IPCC reports and you’ll find many who hold full-time positions with WWF, Greenpeace and other activist organisations — you can be sure they’re not there because of their neutrality towards global warming. Donna Laframboise wrote “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” describing this and other defects of the IPCC authors and processes.
The current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is an activist of the first order and thoroughly involved in promulgating policy and an urgent need for policy.
In his address to the meeting of COP 18 last November he stated openly:
I would like to submit with due emphasis that knowledge from the recent work of the IPCC must drive and define decisions that need to be taken now to deal with the growing challenge of climate change.
Chilling new move
I have just come across this. It is perhaps not surprising to hear of a bold new initiative with the latest Assessment Report, taking the IPCC’s policy involvement to a completely new level, but it is chilling. They’re beginning to leave the heavily controversial science behind them to concentrate on policy. This is revolutionary. Pachauri announced it:
In the case of WGIII, an innovation in AR5 is the “Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning” chapter. This is important because while urban planning is referenced in AR4 there is no comprehensive survey on the role which urban planning can play in adaptation and mitigation. WGIII is also providing greater emphasis on social science aspects of mitigation measures. For the first time, WG III is going beyond the technical aspects and into the social science aspects. WG III AR5 Report is also providing greater focus on technologies, sectors and regions, in order for the distribution of risks and costs to be more specific, i.e, there is less reliance on averages. And finally, it is focusing more explicitly on mitigation options, costs, strategies and policy requirements, with a more integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation.
Those with eyes to see, let them see.
It could not be clearer or more stark. Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN? This is the very scenario Lord Monckton has warned us about since Copenhagen in 2009. If we let the UN take control, the world will indeed be damned. We must visit this again; now, moving on…
Activists in New Zealand, too
Here in New Zealand, public scientists active in the “fight” to restrict industry because of its emissions of carbon dioxide include (off the top of my head) David Wratt, Andy Reisinger, Jim Salinger, James Renwick, Keith Hunter and Martin Manning. There are many others — I apologise if I left you out.
I was looking at the Antarctic Research Centre web site, which seems otherwise entirely focused on scientific topics and purposes, when I came across a “Policy” page. For anyone concerned about freedom, it, too, makes chilling reading, for they are fully involved in formulating public policy.
Policy
One of the main purposes of climate science is to provide reliable knowledge that can be used by society to make decisions concerning our relationship and responses to a climate system that is undergoing marked change. This involves:
• increasing our knowledge of the climate system and human interactions with this system (scientific basis),
• helping to understand the nature, scale and timing of climate change risk (vulnerability),
• helping to develop realistic climate change adaptation goals and strategies (adaptation), and
• helping the formulation of realistic climate change mitigation goals and strategies (mitigation).The role of the ANZICE policy component is to help translate the relevance of the research findings for a policy audience.
To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity. Just look at what has happened to Greenpeace.
Nothing’s happening
People who believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming should stop saying the same things endlessly like a machine and start to notice the real world.
The climate has not been warming dangerously — it hasn’t warmed at all for about 20 years — sea level rise is not accelerating, colder northern winters are not caused by melting ice and the only sign of future dangerous temperatures is unproven computer models.
The climate scam is driven by activists, some of whom are scientists too.
Views: 437
Rather dishonest to change “concern” to “assert” Richard?
Alters the whole meaning.
You’re on moderation, Perrott, but I had to approve this one, just to say: prove it.
Enlighten us: how could the UN express “concern” about something they did not “assert”? How does it change their meaning by saying they asserted something they were concerned about? You’re sounding idiotic, but go ahead, explain.
Ease off the conspiracy theory RT. Climate science is a is a key part of Antarctic research for at least two reasons:
1. Climate change is most pronounced towards the poles. These ecosystems are the most under threat. As an example, a friend passing through from Campbell Island tells me that this year the waters around Campbell are far warmer than usual and the krill has been replaced by a kind of jellyfish. Krill is central to the whole ecosystem.
2. The environment is relatively pristine and the opportunity for ice samples allow high quality paleo-climatic reconstructions.
I don’t use the word conspiracy, nor do I believe it. I simply cite public documents. It’s a fact that the UN wrote Agenda 21. Read it.
The point about mentioning policy was your denial that scientists get involved with it. Forgotten already?
1. The Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years — why do you say “poles”? What does “far warmer” mean? Did your friend give you a temperature record showing how SST around Campbell Island have actually changed and by how much over many decades? Do you know anything about the regular cycles of oceanic species? Can you say if the “replacement” of krill by jellyfish is at all unusual, or how long it will last before the krill return? Are you sure, if krill is “central,” that it’s not available nearby? Do you know that there’s no definition of “ecosystem”?
2. Which environment? If you mean the Campbell Island environment, what’s wrong with pristine jellyfish? What’s the problem with warmth? Where are the ice samples taken? Why does a pristine marine environment make any difference to them?
Oops, missed the punchline.
Finally, what makes you think we’re responsible for any warming around Campbell Island, when the global average temperature hasn’t risen for about 20 years? I mean, I could just say, so what the local SSTs have gone up? Tell us how much and when! You’re like all the little delicate warmists — it’s been warming, oooh!! Makes me sick. Talk sense.
I don’t know why I bother but…
Only parts of Antarctica are cooling as circulation patterns change. The Antarctic peninsula is warming rather quickly. My Campbell Island example was just that, only a sample. The warm conditions could be very localised for all I know. I’m not attributing it to AGW, merely pointing out that a warmer ocean affects the krill life cycle.
Please restrict the ad hominem, you are under moderation.
Do you agree with anything in the post? For example, do you agree that the IPCC is not and cannot be a scientific organisation, for the reason that it cannot practice normal science, since its own rules prevent it from trying, and it has never tried, to falsify the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming, either with its own work or with a literature review? Do you agree that several thousand scientists write each assessment report, or do 80% of IPCC members have no science qualifications?
So when you find cooling, you say it’s caused by natural variation, but warming is caused by us? Is that what you mean? Since 1979, the UAH satellite record at http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUSPol.html shows no significant trend. The peninsula is a tiny fraction of the continent, extending over 600 km beyond the Antarctic Circle into warmer waters, and lies in its warmest climate. Of course any warming there says nothing about the vast bulk of it, with ice kilometres thick.
I’m pleased to hear that, thanks for the information, but have you really not noticed the scientists around the world speaking on behalf of governments, associations, professional and environmental bodies, agitating to “take action” and “fight” global warming? Ever heard of bio-fuel or wind turbines?
Heh, heh. Sometimes my self-control slips. But you’re being too sensitive. I called you little and delicate, which is mild. Your complaint is declined and my self-moderation is removed. On the other hand, I remind you that I advised you to talk sense.
If you fail to answer any of my questions, either in this or previous comments, then I will stop asking.
If there was a significant body of scientific literature that rejected the AGW hypothesis, the IPCC would be unable to ignore it in their preparation of AR5. That body of evidence does not exist so I suspect that AR5 will reach similar conclusions as AR4 but hopefully with some additional insight into what is going on.
>”I suspect that AR5 will reach similar conclusions as AR4 but hopefully with some additional insight into what is going on.”
From Lexology.com down-thread, the legal fraternity are already reporting this:-
The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:
1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd
Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist) can explain things better than I can but I know that this will be disregarded out of hand as it is from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/apr/24/reuters-puzzled-global-warming-acceleration?CMP=twt_gu
Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist)
What makes Dana a “real climate scientist”, as opposed to say Richard Lindzen
Update: I don’t automatically reject everything from The Guardian. I take each newspaper article at face value, whether it be from the Mail, Telegraph or Guardian.
Leo Hickman did a good job recently exposing some of the dodgy claims about Afric by David Attenborough, for which his deserves credit.
>”…but I know that this will be disregarded out of hand”
Yes and no.
Truncate the OHC data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2009, ignore therefore the most recent data showing a standstill in OHC, do not make recourse to other OHC datasets e.g. UKMO EN3 that doesn’t exhibit the OHC acceleration that the heavily “adjusted” NCDC dataset does, don’t do a basin-by-basin analysis.
Otherwise – apart from that scientific trivia – global warming is accelerating in ideological terms.
>”Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist)”
Spin it up Simon.
“Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
So by your rationale Simon, anyone who has been researching climate science as a hobby is a climate scientist, albeit with transferable knowledge from academia.
>Dana Nuccitelli ……can explain things better than I can”
Are you sure about that Simon? There seems to be some mixed messages:-
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?
Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing
Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing
Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing
SkS have a glitch in their “global” warming going into the ocean meme.
3-month heat content from 1955 to present
* Basin time series
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
– World: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 12.637 , 7.849959
2012.875 , 16.630 , 10.641594
– Atlantic: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 6.256 , 4.896
2012.875 , 6.882 , 4.491
– Pacific: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 4.188 , 3.291
2012.875 , 4.227 , 2.858
– Indian: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 2.194 , 1.094
2012.875 , 5.520 , 3.923
Over the last 7 years, “global” warming has been going into the [Indian] ocean, and 70% (2.8×10^22) of the 7 yr World: 0 – 2000 meters heat increase (4×10^22 Joules) has gone into the 0 – 700 m layer of the Indian Ocean.
Simon,
We all hope for some insight from the IPCC!
You’re quite trusting, aren’t you? Actually, the IPCC has proved itself again and again perfectly capable of ignoring anything inconvenient, as Donna Laframboise describes in her book. For example, they ignored Christopher Landsea’s expert view that global warming does not have a strong influence on hurricanes. As Donna puts it: “Kevin Trenberth, who is not a hurricane expert, had participated in a press conference in which the media and the public were led to believe that a link exists between global warming and more intense hurricanes. When Landsea protested to the IPCC that this was improper, especially given the fact that Trenberth was in charge of the hurricane section of the climate bible then being prepared, he was blown off.”
Chairman Pachauri refused even to acknowledge an injustice had occurred or to correct it.
Of course, no AGW hypothesis has been set out (or, please, cite the paper!). And there’s no need for a “body of evidence” to disprove anything — as Einstein said, it requires “just one fact.” But the IPCC ignores inconvenient facts.
Nope, the studies showing the “warming” of the Antarctic peninsula are almost entirely from the west of the divide (the mountain range). Our intrepid climateers tend to avoid the east because it’s too cold there. The recent change is that the climate contrast between west & east has recently sharpened. This can be seen in the sea ice, of which there is little on the west side but considerably increased on the east side. But the average temperature of east & west is a wash.
It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well. Anthony Watts rather infamously tried it blame it on the Urban Heat Island effect, unaware that there is a network of automated stations well away from the extremely well insulated huts. It is more complex than the Arctic but things are changing quickly. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/ice-hockey/ for more detail.
‘Recent Antarctic climate, glacier changes at the ‘upper bound’ of normal’
University of Washington, April 14, 2013
In the last few decades, glaciers at the edge of the icy continent of Antarctica have been thinning, and research has shown the rate of thinning has accelerated and contributed significantly to sea level rise.
New ice core research suggests that, while the changes are dramatic, they cannot be attributed with confidence to human-caused global warming, said Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences.
Previous work by Steig has shown that rapid thinning of Antarctic glaciers was accompanied by rapid warming and changes in atmospheric circulation near the coast. His research with Qinghua Ding, a UW research associate, showed that the majority of Antarctic warming came during the 1990s in response to El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
Their new research suggests the ’90s were not greatly different from some other decades – such as the 1830s and 1940s – that also showed marked temperature spikes.
“If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today,” said Steig, lead author of a paper on the findings published online April 14 in Nature Geoscience.
>>>>>>
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/04/14/recent-antarctic-climate-glacier-changes-at-the-upper-bound-of-normal/
>”It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well”
Steve McIntyre writes:-
In a recent RC post entitled “Ice Hockey” and a recent Nature article, Steig and coauthors have introduced a novel and very baroque “hockey stick”, one without a blade. A true Halloween of horrors: in addition to Gergis’ zombie hockey stick, the bladeless Hockey Stick of Sleepy Hollow is now at large.
The appearance of Steig’s bladeless hockey stick was apparently so horrifying that he dared not show it in the RC post. However, I believe that CA readers are made of sterner stuff and will be able to withstand the sight of even a bladeless hockey stick, which is shown below.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/steig-2013-figure-3.png?w=647&h=438
Steig described d18O values in “recent decades” as “highly unusual”:
“Our results thus show that, indeed, recent decades in West Antarctica, which have been characterized by very rapid warming, and very rapid loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, are highly unusual.”
Steig also asserted that there was a “strong trend” in O18 values in the past 50 years, which was, according to Steig, “largely driven” by high values in the closing portion of the series. Here’s his exact language:
“Our results show that the strong trend in δ18O in West Antarctica in the last 50 years is largely driven by anomalously high δ18O in the most recent two decades, particularly in the 1990s (less so the 2000s).”
It seems odd to say that the supposed trend was “largely driven” by higher values in the closest portion: how would one get a trend without higher closing values. For comparison, here is a detail of the WAIS d18O record (plotted from PAGES2K data) for the past century. Values in the 1990s were locally elevated, but values in the 1970s were the lowest in the entire record, contradicting Steig’s claim about “recent decades“. Nor is the “trend” since 1950 even statistically significant. Indeed, the values in the 1990s appear more like a fluctuation, as opposed to a “trend” (let alone a “strong trend”), particularly given the subsequent downtick in the 2000s. Nor is this data set is one that any reasonable person would compare to a Hockey Stick.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/steig-2013-modern.png?w=680&h=480
Even with the most liberal allowance for imprecise language and lack of statistical acumen on the part of “real climate” scientists,
>>>>>>>>
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/23/steigs-bladeless-hockey-stick/#more-17848
Simon says: “It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well. Anthony Watts rather infamously tried it blame it on the Urban Heat Island effect, unaware that there is a network of automated stations well away from the extremely well insulated huts.”
Why, this representation is a total lie, AW never said anything of the sort. This “Simon” is obviously out to dissemble, and isn’t worth bothering with. The “Simon says” of our childhood was fictional but still a higher ethical calibre than this “Simon”.
>”Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.”
Probably the one and only aspect of the climate policy boondoggle that is “unequivocal”:-
UN IPCC Official Admits ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=192624.0;wap2
Delingpoles book Watermelons describes the history of the movement, if you want to call it that.
Crispin Tickell and John Houghton were two prominent figures in starting up the IPCC, Houghton being the first head of that organization. Margaret Thatcher was also quite close to this pair in the early days.
Thatcher later recanted and became quite sceptical, as documented in her book Statecraft.
Many current commenters seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Thatcher changed her mind, as she also did on the EU project
‘Watermelons’ Review – John Brignell
“As for the insults, they come from a numerous body of hangers-on (Lenin’s useful idiots)”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/watermelons.htm
‘The Human-Hating Roots of the Green Movement’
Behind the environmentalist facade lies a totalitarian agenda that is already being enacted.
By Arnold Ahlert · April 24, 2013
Monday was the 43rd celebration of Earth Day, an event hailed as an effort to promote responsible stewardship of the environment. Fittingly, it is also the birthdate of Communist Party creator Vladimir Lenin, a reality that the radical environmentalists responsible for the creation of Earth Day dismiss as a mere coincidence. Yet there is little question that under the guise of “saving the planet,” the earth-firster crowd would be more than willing to impose the same kind of totalitarian control over the masses envisioned by Lenin.
Like communism, the radical environmentalism that forms the heart of Earth Day celebrations is all about collectivism. In a 2007 column for the Cato Institute, former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus called environmentalism one of the main dangers to freedom in the 21st century. “Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection,” writes Klaus. “Behind their people- and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values.”
The Earth Day concept was developed by then-Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Congress’s foremost environmentalist. Nelson also helped to develop college “sit-ins,” where professors surreptitiously abandoned their curriculums to lecture students on the evils of imperialist America and the virtues of communism, a misunderstood system of governance that merely need better implementation to succeed.
Nelson’s efforts were facilitated by Denis Hayes. Hayes was a student at Stanford University, where he was elected student body president and became a high-profile anti-Vietnam War activist who once helped lead a student siege of a campus weapons-research laboratory.
Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich was the third man behind the Earth Day cult. Ehrlich’s claim to fame was The Population Bomb, a book that predicted societal disintegration, and hundreds of millions of deaths from famine — by the 1980s — due to the “cancer” of human population growth. In 1969 Nelson and Ehrlich decided that a nation enthralled by the ethos of Woodstock was ready for a nationwide teach-in on environmentalism. Hayes was brought in to coordinate and implement the operation. The trio decided that the first Earth Day would be held on April 22, 1970 — the centennial celebration of Lenin’s birthday.
The philosophical alignment between Lenin, who issued a decree known as “On Land,” declaring all natural resources the exclusive property of the state, and environmentalists, who believe that private enterprise and private property are impediments to saving the planet, are unmistakeable. To a large extent, those radical impulses have been realized in the United States. The federal government owns nearly 30 percent of all the land in the country, including five states where it owns more than half. Much of it remains federalized via the Endangered Species Act, which allows government to cordon off property from development if an endangered species is living on it. Furthermore, until the Supreme Court stopped the EPA last year, that agency was using the Clean Water Act to mandate what private property owners could or could not do with their own property, while preventing those owners from seeking recourse in the courts. “In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the court’s decision.
The EPA was created by Congress eight months after the first Earth Day celebration.
>>>>>>>>
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17854
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
By Paul Kengor on 4.22.13
Environmentalists of the world, unite!
[From page 1]
Our more knowledgeable friends on the left will cry foul at my crass connection between Lenin Day and Earth Day. They might note that Lenin was not an environmentalist. True, Lenin was a collectivist. He was also an angry atheist who detested human beings, mowing them down, filling land-fills with them. He did, however, share the penchant for central planning championed by environmentalists. And like environmentalists, more people were a problem for Lenin and his minions. Both environmentalists and Leninists view people as a drain on resources. For environmentalists, too many people consume too much of the earth’s (alleged) limited resources. For Leninists, too many people consume too much of the state’s limited resources. Both see mass collectivism and redistributionism — not to mention government control and seizure of property — as solutions to perceived global problems.
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/22/happy-earth-day-and-lenin-day
[From page 2]
Indeed, if you want to see real pollution, the communist world had it by the river-load. It was horrid — toxic. If you want to clean up your environment, you need capitalism, because wealthy countries (which are free-market based) can afford it. When you’re communist and dirt poor, your concern is bread or rice, not “paper or plastic.”
And yet, the environmental movement ultimately became a haven for old communists from the former Soviet Union. One of them, Mikhail Gorbachev, proudly proclaimed himself a “Leninist” (see his 1987 bestselling book, Perestroika) long before he proudly proclaimed himself an environmentalist. When Lenin’s empire alas crumbled at Gorbachev’s feet, the former general secretary went green. Once out of the Kremlin, Gorbachev formed an environmental organization with quasi-religious overtones. It was called the Green Cross, a re-constituting of the Red Cross label. It’s a fitting metaphor for the green-olatry of the movement. The red cross of Christ becomes a green cross of Gaia. You can see this in Gorbachev’s 2000 book, On My Country and the World, where he calls for “a new… environmentalization of consciousness.”
Most interesting, Gorbachev’s words on Lenin in his 1987 book, Perestroika, were almost worshipful, reverential. A decade and a half later, when Lenin and Gorbachev’s USSR was dispatched to Ronald Reagan’s ash-heap of history, Gorbachev genuflected to Gaia instead of Lenin. He was far from alone.
Also very telling, Gorbachev’s organization’s full title was Green Cross International. Like Marxism-Leninism, like the communist movement, the environmental movement wants to expand worldwide, with demands for excessive government involvement everywhere. Environmentalists of the world, unite!
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/22/happy-earth-day-and-lenin-day/1
Climate change: IPCC 2014 draft report insights
* Jenner & Block
* E. Lynn Grayson
* Global
*
* April 22 2013
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is working on its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change to be released in 2014. Interim drafts of certain portions of the report released by one of the three working groups suggest that things are not as bad as predicted in the IPCC’s 2007 report. Emerging insights are good news for the environment but pose greater uncertainty for the scientific community challenged to understand overall climate change impacts.
The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:
1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.
Whether or not rising temperatures resulting in global warming have stopped altogether is unclear. What we do know is that the slowed progress of global warming, as indicated by the last ten years of global temperature data, means less immediate and perhaps more mitigated climate change-related impacts.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd
Lexology is an innovative, web-based service that provides company law departments and law firms with a depth of free practical know-how that would be impossible to produce internally. By collaborating with the world’s leading commercial law firms, Lexology is able to deliver fully tailored intelligence to the desktops of business lawyers worldwide on a daily basis.
Consensus and Controversy: New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield”
Details
Published on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:31
Written by Emil Røyrvik, SINTEF
This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public “battlefield” that plays out arguably some of the more pressing issues of our time.
Presenting two broad “ideal type” of positions involved in the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the “consensus” and the “contrarian” perspectives, the report analyses both their cultural premises and places them in relation to the philosophy of science.
The report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on AGW, that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”.
The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy.
SINTEF is the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013042332408/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/consensus-and-controversy-new-report-on-the-global-warming-battlefield.html
‘Consensus and Controversy’
The Debate on Man Made Global Warming
Author Emil A. Røyrvik
SINTEF Technology and Society
Industrial Management
2013 04 12
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf
From the new SPPI & CO2 Science report:
“There is little need to ascribe a unique cause to late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.”
“In considering Qian and Lu’s findings, it is important to note that, once again, no help from greenhouse gas emissions was needed to reconstruct the past thousand-year history of Earth’s global mean temperature; it was sufficient to merely employ known oscillations in solar radiation variability. And as for the future, the two authors predict that “global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s.” Given the cessation in warming observed in the surface and lower tropospheric temperature records over the past decade, it appears their prediction is well on its way to being validated.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/analysis-finds-sun-explains-climate.html
SPPI:-
The claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been responsible for the warming detected in the twentieth century is based on what Loehle (2004)[1] calls “the standard assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports,” that “over a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000), and thus the null model for climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some autocorrelated noise,” so that “any warming trends in excess of that expected from normal climatic variability are then assumed to be due to anthropogenic effects.” If, however, there are significant underlying climate trends or cycles-or both-either known or unknown, that assumption is clearly invalid.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/solar_influence_on_global_temperature.html
Report:-
‘Solar Influence on Global Temperature’
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/solar_influence.pdf
From page 5/6:-
With respect to the causes of these and other Holocene RCCs [rapid climate changes], the international team of scientists [the 16 authors of Mayewski et al. (2004)] says that “of all the potential climate forcing mechanisms, solar variability superimposed on long-term changes in insolation (Bond et al., 2001; Denton and Karlén, 1973; Mayewski et al., 1997; O’Brien et al., 1995) seems to be the most likely important forcing mechanism.” In addition, they note that “negligible forcing roles are played by CH4 and CO2,” and that “changes in the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 appear to have been more the result than the cause of the RCCs.”
And,
Complicating the matter, however, Raspopov et al. report there can sometimes be “an appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal,” which can be as long as 150 years, and they note that regional climate responses to the de Vries cycle “can markedly differ in phase,” even at distances of only hundreds of kilometers, due to “the nonlinear character of the atmosphere-ocean system response to solar forcing.” Nevertheless, the many results they culled from the scientific literature, as well as their own findings, all testify to the validity of their primary conclusion, that throughout the past millennium, and stretching back in time as much as 250 million years, the de Vries cycle has been “one of the most intense solar activity periodicities that affected climatic processes.”
As for the more recent historical significance of the de Vries cycle, Raspopov et al. write that “the temporal synchrony between the Maunder, Sporer, and Wolf minima and the expansion of Alpine glaciers (Haeberlie and Holzhauser, 2003) further points to a climate response to the deep solar minima.” In this regard, it could be added again that Earth’s recent recovery from those deep solar minima could well have played a major role in the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age, and, therefore, could well have accounted for much of twentieth century global warming, as suggested a full quarter-century ago by Idso (1988).
Bishop Hill has a post on philosopher Pascal Bruckner’s new book on environmental catastrophism, entitled The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/25/bruckners-opus.html
Looks interesting.
Richard T: Even on my unfortunately short span of reading this blog I have come to the conclusion you should ban Simon.. Yes, I know about fairness and being “an open site”, but I also know what realclimate does to skeptic commenters. Boy do I ever. He has ceased to be funny.
Yes, Stan, I quite understand. But we persevere. I suggest you try to carry on, because the matter is more important than just feeling comfortable. Our answers, as someone said here recently, strike a wider audience than our proximate interlocutor. At least, I think that’s what he said…
I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible. The entire AGW “debate” is built on shifting sand, as protagonists on all sides are at liberty to describe the theory as they please. No falsification is possible.
Brilliant, Richard!
Now why not take a case to the high court – that seems to be the same sort of argument you used last time?
Just imagine, without such brilliant minds to keep scientists in check they would get away with blue murder.
What nonsense, Ken. As you know perfectly well, we didn’t argue the causes of DAGW in the court case.
Now please cite the scientific paper you have in mind that sets out an hypothesis to explain the DAGW phenomenon which you’re so convinced is true. There must be one somewhere, surely? You’re a scientist, you know how important it is for everyone to be on the same page — so where is the page that describes the mechanism/s behind dangerous anthropogenic global warming?
The irony being that Ken will have to defer to this paper for anything resembling a hypothesis (not that he would know):-
‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
Gerhard Gerlich
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
3.1 Defi nition of the problem
After it has been thoroughly discussed, that the physical greenhouse e ffect is essentially the explanation, why air temperatures in a closed glass house or in a closed car are higher than outside, one should have a closer look at the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse e ffects. Meanwhile there are many di fferent phenomena and diff erent explanations for these e ffects, so it is justifi ed to pluralize here.
Depending on the particular school and the degree of popularization, the assumption that the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation is supposed to lead to
a warming of the Earth’s surface and/or
a warming of the lower atmosphere and/or
a warming of a certain layer of the atmosphere and/or
a slow-down of the natural cooling of the Earth’s surface
and so forth.
Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse eff ect is introduced in harmony with the scientifi c standards of theoretical physics. As already emphasized, the supplement” to Kittel’s book on thermal physics [92] only refers to the IPCC assessments [23, 25]. Prominent global climatologists (as well as climate sceptics”) often present their ideas in handbooks, encyclopedias, and in secondary and tertiary literature.
3.3 Diff erent versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.1 Atmospheric greenhouse e ffect after Moller (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.2 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Meyer’s encyclopedia (1974) . . . . 38
3.3.3 Atmospheric greenhouse e ffect after Schonwiese (1987) . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.4 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Stichel (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Anonymous 1 (1995) . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Anonymous 2 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.7 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Anonymous 3 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.8 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after German Meteorological Society (1995) 40
3.3.9 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Gral (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.10 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Ahrens (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.11 Atmospheric greenhouse e ffect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics,
and Astronomy (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.12 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and
Astrophysics (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.13 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
(2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.14 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Rahmstorf (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 43
So the AGW conjecture problem is two-fold:-
1) As G&T point out, “there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse eff ect is introduced in harmony with the scientifi c standards of theoretical physics”
2) There is no anthropogenic enhancement extension in the literature (a secondary hypothesis) of the effect in 1) which is not formally documented as the primary hypothesis in the first instance.
Nice work, RC, thanks.
Arrhenius, S. A. (1896): On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine (41): 237-76
>”Arrhenius, S. A. (1896)”
In answer to the question “the [paper] that describes the mechanism/s behind dangerous anthropogenic global warming?”
Really? G&T:-
3.6 The hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius
3.6.1 The traditional works
In their research and review papers the climatologists refer to legendary publications of Svante August Arrhenius (19 Feb. 1859 – 2 Oct. 1927), a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry.
Arrhenius published one of the earliest, extremely simple calculations in 1896, which were immediately – and correctly – doubted and have been forgotten for many decades [44{46]. It is a paper about the influence of carbonic acid in the air on the Earth’s ground temperature. In this quite long paper, Arrhenius put the hypothesis up for discussion, that the occurrences of warm and ice ages are supposed to be explainable by certain gases in the atmosphere, which absorb thermal radiation.
In this context Arrhenius cited a 1824 publication by Fourier18 entitled Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires” [37, 38]. Arrhenius states incorrectly that Fourier was the fi rst, who claimed that the atmosphere works like a glass of a greenhouse as it lets the rays of the Sun through but keeps the so-called dark heat from the ground inside.
[…]
Arrhenius work was also preceded by the work of Tyndall who discovered that some gases absorb infrared radiation. He also suggested that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change [39{43]. A faksimile of the front pages of Fourier’s and Arrhenius often cited but apparently not really known papers are shown in Figure 18 and in Figure 19, respectively.
[…]
In which fantastic way Arrhenius uses Stefan-Boltzmann’s law to calculate this eff ect”, can be seen better in another publication, in which he defends his ice age-hypothesis [46], see Figures 20, 21, and 22.
First, Arrhenius estimates that 18:7% of the Earth’s infrared radiation would not be emitted into space because of its absorption by carbonic acid. This could be taken into account by reducing the Earth’s eff ective radiation temperature Te to a reduced temperature Treduced.
Arrhenius assumed
[Equations 64 – 67]
which corresponds to a lowering of the Earth’s temperature of 14:5 C.
As one would probably not think that such an absurd claim is possible, a scan of this
passage is displayed in Figures 21 and 22.
[…]
It is an interesting point that there is an inversion of the burden of proof in Arrhenius’ paper, which is typeset in boldface here, because it winds its way as a red thread through almost all contemporary papers on the influence of CO2 of the so-called global climate.”
# # #
Hardly a definitive GHE hypothesis let alone an AGW hypothesis.
You are correct RC, Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect existed in the 1850s. Arrhenius formulated his law ΔF = α Ln(C/Co) in 1896
where C is the CO2 concentration (ppmv),
Co denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2,
and ΔF is the radiative forcing (W/m²).
This is the AGW hypothesis. Disprove it.
Simon, you describe the increased forcing ascribed to an increase of CO2
However, I don’t think this is the AGW hypothesis, since the equation doesn’t mention heat or temperature.
The AGW hypothesis has to include the climate response to that forcing.
>”This is the AGW hypothesis. Disprove it”
The modern form (Myhre et al): ΔF = 5.35 Ln(C/Co)
From 2002 – 2012
ΔF = 5.35 Ln(C/Co)
ΔF = 5.35 Ln(393.82/373.22)
ΔF = 0.29 W.m2
ΔT = λ ΔF
A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2
ΔT = 0.8*0.29
ΔT = 0.23 K/decade
ΔT 2002 – 2012 GISTEMP Trend: -0.017 ±0.245 °C/decade (2σ)
Disproved
>”Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect existed”
That being another contention on a huge scale and to which I refer you to the Slayers (real GHE sceptics, not luke-warmers) if you really want to go on with it.
But in short, the greenhouse effect is restricted convection as has been subsequently proved.
>”That being another contention on a huge scale and to which I refer you to the Slayers (real GHE sceptics, not luke-warmers) if you really want to go on with it”
Latest on that:-
Open Letter Challenge to Greenhouse Gas Promoter Lord Monckton
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_April_26_2013
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law at a Non-Vacuum Interface: Misuse by Global Warming Alarmists
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=174&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_April_26_2013
Watt’s Up with the Greenhouse Effect?
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_April_26_2013
Lord Monckton Replies to John O’Sullivan’s Open Letter
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_April_26_2013
No, Roy….
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_April_26_2013
To be continued……..
>”I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible.”
But there is a null hypothesis:-
‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2′
Submission to: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 [The Endangerment Finding]
Summary
The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first
principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the
sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm
increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
Based on the arguments presented here, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed:
It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
Nice work again.
Nice to see the two Richard’s admiring their reflections in each other’s highly-polished tinfoil hats.
Meanwhile, back in the world of real scientists studying empirical data, we’re heading for a re-run of the Pliocene – how far above sea-level do these Richards live, I wonder?
“Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years, according to new regional temperature reconstructions covering all seven continents. This period of human-made global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience by more than 80 scientists from 24 nations analyzing climate data from tree rings, pollen, cave formations, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and historical records from around the world.
“This paper tells us what we already knew, except in a better, more comprehensive fashion,” said study co-author Edward Cook, a tree-ring scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the Asia reconstruction.
The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years…”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422101313.htm
You give no link to the paper, neither does your source, Science Daily. So we don’t know how much it “warmed more”, nor how much hotter the 2003 European summer was than every other European summer in the last 2000 years. That’s a lot of crucial information not to tell us. For if the global climate only “warmed more” by a few thousandths of a degree, as it did in the “record” temperatures of a few years this millenium, who cares? It’s no basis for panic.
It was known at the time that the 2003 heat wave, which sadly killed many and for which Europe was completely unprepared, hence most died needlessly, was caused by meteorological conditions and not by any kind of “global warming.” For you would have to claim that global warming has raised average temperatures about 18 °F, and you don’t, do you?
I would be surprised if the paper used the words “fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions” but I would be positively astonished if it provided evidence of such causation.
It’s hard to credit the sheer incompetence of some people, claiming that man-made global warming “continues today,” when the thermometers have remained essentially stuck for about 20 years. Heh, heh. The kind of global warming that doesn’t raise the mercury?
“This paper tells us what we already knew, …” said study co-author Edward Cook. But still without revealing the magnitude of the worrying warming. Brilliant. So we still don’t know how much of a panic to start. Oh well, we’ll just run around waving our hands in the air, like you do.
Here’s the paper RT (paywalled):-
‘Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia’
* PAGES 2k Consortium
Abstract
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1797.html
Steve McIntyre had an advance post on this:-
‘PAGES2K Reconstructions’
The PAGES2K article to be published tomorrow will show eight regional reconstructions, which are plotted below. In today’s post, I’ll try to briefly summarize what, if anything, is new about them.
Plot:-
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pages-reconstructions.png?w=680&h=720
Post:-
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/
From comments,
miker613
Couple of questions from an ignoramus:
1) Is this The Big Meta-Study that combines all knowledge on the last two millenia? If it is, what are the conclusions? Was there a Medieval Warm Period, or not?
2) What are the final conclusions of the statistics-critics? Are there reliable conclusions that can be drawn from all this, or not, and what are they?
3) Are the data and methods (finally) completely out? If so, could those who disagree with how various statistics were done – redo them? Are there competing studies done by skeptics?
I’m trying to see if there are Big Picture conclusions that believers and skeptics should agree on.
Steve: this study has been out for only a few days. It takes more than a minute or two to figure out what they’ve done. They’ve made a much better than usual attempt to document what they’ve done, but it still takes time. At first blush, pretty much every criticism of (say) Kaufman et al 2009 on varvology or of Gergis/Neukom applies to the new variations.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/#comment-415861
The fact that solar output was at a 1000 yr high at the end of the 20th century seems to have escaped the attention of the PAGES 2k Consortium:-
‘Sunspot activity hits 1,000-year high’
July 12, 2004
The Sun is burning brighter than at any time over the past 1,150 years, according to a study by a professor at a Swiss university.
Professor Sami Solanki said this could be compounding the effects of greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming.
“We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.
Last week Solanki, who is a professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, presented the findings at a conference of solar and stellar scientists in Hamburg, Germany.
His research team reached its conclusions after studying data from samples of ice collected by Swiss scientist Jürg Beer on an expedition to Greenland in 1991.
Most scientists acknowledge that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have warmed the planet in past decades, but they have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
>>>>>>>
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive/Sunspot_activity_hits_1,000-year_high.html?cid=3990930
The last time solar activity was as high as the late 20th century was 11,000 years ago. Nothing in between even comes close except for 8,800 years ago. See page 50:-
‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’
Ilya G. Usoskin
Sodankyl¨a Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit)
FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Published: 21 March 2013
(Update of lrsp-2008-3)
Figure 21: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf
Here’s the -4000 BC to 2000 AD half of Usoskin (2013) Figure 21:-
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z36/AlecRawls/Environment%20and%20climate/Sunspots_Usoskin2007_4000BC-2000AD_zps9dc7f477.png
The DAGW sceptic’s hockeystick.
Richard, it is indeed hard to credit the sheer ignorance of some people, claiming that man-made global warming “has stopped,” when the heating has accelerated for about 20 years. Heh, heh. The kind of scientific illiterate who doesn’t know the difference between the thermal energy of a system and the surface temperature?
Here are references to the relevant papers (warning – may promote insight / awareness):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/guemas-attribute-slowed-surface-warming-to-oceans.html
RROK – the IPCC use surface temperatures as their main metric for “global warming”, so we are just following suit. [thanks, Andy -RT]
rrok
The atmosphere gets practically all its heat from the oceans alone. The atmosphere has not warmed in about 20 years (please don’t call it a decade as Perrott does). Therefore the oceans have not warmed in about the same period. Please explain how energy can accumulate without any effect on temperature. My present understanding is that it’s impossible. Note that I said “any” effect on temperature. It may help to phrase the question thus: how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?
Thought I heard my name taken in vain. Richard, for a proof reader you show a shocking tendency to misrepresent.
FYI
Decade = a period of 10 years.
Decadal = pertaining to 10, consisting of tens.
Hence my use of decadal to refer to several terns of years.
What nonsense. You said “Cumming only “noted” the recent decadal plateau of surface temperatures because he thinks it fits his story.” It wasn’t a decadal plateau. It was a 20-year plateau. You bristle at nothing. Now, how about the substantive issue of thermal energy? Please?
Re Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). Response as for Simon’s oblique reference up-thread:-
Truncate the OHC data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2009, ignore therefore the most recent data showing a standstill in OHC, do not make recourse to other OHC datasets e.g. UKMO EN3 that doesn’t exhibit the OHC acceleration that the heavily “adjusted” NCDC dataset does, don’t do a basin-by-basin analysis.
Otherwise – apart from that scientific trivia – global warming is accelerating in ideological terms.
Re Guemas et al. (2013). Tisdale:-
The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005. [Figure 1]:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-1.png?w=960&h=594
From post,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/on-guemas-et-al-2013-retrospective-prediction-of-the-global-warming-slowdown-in-the-past-decade/
Warning – may promote insight / awareness
>”…the IPCC use surface temperatures as their main metric for “global warming” ”
Thing to remember too though is that the largest component of say HadCRUt4 is sea surface temperature (HadSST3) not atmosphere, but that SST and OHC are not necessarily in sync anyway.
SST (and therefore GMST) has been cooling since about 2003:-
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend
But 0-2000m OHC has only just reached standstill since 2011/12
2005-3,9.047265
2005-6,9.440074
2005-9,9.737721
2005-12,12.702446
2006-3,11.986115
2006-6,13.062301
2006-9,12.342897
2006-12,13.410676
2007-3,13.660851
2007-6,11.580516
2007-9,12.458247
2007-12,12.539561
2008-3,13.499634
2008-6,14.740957
2008-9,13.240829
2008-12,12.241559
2009-3,12.811517
2009-6,12.374052
2009-9,13.947054
2009-12,15.183682
2010-3,16.048752
2010-6,13.671132
2010-9,14.129639
2010-12,15.070600
2011-3,15.453777
2011-6,14.812579
2011-9,17.095699 <<<<<<<<<
2011-12,14.983609 <<<<<<<<
2012-3,17.434353 <<<<<<<<<
2012-6,15.622717 <<<<<<<<<
2012-9,15.494756 <<<<<<<<<
2012-12,16.831072 <<<<<<<<
0-700m OHC has only been accumulating in the Indian Ocean but that is now at standstill to:-
2000.875 0.838
2001.875 1.498
2002.875 0.812
2003.875 1.048
2004.875 1.272
2005.875 1.094
2006.875 1.925
2007.875 1.980
2008.875 1.606
2009.875 2.691
2010.875 4.040 <<<<<<<
2011.875 3.636 <<<<<<<
2012.875 3.923 <<<<<<<
That lag is just a measure of the thermal inertia of the ocean and the time it takes to equilibrate at a high energy input level (solar Grand Max). The upper Pacific and Atlantic having already done so and the Pacific now cooling.
>”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”
Because the ocean is a heat-sink (reservoir of energy) and the atmospheric response to energy input to the ocean is not instantaneous generally (the only instantaneous response being radiation refection from the surface).
Planetary inertia – the time lag between change in energy input and energy output in the sun => ocean => atmosphere system – is generally agreed to be around 12 – 14 years. The 14 year calculation being +/- 6 years so anywhere between 8 – 20 years.
Therefore we should expect to see near-sfc cooling about 8 – 20 years after peak solar input at 1986 and that is exactly what has happened. And ocean enthalpy (total heat) reached maximum at the end of the modern solar Grand Maximum (1930 – 2012), also to be expected.
The process will go into reverse now that solar output is declining i.e. the ocean will release heat to the atmosphere faster than it is replenished by solar input.
>”Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years”
How much has it warmed since 2000 Rob? That’s the issue for those of us not living in the past.
1971 – 2000 only betters 1908 – 1939 by 0.035 °C
HadCRUt4 Trend 1971 – 2000: 0.176 ±0.058 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCRUt4 Trend 1908 – 1939: 0.141 ±0.052 °C/decade (2σ)
Thanks, RC.
>’This period of humanmade global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience”
Baloney. The natural cooling trend ending in the 1600s and subsequent warming from the LIA ending in the 2000s coincides with the quasi-1000 yr Eddy solar cycle e.g.
‘High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka’
1. Caroline Cléroux1,2,
2. Maxime Debret3,
3. Elsa Cortijo1,
4. Jean-Claude Duplessy1,
5. Fabien Dewilde1,
6. John Reijmer4,
7. Nicolas Massei3
Article first published online: 9 FEB 2012
[1] This study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream. We focus on the last 10,000 years (10 ka) to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and discuss the centennial to millennial time scale variability. We observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. We interpret the temperature and salinity changes in both regions as co-variation of activities of the subtropical and subpolar gyres. Around 8.3 ka and 5.2–3.5 ka, positive salinity anomalies are reconstructed off Cape Hatteras. We demonstrate, for the 5.2–3.5 ka period, that the salinity increase was caused by the cessation of the low salinity surface flow coming from the north. A northward displacement of the Gulf Stream, blocking the southbound low-salinity flow, concomitant to a reduced Meridional Overturning Circulation is the most likely scenario.
Finally, wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the δ18O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011PA002184/abstract
>”I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible.”
There is the IPCC statements (based on their case) that might be considered hypotheses:-
e.g. AR5 SOD SPM Detection and Attribution:-
“It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s”
For which the competing hypothesis would be:-
“It is extremely likely that significantly increased solar output in conjunction with the positive phase of the 60 climate cycle caused the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. The subsequent negative phase of the 60 year cycle in conjunction with peak solar output is extremely likely to have caused the standstill in global average surface temperature since the early 2000s”
Pingback: Friday follies – what happened to the “official AGW hypothesis?” | Open Parachute
The AGW conjecture (in the absence of a hypothesis) being encapsulated in the CO2-forced global climate models. Those now, by the modelers own falsification criteria, on the cusp of falsification:-
http://www.mutantblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dailymail.jpg
Word is getting around. Even the law fraternity is reporting climate science’s conjecture-reality mismatch:-
The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:
1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd
The “AGW hypothesis”, such as it is, can probably be summarised thus:
(1) The “Greenhouse Effect” due to downward longwave radiation is real, and measurable
(2) The no-feedback sensitivity of CO2 assuming a blackbody earth is around 1.2 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2
(3) Net feedbacks are positive (mainly due to increased water vapour), resulting in an increased overall greenhouse effect than from just CO2 alone. The IPCC central estimate of this sensitivity has always been 3 degrees C
Some people argue about (1) and (2), but the most uncertainty is (3).
Well defined Andy. The thing about the model implementations is that they all return different CS (λ) values, not the IPCC’s calculated value (“naive calculation” is the term I think, see below), e.g.
http://troyca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure3.png
Caption:-
“This is showing the radiative restoration strength in the CMIP5 models examined (each X is a different run from that model), which is generally inversely related to sensitivity. The solid gray line represents the likely value from observations, and the dashed lines represent +/- one standard deviation. As can be seen, the vast majority of these runs fall below the observational likely value for radiative restoration strength, suggesting these CMIP5 models likely have too high a sensitivity relative to the observations. Interestingly, inmcm4 and MRI-CGCM3 are both well above the line, and while they are among the CMIP5 models with the lowest sensitivity, they are not nearly as insensitive as the 50-yr radiative restoration strength would make them appear (which would be ~ 1.2 K for ECS if we performed a naïve calculation).”
From ‘Sensitivity / CMIP5 comparison paper now in press at Climate Dynamics’
http://troyca.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/sensitivity-cmip5-comparison-paper-now-in-press-at-climate-dynamics/
INMCM4 has “X” of 3 (inversely proportional to CS (λ) 0.33 – I think that’s how it works) because it has very low trajectories. It is also the only one mimicing the 21st century near-sfc so far although I don’t anticipate that will continue even over the next 2 years if there’s any cooling.
>”The IPCC central estimate of this sensitivity has always been 3 degrees C”
Equates to CS (λ) of 0.8 C/(W/m2), whereas “The solid gray line” of observations above is 0.5 C/(W/m2) [inverse of 2]. I might be wrong here but I think that’s how to interpret that CMIP5 CS comparison above.
Bishop Hill has a timely summary of studies supporting low sensitivity to CO2. This links to a similar article on WUWT
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/25/climate-sensitivity-in-ar5.html
I can’t decipher the model CS diagram at BH Andy but Troy CA has another post on CMIP5 sensitivities that is enlightening (well, for me anyway):-
‘CMIP5 Effective Sensitivity vs. Radiative Response in Last 40 Years’
http://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/cmip5-effective-sensitivity-vs-radiative-response-in-last-40-years/
Quoting:-
“If we were confident in that regression, our “likely” estimate for “effective sensitivity” would be right around –2.0 W/m^2/K, which would correspond to an ECS of ~ 1.85 K if we assumed a negligible difference between the “effective sensitivity” radiation response and that response over the full time it takes to equilibrate. However, I don’t think much stock can be placed in that regression, given that we have not used particularly accurate forcing data for the individual model aerosols, and the radiative response is well outside the main cluster of models. I think this latter fact is the more interesting qualitatively – there IS a fairly strong underlying relationship between this 40 year radiative response and the longer term “effective sensitivity”, and only 3 model runs of all the model runs looked at here have this radiative response fall within the 2.5%-97.5% uncertainty range as diagnosed from OHC in my last post. Of those, 1 of those “compatible” runs is a rogue CCSM4 run that is almost certainly affected by an offset issue. I am curious about the other 2 models/runs that diverged from the pack as well, but these don’t seem likely to be “rogue” runs because their corresponding effective sensitivities (which would also be affected by an offset issue) are normal.
Regardless, given that the modeled aerosol forcings tend to be larger in magnitude than in satellite estimates, this line of evidence would suggest it is even more likely that the effective temperature sensitivity of almost all CMIP5 models is too high.
This presents an additional test to just comparing temperature trends to models, because temperature and radiative imbalance will be negatively correlated if all else is kept equal. So in the event that you get a lower temperature trend in the real world than models due to La Nina conditions towards the end of the period, you should see an increase in TOA imbalance relative to models as a consequence of this unforced cooling, assuming the radiative response between the real world and models are about the same. However, as both the temperature trend AND TOA imbalance trend are smaller than almost all CMIP5 models over this period, La Nina would not serve to explain the situation. This leaves some combination of the following possibilities that I can see: 1) incorrect diagnosis of TOA imbalance from 0-2000m OHC, 2) aerosol forcing greatly exceeds that of GISS (which itself greatly exceeds the IPCC best estimate), 3) some other unknown forcing, 4) too high of effective temperature sensitivity in the CMIP5 models.”
# # #
Hmmm……. “some other unknown forcing”
It is great to know that we are gathering at one of the “echo chamber nodes” according to Ken
Sounds a bit Red Dwarf/Dr Who to me.
(* calling all attendees at Node#13, sector A6, conspiracy 5)
Just Ken’s inimitable way of saving the planet, one obscure blog post at a time.
Cutely said.
Can’t navigate in this mess but this is for Richard Treadgold
You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often.
‘I repeat deacadal = pertaining to 10, consisting of tens. That includes 20 years!
Now stop diverting pathetically like that.
Ken
“You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often.”
Reding? Perhaps you should check your dictionary Ken
Sure David – but it’s a childish complaint.
In this case my problem was not dictionaries or senility but that in trying to correct mistakes the comment ended up being posted twice without any indication in my browser.
But – you get the story and it has shut Treadgold up, hasn’t it?
“You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often”
” it’s a childish complaint”
Quite so
Richard Treadgold says:
April 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm
“Please explain how energy can accumulate without any effect on temperature. My present understanding is that it’s impossible. Note that I said “any” effect on temperature. It may help to phrase the question thus: how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”
WOO-HOO! Would any of the great minds on this blog (RC, Magoo, andyS) like to educate RT as to the difference between heat and temperature, and why it matters? Or are you going to try to pretend the the host of this so-called “Climate Conversation” blog hasn’t just shredded any credibility he may once have aspired to?
Thought so… OK, RT, here’s a clue, from intermediate school general science:
http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/heatAndTemperature/heatAndTemperature.html
An important example is “latent heat”, which is the energy absorbed / emitted when a phase change occurs WITH NO CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE. For example, when ice at 0 C melts to water at 0 C, which accounts for 2.1 % of the current global energy imbalance.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12
BTW, if you’re genuinely interested climate matters, there’s a great introductory text that you can download – it even mentions some friends of yours…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/New-textbook-climate-science-climate-denial.html
>”WOO-HOO! Would any of the great minds on this blog (RC, Magoo, andyS) like to educate RT as to the difference between heat and temperature, and why it matters?”
Except the difference between heat and temperature has absolutely nothing to do with RT’s question (wrt ocean heat and atmospheric temperature):-
>”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”
The answer is here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194669
You might like to have a read and a think Rob, given your off-the-mark response to RT’s question.
BTW Rob, you would look a bit silly trying to calculate OHC without recourse to temperature:-
‘Oceanic Climate Change: Contributions of Heat Content, Temperature, and Salinity Trends to Global Warming’
Christopher M. Mirabito
November 18, 2008
2.1 Quantifying Heat Content
The total heat content of a material is the amount of heat energy stored there. It can be determined by the formula
Q = cpmT; (1)
where Q is the total heat content (J), cp is the specific heat capacity of the material at constant pressure (J kg1 K1), m is the mass of the material (kg), and T is the temperature (K). Thus, we can determine the change in total heat content by relating it to the (measured) change in temperature:
DQ = cpmDT: (2)
Since sea water has a (high) specific heat capacity of cp = 4184 J kg1 K1, which is more than four times that of dry air, and because seawater is much denser than air (by a factor of about 800), and since the World Ocean is very large, a 1 K rise in ocean temperature changes the global heat content by three orders of magnitude more than a rise of 1 K in air temperature [7].2 Thus, contributions to changes in global heat content from the ocean are expected to dominate atmospheric effects. As pointed out in Table 1, it indeed dominates atmospheric effects, as well as all other effects, despite the small observed temperature increase (compared to that of the atmosphere) [3]. That the oceanic contribution to global heat content dominates all other components is also unsurprising, since the volume of the ocean is much larger than that of the other components (besides the atmosphere). Similar comments to this effect are made in [1].
3 Changes in Temperature
Changes in global oceanic heat content are closely related to changes in seawater temperature. It was observed by several authors that global oceanic heat content shows an increasing long-term trend; an increasing temperature trend should thus be expected as well, by equation (2). Indeed, this is generally the case, but the magnitude of the change are highly location-dependent; not all areas of the ocean are warming. The extent of the change is also dependent on depth; in some areas, the top portion of the water column is warming but the lower portion is cooling, and vice versa. As a result, observed temperature anomaly trends are reviewed by depth.
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/term_Chris.pdf
rrok,
First, please forgive my ignorance. I checked out the oddly-named Zona Land Education reference you kindly provided but it proved to be very low level and added nothing to my knowledge. But thank you anyway. I’ve avoided the Skeptical Science references because they can’t spell sceptical. Second, I’ll try to keep this short and simple for you, because I’m having trouble wading through the ad hominem attacks you launch and the political messages you broadcast to discover the substance of what you’ve said. Now:
I’m not under the impression that the water in the oceans is anywhere near a phase change, except for the top few micrometres, where it constantly evaporates. So I don’t know why you mention phase changes, as the ocean water is nowhere near boiling. That means that incoming shortwave solar energy, rather than contributing to a phase change instead of raising the temperature, raises the temperature. Is this all right so far?
Please tell me if you disagree.
Wrong again, RT, as you are ignoring the melting of ice by said oceans (e.g. sea ice, glacier tongues, ice shelves), plus the movement of heat within the oceans on multiple time scales:
http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-01.html
(simple)
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/rahmstorf_eqs_2006.pdf
(intermediate)
Sorry, RC, but I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher; do let us know when that happens.
>”Sorry, RC, but I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher”
Got nothing to do with publishing Rob. What that series does is document events and reveals just how tenuous and problematic the claims of anthropogenic ocean heating are. The internet will do the rest.
RC, your “series” and $3.50 will buy you a cappucchino.
No doubt you have a perpetual-motion machine in your garage as well?
So your answer to RT’s question Rob – that being:-
>”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”
Is to link to a “simple” blog article which doesn’t actually answer the question except for:-
Nothing at all about oceanic thermal lag (inertia) and the time frame between solar insolation => ocean heat-sinking => temperature change in the atmosphere.
Moving on to “intermediate”. Lots about internal oceanic circulation and a bit about mixing after insolation but nothing whatsoever about oceanic thermal lag (inertia) and the time frame between solar insolation => ocean heat-sinking => temperature change in the atmosphere.
Let’s move on to “advanced” then Rob. Keeping in mind that RT’s question was answered here:-
One calculation of planetary inertia from thermodynamic principles is the following from Abdussamatov (2010) and (2012), the latter here:-
That’s the “advanced” answer from peer-reviewed literature Rob. There are others using different methodology (e.g. Scafetta who argues for 2 stage lag consideration, 1 yr and 12 yrs) but this method is in terms of planetary enthalpy.
Hmmm… I think I see your problem, RC; you believe, as an article of faith and despite all observations to the contrary, that changes in solar output are the fundamental driver of earth’s climate.
This is, of course, arrant nonsense. In the words of Ray Pierrehumbert:
“That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”
Such nails include the paleoclimate record and direct solar observation by satellite. The following link lists genuine papers, not junk science from the Exxon-funded denier sites you apparently prefer:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
BTW, why can’t RT speak for himself? Despite appearances to the contrary, this is his site, not yours.
>”Such nails include the paleoclimate record and direct solar observation by satellite. The following link lists genuine papers, not junk science from the Exxon-funded denier sites you apparently prefer:”
It’s the wildly diverse estimates prior to the satellite record that are the problem for the IPCC Rob (the 11 yr cycle is irrelevant). From IPCC AR5 SOD, Chapter 8:Radiative Forcing, Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012):-
I think we can discount Schrijver et al., 2011 given that during the Maunder Minimum people walked across the frozen Bosporus to Constantinople. I don’t recall those conditions being in the 2009 news.
BTW, I see you’re resorting to argumentum ad auctoritatem Rob – is he some kind of Oracle/Guru/Priest/Pope/Judge/Jury/Executioner?
rrok,
About as much ice as is melted freezes in the other hemisphere. The movement of heat is significant, but not overwhelming. You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day. But let a little of the phase change and most of the long-term movement by current modify my next comments.
I don’t believe you’ve answered my question. Let me reiterate:
…the ocean water is nowhere near boiling. That means that incoming shortwave solar energy, rather than contributing to a phase change instead of raising the temperature, raises the temperature. Is this all right so far?
You are wrong to say the atmosphere is heated by insolation, as the incoming short-wave radiation leaves it virtually unscathed. It warms instead by long-wave IR from land, ice and water.
You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”
Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.
But WHEN does that release occur in response to changing energy input? Even if just the annual solar cycle is considered it certainly isn’t that “very day”:-
When the time-frame is extended to millennial scale the solar-ocean-atmosphere lag is 8-20 years as per Abdussamatov, Scafetta and others. White, Lean, Cayan and Dettinger (1997) found ocean temperature response to solar change had 3 separate frequency bands of periods >100, 18-25, and 9-13 years.
http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/white1.pdf
Obviously the atmosphere is inextricably linked to the same lag as the ocean, the major being around 12 years plus or minus a few.
Should be (your statement in quotes RT):-
>”You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”
Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.
Sorry, there’s no citation. I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface. Practically all the heat in the surface atmosphere comes from the oceans, land and ice, mostly by convection, and not directly from insolation. Some thermal energy finds its way beneath the surface before it returns to it by convection. That energy may exit the ocean on time scales of months, years, decades, centuries or longer. But that is a minor fraction of the insolation falling on the oceans. Hence I say “most of it” gets to the atmosphere “that very day.” If this is incorrect, I’m very happy to be corrected.
Another paper demonstrating air temperature lag behind the annual solar cycle:-
‘The spatial structure of the annual cycle in surface temperature: amplitude, phase, and Lagrangian history’
Karen A. McKinnon, Alexander R. Stine and Peter Huybers
Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(2013)
22 1. Introduction
23 It has been long understood that the annual cycle in surface air temperature is largely
24 controlled by the annual cycle in solar radiation, local surface conditions, and atmospheric
25 circulation. Generally, oceanic climates have a small amplitude and large phase lag with
26 respect to solar forcing, while continental climates have a large amplitude and small lag
27 (Von Hann and Ward 1903), with additional structure associated with the direction and
28 strength of prevailing winds (Ward 1906). This qualitative understanding of the systematic
29 patterns in amplitude and lag of the annual cycle has also been supported by quantitative
30 analysis, with a historical focus on obtaining a single measure of “continentality” that would
31 reflect the relative influences of land and ocean.
72 2. Structure of the annual cycle
95 Gain and lag exhibit coherent spatial structure (Fig. 1). Gain is generally larger over
96 Northern Hemisphere land masses, increases from west to east across continents, and in
97 increases more rapidly across North America than Eurasia. The smallest gains are found in
the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic, while the largest are in
98 northeastern Eurasia.
99 Lag exhibits a clearer land-ocean dichotomy, with an average lag of 28 days over land and
100 58 days over ocean.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/McKinnon_JofC2013.pdf
Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate is 1.5 times as sensitive to 22-year cyclical forcing relative to 11-year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertia of the oceans induces a lag of approximately 2.2 (± 2) years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data.
‘Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite’
N. Scafetta
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
B. J. West
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Received 17 June 2005; revised 1 August 2005; accepted 26 August 2005; published 28 September 2005.
[14] Figure 4 compares the band-pass curves D7(t) and
D8(t) for the TSI data and global temperature anomalies.
For the period 1856–1980 we apply the MRA to the TSI
proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], while for the
period 1980–2002 the MRA is applied to the ACRIM
TSI. Several 11-year solar cycles are easily recognizable in
the corresponding D7(t) temperature cycles, in particular
after 1960. The slow 22-year solar cycles are clearly
recognizable in the temperature detail curve D8(t) and
the temperature response lags the Hale solar cycles since
1900 by approximately 2.2 ± 2 years.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
# # #
So the longer the solar cycle considered, the longer the solar-ocean-atmosphere lag.
From Tallbloke’s Talkshop:-
Since the advent of satellite observations of lower tropospheric temperature in 1979, we have been able to make accurate comparisons of air and sea surface temperature. What we find is that changes in sea surface temperature precede the consequent changes in air temperature by several months. The ocean surface temperature is apparently driving air temperature, not the other way round.
The lag of air temperature in red behind sea surface temperature in green is clear from this plot:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sst-lt.png?w=921&h=690
# # #
But SST is not the same as OHC at progressively reducing temperature from surface down to 300m, 700m, 1000m, 2000m etc. There are entirely different dynamics and timeframes operating between the surface and the lower layers and then different dynamics and timeframes again between the lower stratifications, particularly tropics vs extratropics and polar say.
>”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.”
The ocean predominantly gains heat in the tropics and loses it in the polar regions. The time lag of heat transport, tropics to polar, is rather more than “seconds or minutes”. This ocean heat gain/loss paradigm is what is taught at Columbia University, among most other oceanography institutions that I know of, so if you think that paradigm is incorrect you better advise them to change their curriculum to your version:-
If heat generated by solar insolation was immediately transferred to the atmosphere in “seconds or minutes” as you assert, there would be no thermohaline circulation currents.
>”Practically all the heat in the surface atmosphere comes from the oceans, land and ice, mostly by convection, and not directly from insolation.”
All planetary heat, except for geo-heat, came directly from solar insolation in the first instance. Ocean and land is the matter that converts the incoming solar energy in the form of radiation to energy in the form of heat but radiation is an almost instantaneous process (speed of light), conduction/convection through matter is on a much longer time scale. The time scale of heat propagation is dependent on the thermal characteristics of the material. Conduction is the most significant means of heat transfer within a solid and conduction is greater in solids because the closer spatial relationships between atoms transfers energy more efficiently. Fluids (and especially gases) are less conductive. This is due to the large distance between atoms in a gas; fewer collisions between atoms means less conduction. This gives rise to the concept of the ocean being a “heat-sink” (reservoir of energy) because the inertia of internal energy propagation means heat transfer is relatively slow.
Convection in the ocean is not necessarily directly from depth to surface and is mostly horizontal, tropics to poles (see Columbia link). This is because of wind, overturning, mixing, thermohaline circulation etc. There will be direct upwards convection in ideal conditions but weather tends to foil convention.
Ice is an absence of heat below 0 C for non-saline water. It’s the solid-liquid ice-water change of state by melting that releases heat to the atmosphere but freezing is the opposite process. No heat being released to the atmosphere when ice is forming.
>”Some thermal energy finds its way beneath the surface…”
In the case of the ocean, except for reflection (albedo) and low angle-of-incidence, most of the radiation penetrates many metres below the surface, especially in the tropics and at either extremity of the tropics is where by far the majority of ocean heat gain takes place. Columbia again:-
And this profile of ocean temperature along a meridian at approximately 20°W (eastern Atlantic Ocean). South Pole at left, North Pole at right. Land areas and seafloor are black; major features, left to right: Antarctica (approx 90-75°S), Mid-Atlantic Ridge (approx 40°S), continental slope off Africa (approx 15°N), Iceland atop Mid-Atlantic Ridge (approx 65°N), and eastern edge of Greenland (approx 80°N). All temperatures in °C; contour interval is 2°C
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2010/02/DeepOcMRsecA1cvLG.jpg
>”That energy may exit the ocean on time scales of months, years, decades, centuries or longer.”
Numerous studies return this finding to the degree of identifying periodicity as evidenced by the papers cited up-thread. The longer the solar cycle in consideration the longer is the atmosphere temperature lag behind solar change.
>But that is a minor fraction of the insolation falling on the oceans.>
Hand waving. Prove it, cite it. And see above.
>”Hence I say “most of it” gets to the atmosphere “that very day.” If this is incorrect, I’m very happy to be corrected.”
I think you are completely at odds with the conventional oceanographic paradigm as per Columbia above, and if you can’t back up your assertion with anything substantial from literature or academia than you’re just hand waving.
BTW Tallblokes plot up-thread showing satellite-measured atmospheric temperature lagging SST by months effectively disproves the notion that atmospheric GHGs control sea temperature.
RT: “The atmosphere get practically all its heat from the oceans alone. The atmosphere has not warmed in about 20 years (please don’t call it a decade as Perrott does). Therefore the oceans have not warmed in about the same period.”
Not only does RT not understand the difference between heat and temperature, he doesn’t understand that both the atmosphere and the ocean are heated primarily by insolation, then by the effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere (which reduces heat loss from the ocean).
He also has no clue that the ocean is itself a complex system, rather than just a large bathtub;
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-Ocean-in-Action/NZ-Research/The-Ocean-in-Action
Again, he needs to grapple with an introductory text if he wants to be taken seriously – not that that probably matters to most of the denizens here, as they appear to have very few clues either. What was that about the blind leading the blind?
No wonder they so easily fall prey to a smooth-talking scam artist like Monckton, with his faked slides and risible “mathematics”… (except Andy, I expect).
>”Not only does RT not understand the difference between heat and temperature
Missed this did you Rob?
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194689
At least TRY to keep up. The difference between heat and temperature is totally immaterial to RT’s question (and the answer linked)
>”…the ocean are heated primarily by insolation”
Thank you Rob, you got this right.
“>….then by the effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere (which reduces heat loss from the ocean).
Whoahhhh, not so fast cowboy. The IPCC has not yet, after 25 years of trying, defined any posited GHG ocean heating mechanism. They only “expect” air-sea fluxes. And it’s all highly problematic:-
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?
Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2) [where they succumb to Revkin’s and their own “single study syndrome”]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing
Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing
Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing
Basically, your problem is Rob: why is heat restricted from leaving the ocean surface the second time around after (supposedly) being reintroduced to the ocean after unrestricted egress the first time around?
Great checkerboard image, thanks for that. It shows the amount of processing which our minds do to make sense of the world, and by analogy, all that could be hidden or lost by that processing — especially the processing not related to our lyin’ eyes.
Well said, Willy. I could hardly believe it. My lyin’ eyes! Of course, our eyes don’t lie, nor are they all that deceived. They simply understand what happens to colours in the shade. When two shades are adjacent, the eyes will see their similarity or their differences.
New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2
A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2, demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2 emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25% from 2003-2011, but growth in atmospheric CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures. The data demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels due to ocean outgassing, man-made CO2 does not drive temperature, and that man is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels.
‘Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends’
* Roger J. Francey,
* Cathy M. Trudinger,
* Marcel van der Schoot,
* Rachel M. Law,
* Paul B. Krummel,
* Ray L. Langenfelds,
* L. Paul Steele,
* Colin E. Allison,
* Ann R. Stavert,
* Robert J. Andres
* & Christian Rödenbeck
Nature Climate Change 3, 520–524 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1817
Published online 10 February 2013
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html
A gamebreaker! The paper shows quite a different curve from the Mauna Loa graph so they must have used different data. I can see the first page in ReadCube and the last incomplete sentence on the page says
so Cape Grim it is. I might spend $4.99 to see the whole paper. Busy now but this looks like dynamite.
Careful, Richard.
Dynamite could just blow up in your face!
Well, life’s dangerous. Got anything to say about climate or the IPCC? It’s notable that you trolls have been silent on the egregious failings of the IPCC.
Richard C (NZ) says:
Richard C, April 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm
“Should be (your statement in quotes RT):-
>”You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”
Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.”
Yes, I’d like to see the source of that statement as well, RT; [
some pseudo-science denial site, perhaps, or did you just make it up to sound sorta, kinda “sciency”?– Cut it out, mate. Nobody’s keeping score, you know. You don’t lose marks when you’re courteous. Above this you’ll find an answer to the request for a citation. – RT]From the prior-linked article at The HS:-
Bart says:
January 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere”
They’re actually not. It’s going to take a long time to seep through the mental block which has accumulated over time, but that was never more than an assumption, for which evidence consistent with it was sought, but falsification was never attempted.
If, however, you actually look at the data, it is clear that temperatures are driving CO2. This plot
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/gistemp/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075
shows that, since accurate records began, CO2 has evolved to a high degree of fidelity according to the difeq
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where k is a coupling constant, and To is an equilibrium temperature. This is simply a 1st order Taylor series expansion of a continuous transport process for which the rate of change depends on temperature. One such process is the continuous transport of CO2 into downwelling waters and out of the upwelling waters of the thermohaline circulation. With this equation, if you have the starting point and the temperatures in between, you can calculate the CO2 concentration to high accuracy at any time up to the present. You don’t need to know anything about human inputs at all.
The relationship precludes any significant contribution from human emissions. This is because the coupling constant k which matches the variation also precisely matches the trend. Since the rate of human inputs also has a trend, k would have to be reduced to make room for it, but then the variation would not match. The conclusion is necessarily that human inputs are rapidly sequestered, while temperature determines the equilibrium concentration of CO2.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/single-graph-demonstrates-man-made-co2.html
Ken seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of this blog. His latest post uses more material from here.
The guys at Hot Topic seem to be having a conversation with someone that they think is me
The world is getting weird
It goes with the weird weather, old boy.
I haven’t noticed any weird weather. The record snow and cold in Scotland, France and Spain did cross my radar during my recent travels, but I wouldn’t describe it as “weird”
He’ll be surprised to hear that there’s no Global Weirding after all.
I must be a Global Weirdimg Denier,.
I didn’t say that, Andy, you did. Actually, to be honest, I couldn’t say it. With the misspelling I don’t know how to pronounce it. ;-/
Too easy – or haven’t you heard of Google, RT / Andy?
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/10/10/weather-disasters-climate-change-munich-re-report/1622845/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/03/20/weather-extremes-global-warming-climate-change-louis-uccellini/2003513/
But, hey, what do the reinsurance companies and US National Weather Service know about extreme weather, compared to the mighty minds of the Climate Conversation Group and their ability to ignore uncomfortable truths?
Hmmm, are you sure about that extreme weather? The data doesn’t seem to back your theory on that one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
Well done, Magoo. I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today, cited by rrok.
rrok,
You’re perfectly content to insist: “I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher” when it suits you, but still you cite tabloids or alarmist nonsense from the insurance industry back to us. You are, sir, incredible.
For some reason (possibly connected with ownership of a seriously damaged Christchurch property) I don’t have a very high opinion of insurance and re-insurance companies.
Besides which, they are hardly a non-partisan player in the climate change game.
Glad to be of service!
Hot Topic conversing with phantoms, eh? That’s hilarious!
To add to the weirdness, I haven’t been able to access email or my own domains for two or three hours; I was blocked by the web server, which thought I’d been hacking into it. Which I hadn’t. Really. There’s hardly any need, is there?
Any hope for climate science is now lost. Lewandowsky has been awarded the “Wolfson Research Merit award” by the Royal Society.
As Bishop Hill puts it
Wow, Andy and RT, what great examples of epistemic closure you offer…
“Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting-conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News.
Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This epistemic closure …”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure
Are you able to be a bit more specific about what you are actually referring to?
Yes it’s true, you need to be wary of what you read in the media. That is exactly where you went wrong referring to businessweek.com and usatoday.com about AGW induced extreme weather, instead of the empirical evidence which proves conclusively on all fronts that there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for such a belief.
Considering what you just tried to pull above regarding extreme weather I think it’s hilarious that you’re accusing others of such things. Maybe you’re so blind that you’re oblivious to your own hypocrisy.
Richard T is right when he says – ‘You are, sir, incredible.’
So I am still waiting to hear which bit of “epistemic closure” you are referring to, RROK.
The issues around Lewandowsky’s papers are well documented. There are various claims against them.
He has been awarded a “merit” award by the Wolfson Foundation.
This suggests to me that the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation are completely clueless
Epistemic closure: putting your faith in snake-oil charlatans like Bishop Hill, Delingpole, Watts, Tallbloke, Monckton and the rest, whilst distrusting those who actually do the science.
It’s a politer term than “batshit crazy, paranoid nutters”, but means pretty much the same thing.
Sure, I do pity you, but I pity your children more. I think of a German friend of mine, and the shame she felt that her father had been in the SS during WWII. He did have an excuse though – he was drafted.
What’s your excuse going to be? Think carefully, because your grandchildren will expect an answer.
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it – first as tragedy, then as farce”.
I guess old George Santayana saw you guys coming.
I don’t need to put any faith in anyone to see that Lewandowsky is a crook. The guy hardly merits passing a degree, let alone getting a professorship.
Careful, Andy, Lewandowsky could be surveying this blog right now, and adding your comments to his award-winning database.
Better put your best tinfoil hat on…
‘Oreskes and Conway do the end of the world’
“It’s extraordinary how this “massive campaign” by fossil fuel interests has gone almost entirely undocumented. There is, to the best of my knowledge, virtually no evidence to support the claim at all. It is something of an indictment of the standards in academia that this kind of conspiracy theorising goes unremarked and entirely unchallenged.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/29/oreskes-and-conway-do-the-end-of-the-world.html
And Lewandowsky strangely silent on this particular conspiracy theory too.
Any comment on the ‘extreme weather’ data RROK, or are you still placing your faith in Businessweek and USAToday?
Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.
>”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”
Yes, dogmatic belief is all that is required of faith-based science – even if you understand it.
Yes that’s right, ‘faith is superfluous if you understand the science’. Let’s have another look at the science, see what it says about AGW extreme weather:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
Holland and Bruyère (2013) and Grinsted et al. (2012) show that Hurricane intensity and storm surges have increased in recent years in the Atlantic and is strongly correlated with temperature.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1713-0#page-1
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/14/1209980110.full.pdf+html
I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.
Re Grinsted et al. (2012)
‘I Remain “Roughly” 18 Feet Tall’
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/i-remain-roughly-18-feet-tall.html
Re Holland and Bruyère (2013) – in their own words:-
“An important finding is that the proportion of intense hurricanes appears to initially increase in response to warming oceans, but then approach a saturation level after which no further increases occur. There is tentative evidence that the saturation level will differ across the tropical cyclone basins and that the global proportion of Cat 4–5 hurricanes may already be near it’s saturation level of ~40–50%.”
>”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”
Climate Science Articles of Faith: Doctrine
# Warming in the pipeline is unequivocal…….
>”I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.”
Snow too.
Interestingly Pielke, Jr has co authored a paper that shows that the global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive with a p value of 0.06 which means there is only a 6% chance that this trend could have happened by chance.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf
So we can see from various media reports, 3 peer reviewed papers and the WattsUp blog that extreme weather events of certain classes (including snow fall) are increasing.
Perhaps Magoo or Richard C would like to comment on why they believe this is happening?
A few problems with the Holland and Bruyère (2013) paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/on-holland-and-bruyere-2013-recent-intense-hurricane-response-to-global-climate-change/
Regarding Pielke Jr’s paper – did you actually read it?
‘Thus, in the context of climate variability, it is impor- tant to recognize that certain shorter time periods during the past half-century may indeed show significant trends (upward and downward) in TC landfall activity on de- cadal time scales (e.g., Callaghan and Power 2011). The NATL basin has been in an active period since about 1995, which some have attributed to the positive phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (Goldenberg et al. 2001). A linear trend analysis shows a significant upward trend in NATL activity (R2 5 0.13; p 5 0.011) during the past several decades (1970–2010); consideration of the longer period of 1944–2010 exhibits no secular trend in hurricane landfalls (and even longer periods show no increasing trend; see, e.g., Pielke 2009). Intense typhoon frequency has also been shown in the WPAC to be modulated by multidecadal variability (Chan 2008) on time scales of 16–32 years associated with the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and variability of the El Nin ̃ o– Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and no significant trend is found in hurricane landfalls during the period examined (1950–2010).’
And from the the summary:
‘We have iden- tified considerable interannual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls; but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.’
In addition to this the IPCC also finds no extreme weather except for a rise in precipitation in SOME areas (page 6, Climate Extremes & Impacts):
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf
Regarding precipitation, GLOBAL precipitation looks to be reasonably stable. If you factor in that the effects of AGW weren’t supposed to be visible until after 1980, then it doesn’t seem abnormal to me when compared to the years prior to 1980.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure2.gif
Hi Magoo,
Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.
I also see you have chosen to ignore the 1.89% increasing trend that is explicitly written on the graph you presented from Watts.
Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95%
The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.
Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.
Please remind me exactly what the point you were trying to make was?
>”I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events”James Taylor:-
Decade-by-decade analysis of the last century by James Taylor:-
‘Don’t Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent’
When Hurricane Isaac made landfall in southern Louisiana last week, the storm provided a rare break in one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history. Seeking to deflect attention away from this comforting trend, global warming alarmists attempted a high-profile head fake, making public statements that the decline in recent hurricane activity masked an increase in strong, damaging hurricanes.
“The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News.
Normally, of course, the subjective global climate opinions of a mechanical engineer at an obscure Minnesota university wouldn’t be national news. However, global warming alarmists put Abraham forward as the point man for their self-proclaimed Climate Science Rapid Response Team. But hey, if Abraham is the best they can do, so be it.
Abraham says major hurricanes are the only ones that really matter, and that major hurricanes are increasing. If that is indeed so, then we might have a cause for concern. Let’s go straight to the data to find out if major hurricanes are indeed increasing.
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. What are the trends within this 100-year span? Let’s take a look.
Let’s split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.
During the most recent decade, 2001-2010, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.
During the preceding decade, 1991-2000, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is below the 100-year average.
During the decade 1981-1990, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties the least number of major hurricanes on record.
During the decade 1971-1980, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties 1981-1990 as the two decades with the least number of major hurricanes.
During the decade 1961-1970, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.
Incredibly, not a single decade during the past 50 years saw an above-average number of major hurricanes – not a single decade!
Now let’s look at the preceding 50 years in the hurricane record, before the alleged human-induced global warming crisis.
During the decade 1951-1960, 9 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.
During the decade 1941-1950, 11 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially above the 100-year average.
During the decade 1931-1940, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.
During the decade 1921-1930, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is slightly below the 100-year average.
During the decade 1911-1920, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.
Global warming alarmists and mechanical engineers at obscure Minnesota universities may lie, but the objective data do not lie. During the past 5 decades, an average of 5.6 major hurricanes struck the United States. During the preceding 5 decades, and average of 8.4 major hurricanes struck the United States.
“The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage” are not increasing. Hard, objective data show exactly the opposite. Indeed, during the past 4 decades, the time period during which global warming alarmists claim human-induced global warming accelerated rapidly and became incontrovertible, the fewest number of major hurricanes struck during any 40-year period since at least the 1800s.
Oh, and during the first two years of this current decade exactly zero major hurricanes struck the United States.
Global warming alarmists better hope we start seeing a rash of major hurricanes pretty soon if this is not going to be the quietest decade on record. Until and unless that happens, the objective data show the Climate Science Rapid Response Team is actually the Climate Science Rapid Propaganda Team.
But hey, if that’s the best they can do, so be it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/
Hi Richard C, Magoo and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media so I presume they will be along shortly to berate you.
In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.
[“and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media” — Did I? Where? — RT]
>”Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.”
Not so fast Warmy. “Climate change” has its own specific IPCC definition (and another at UNFCCC) but a report assessing “Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters” is not necessarily “climate change” by IPCC definition. The report assesses what “relationship” there might be between the two, but “extreme events and disasters” include “natural climate variability” and “socioeconomic development” so there are other considerations. Quoting the brochure at Magoo’s link:-
“This Summary for Policymakers presents key findings from the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX approaches the topic by assessing the scientific literature on issues that range from the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events (‘climate extremes’) to the implications of these events for society and sustainable development. The assessment concerns the interaction of climatic, environmental, and human factors that can lead to impacts and disasters, options for managing the risks posed by impacts and disasters, and the important role that non-climatic factors play in determining impacts. Box SPM.1 defines concepts central to the SREX.”
And,
D. Future Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses
“Future changes in exposure, vulnerability, and climate extremes resulting from natural climate variability, anthropogenic climate change, and socioeconomic development can alter the impacts of climate extremes on natural and human systems and the potential for disasters.”
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf
# # #
The jury is still out on “anthropogenic climate change” so any “relationship” between ACC and “extreme events and disasters” is conjecture at best given there’s already natural variability to and socioeconomic development in the mix.
My point is, Nick, that the Global Hurricane Frequency data prior 1978 is similar to that after 1978 – there is no long term rising trend in global hurricane frequency. You can choose to cherry pick a starting point & ignore the previous data to make it look like it’s unprecedented but the truth it’s not.
‘Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.’
Yes that’s right, a rising trend of 2-3 major hurricanes over the last 25 yrs. Hardly a significant trend don’t you think, especially when the long term shows no rising trend in hurricane activity?
‘Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95% …… The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.’
What’s your source for the second statement please? The long term data according to Pielke shows that there is nothing unusual with the hurricanes – no trend. Why just look at 1970 onwards?
Re: 1.89% rising precipitation. If AGW is the cause of rising precipitation why has it been consistent for around 65 yrs – why is it not rising? Again, there’s nothing unusual in the data – why is 1995 – 2010 any different to 1947-1982? If the effects of AGW were only supposed to be apparent from around 1980 onwards why was there less precipitation during the 80’s & 90’s?
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/precipitation-figure2.gif
If you think the rising precipitation over the last century is due to AGW you need to prove man is responsible for the warming. In order to do this you need to prove the positive feedback from water vapour which should be evident in a tropospheric hot spot. As the hot spot doesn’t exist how can you prove the warming is anthropogenic, and if you can’t prove it’s anthropogenic how can you attribute any changes to the climate to mankind? Warming is not evidence of the cause of the warming, and weather events aren’t either – a tropospheric hot spot on the other hand is.
>”…they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media”
Opinion piece? The data source is here The National Hurricane Center
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml
Hardly necessary for a peer-reviewed paper to analyze publicly available information.
>”In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.”
If ACC is not evident in US/Atlantic hurricane activity its not eveident:-
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity?
Thomas R. Knutson
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA
Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised January 30, 2013
A. Summary Statement
Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:
* Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity?
* What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models?
In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are:
* It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
Hi Richard C,
This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
Start with table 7.
>”This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from”
Dispensed with truth completely now have you Nick?
James Taylor did provide the source of the data so why say (a lie BTW) he got it from somewhere else?
>”Start with table 7″
OK. From ‘Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.: Sober Analysis, Cool Graphics from Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger’:-
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Normalized-Hurricane-Damages-2012-Including-Sandy-300×176.jpg
U.S. tropical cyclone damage adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth, 1900-2012 [Note – I am using a more updated graph than the one appearing in Addendum. Source: Pielke et al. 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900-2005, Natural Hazards Review, DOI: 10.1061/1527-6988, 9:1(29), updated 12/31/2012].
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/
“Hurricane damages keep going up and up, but that’s due to the ongoing rise in population and development in coastal areas. When hurricane damage is adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and inflation, there is no long-term trend.”
‘This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.’
Ever seen this graph Nick?
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/vuwflag2.pdf
The same applies to your claim that your table 7 shows increasing major hurricanes. Comparing decades to each other as Richard C has done in his comment above is more accurate don’t you think?
>”…it [Table 7] shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.”
No it doesn’t. It shows AVERAGE number over different time spans i.e. not an apples-to-apples comparison that James Taylor made with decade-to-decade analysis.
The last Table 7 period 1995 – 2010 average 3.8 had 16 of which 7 were in 2005 (see Table 8a). There were 8 in 1950 (the record) and also 7 in 1961 but there’s no comparison of those in 15 year context to compare to 1995 – 2010.
“lies, damned lies, and statistics”
Richard T, you said “I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today” if you want to add Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources then I apologise for misrepresenting you.
Richard C, name calling is unnecessary. Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to.
Magoo, if you want to put me in the same class as Victoria University and the IPCC then I am flattered. Monckton’s accusation was met with hilarity as I recall.
As your claims of increasing extreme weather are also met with hilarity. Really Nick, how far do you need to stick your head in the sand to ignore the multiple sources of data that show the extreme weather claims to be complete rubbish. Only an idiot would believe the extreme weather propaganda when confronted with the real world empirical evidence showing otherwise.
Next you’ll be saying there’s a tropospheric hot spot and that it’s been warming for the last 17 yrs. The reality of it all is that you’re just incapable of admitting you’re wrong, which is why you grasp at straws like ‘extreme weather’ in desperation – even the IPCC admits it’s bogus and their job is to promote AGW. It’s easier just to be honest and face the reality of the empirical evidence instead of trying to twist it into what you want it to say. Even if you could prove extreme weather, you can’t pin it on AGW because there’s no tropospheric hot spot to prove man is responsible. You have empirical data from multiple well regarded sources that prove you wrong on every front.
>”Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to”
You really are prone to untruth aren’t you Nick?James Taylor was responding to this statement (also an untruth we note):-“The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/
The source of James’ data is (quoting his article):-
“The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information [hotlinked] on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC……..”
The hotlink is to this page for “NHC Data Archive”:-
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml
Nowhere in James’ article is there a reference that “explicitly mentions the report [you] linked to”.
Clearly Nick, you either a) have reading comprehension difficulties, or b) you just make up any old BS and miss-attribute that to be what the target of your disparagement (in this case James Taylor) said i.e. you are prone to untruth
and therefore a liar.Which is it Nick? reading difficulty? or liar?And you say:-
>”Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources”
Are you actually implying The National Hurricane Center (NHC) in USA is merely a source of opinion (because that’s James Taylor’s data source) and the US institution whose specific function, although being hurricanes, is not a credible source of hurricane-related data?
So apart from the
lyingaspect of your assertions (subject to your clarification), now you’re completely dissing information sourced from a national institution providing climate data because the data is inconvenient to “the cause” (anthropogenic global warming activism) that you are obviously a party to in some capacity. Those actions would epitomize a typical unethical unscrupulous activist type persona would it not?[RC, please stop the personal abuse! – RT]
>”[RC, please stop the personal abuse! – RT]”
Are you condoning blatant lies (untruth) now RT?
If Nick insists on propagating lies then he should expect to be called out on such and be referred to as a liar because that is exactly what he is. There is no personal abuse just statement of fact unless he retracts or clarifies that his wrongful statements are actually the result of a reading comprehension difficulty or suchlike..
Same goes for his activism. If he insists on an activist approach (a lying one at that on the face of it) on behalf of the anthropogenic global warming faction then he should expect to be called a Warmy or similar. There is no personal abuse just statement of distinction. He long ago abandoned his original professed stance of objectivity, now he’s just an activist on a mission.
BTW I’m actually on topic on this except for no Nick-IPCC connection but his activism is the same as your activist-IPCC post.
[An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence, but to call him a liar is to pretend to know his motives, and that’s the ad hominem part. By the way, it’s strategically unwise to provoke me. Don’t suggest I condone lies. Try to calm down. – RT]
>”[An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence,….”
But an allegation of lying is a statement of fact when, by your standards, your own criteria is activated as above and as I did (see below). Unless Nick retracts or clarifies his wrongful statements as miss-comprehension or similar then he remains a liar and you are condoning it by your (rather dubious) moderation policy.
>”….but to call him a liar is to pretend to know his motives, and that’s the ad hominem part.”
I’ve called him a liar by your own stated criteria above having laid out your criteria of “reasoning and the presentation of evidence” here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195957
And here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195967
And here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195973
And here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-196180
Having so far seen no retraction by Nick or explanation of miss-comprehension then on the face of it, Nick is a liar and you are condoning that by your moderation policy RT.
>”By the way, it’s strategically unwise to provoke me. Don’t suggest I condone lies. Try to calm down. – RT]”
Your moderation RT, in the face of the evidence above (and no retraction forthcoming from Nick) that you are in fact condoning lies, has descended into farce, Is that because Nick’s economy of truth conforms to your own unsubstantiated hand-waving standards RT? Viz.
”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.”
Ii.e. simple argument from authority (your own) and nothing forthcoming since from reputable source to support your statement. In this respect I have to say there was more than a grain of truth in Rob Taylor’s attempt to take issue with your understanding of ocean heating processes and transport mechanisms that are obviously unconnected to any conventional and uncontested teaching of University level oceanography or thermal dynamics of radiation-water-heat flow.
It would not do to implement a moderation policy that restricts your own freedom to make baseless statements would it RT?
BTW, if by “it’s strategically unwise to provoke me” you are considering banning me for exposing for all to see, some SkS/Hot Topic-like inconsistencies in your blog moderation, then by that action (if carried out) your personal and blog reputation would be in tatters.
Record number of days between major hurricane landfalls.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hurricane_drought_may2013.png
I’ve given up trying to access the “information” James Taylor alludes to at the NHC Data Archive. I’ve looked at both the Atlantic HURDAT2 and NE/NC Pacific HURDAT2 databases in conjunction with the data description and nomenclature, “L” = Landfall, “I” = Intensity etc but can’t make head or tail of how to extract Cat 3,4, and 5 hurricanes. The information is there but I can’t retrieve it.
Although Taylor doesn’t “explicitly mention” NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 in his article it does appear at the bottom of the NHC Data Archive page he linked to as:-
Deadliest, Costliest, Most Intense Atlantic Tropical Cyclones
* The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense Reports
There is a decade-by-decade analysis of major hurricanes in Table 6 (not the Table 7 Nick points to) but the decade figures don’t match Taylor’s exactly, the 100 yr total is different (65 vs 70), and the average per decade is different (6? or 6.5? vs 7). It is not out of question that Taylor did use Table 6 as his data source but if he did it was incredibly sloppy transcribing. He may have just rounded 6.5 to 7 to get the 100 yr total 70 for example instead of adding up the values. That doesn’t explain the mismatch of decade values though (except for possible sloppiness) which leads me to think he accessed the databases directly because NHC-6 is from August 2011. The data may have changed slightly since then if some of the other US institutions are anything to go by. There is a HURDAT note I found elsewhere of one small change but that didn’t alter the figures. There’s also a tabulation in NHC-6 Appendix A of major hurricanes from HURDAT but it is incomplete and not up to 2010.
UPDATE: from comments under the article:-
James Taylor, Contributor 7 months ago
“Go to the link I included in the article. There is a very prominent heading for, “Past Track Maps of U.S. Landfalling Major Hurricanes: The images below are from the NHC’s Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical cyclones report.” Open up the Track Maps (if you need help figuring out how to do so, please let me know). If you need help counting the hurricanes, please let me know (most of the decades will require you using fingers on both your hands to count them up, so this may be difficult for you).”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1363-657-3816
Past Track Maps of U.S. Landfalling Major Hurricanes
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml#tracks_us
So James Taylor did in fact “explicitly mention” the Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical cyclones report that Nick linked to – BUT IN COMMENTS, NOT IN THE ARTICLE. I retract my allegation of lying and apologize, but reservedly, for any damage to reputations, Nick’s or RT’s. Reservedly, because Nick could have saved a great deal of angst and effort for everyone (esp. myself) if he’d been direct.
James Taylor did NOT however get his information directly from that report as Nick assumed. Taylor’s “information” was accessed by him directly from the NHC Data Archive page. He retrieved each image in the pull-down box for each decade individually and laboriously counted tracks, hence the discrepancy (haven’t checked his count though – that may be correct) for some reason between his analysis and NHC-6 Table 6 e.g. 2001 – 2010 = 7:-
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_2001_2010.jpg
In either analysis anyway – NHC-6 or Taylor’s – US landfalling hurricanes show no increasing trend in simple decadally averaged terms. Scrolling through comments under the article there’s a link to Dr Ryan Maue’s even more enlightening POLICLIMATE page:-
thephysicsguy 7 months ago
“Furthermore, global ACE and PDI values are their lowest in almost 20 years. See the graphs for yourself:”
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
I do see a jump in energy/power regime around 1995 (what was the anthro event if there was one in 1995?) but there’s been a decrease since then and frequency is certainly nothing to be alarmed about either.
Alas for the faithful deniers who parrot his pseudoscientific nonsense here, Watts is not any kind of scientist, but merely a failed meteorologist and paid propagandist for the pollutocracy, via Fox and WUWT. In short, a “useful idiot”…
“Watts admits “I’m not a degreed climate scientist” on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is “AMS Certified” as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology.
Watts’s “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has refused to say whether he graduated, and a number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
The data on the following page isn’t from Anthony Watts though, is it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/
It’s what’s called empirical evidence and is from the following:
Dr. Ryan Maue, PhD
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The US Geological Survey (USGS)
The Austrian Central Administration For Meteorology (ZAMG)
Rutgers University
University of Regina
University of Colorado at Boulder
Florida State University
University of Alabama
University of California
Hardly the work of Anthony Watts is it, except that he collected the various the data in one place. What does desmog.com have to say about the institutions above, and do they they have something on your sources – Businessweek and USAToday as well?
If not having a degree is a handicap, then we would also write off Bill Gates as a has been
Pingback: A global warming hoax meme is born – in New Zealand too! | Secular News Daily
Hmmm, Ken’s not using TangledParachute for his climate change viewpoints any more? Perhaps he thinks more people will read it if he disguises it on a blog that discusses religion instead. Ironic considering the fact that AGW lacks any actual scientific evidence and needs vast amounts of faith as a result.
Ken writes
which is why we see the same article from Ken appear in several places.
Ken obligingly propagates the HS article and paper in the manner of my expectation “the internet will do the rest”.
Although I wasn’t expecting Ken to be one of more helpful in the process, or even participate.
Thanks Ken.
The problem with that though Richard is that nobody visits Ken’s websites. But still, it’s a nice gesture on his part I suppose – it’s the thought that counts.
It’s not fair to say that Ken’s blog receives no visitors as his own site rankings list OP as number 27
Yes, but the audience consists almost entirely of only 3 people, with an occasional unsuspecting poor bugger making the mistake of clicking on it every once in a blue moon. The newbies soon discover their mistake and never return.
Sorry I forgot to mention, the publication of the site rankings boosts his visitor numbers for a short term when other blogs such as Whaleoil refer people there to look at the blog ranking stats.
From Quark Soup:-
‘Will CO2 Reach 400 ppm? (Probably Not.)’
[…] So is CO2 going to hit 400 ppm this year? (Technically that should be “ppmv.”) It already has in some northernly monitors, and of course it is already much beyond this in many cities, but will it make this number at Mauna Loa, the Yankee stadium of greenhouse gas monitoring?
It’s not obvious, and it’s looking a little unlikely.
Here are the recent weekly CO2 numbers from Mauna Loa: [graph]
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E7TseNSpC1s/UYBSkFxdtwI/AAAAAAAAB7c/NSlflpmWg2E/s1600/Mauna+Loa+weekly+CO2.jpg
and here is the one-year change for each week: [graph]
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OdT7NJrAZBQ/UYBS_aIF2VI/AAAAAAAAB7k/ZxXNfyCf8oE/s1600/MLO+CO2+1yr+chg.jpg
Lately, for whatever reason, the 1-yr change has been below average. Since last year’s MLO CO2 peaked at 397.13 ppm on 5/6/12, we probably need a 2.9 ppm annual increase (assuming the peak occurs on the same week, which isn’t always true), which based on the recent numbers isn’t looking likely [at least for the weekly published average].
>>>>>>>>
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/will-co2-reach-400-ppm-probably-not.html
# # #
Hmmm……… “for whatever reason”? I wonder what that might be?
Richard C,
I haven’t followed all the references from everyone, but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing. I cannot see it has been answered so far, even though you get somewhere near it in pointing out that damages adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth show no trend. Because that doesn’t mean the major hurricanes have not been increasing. Of course, explaining the reason for the increase could be problematic.
You complain about my “policy”. I don’t have one that differs from courtesy. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but you come across as obsessive and strident.
I never got around to responding to your disagreement about movement of thermal energy in the ocean. I remember I said some of the water warmed by the sun is moved at scales of days to decades or longer before its heat comes again to the surface, and this is confirmed by your comments.
However, most of the energy rises to the surface that very day. My evidence for that is simple: the cold air after every night is warmed, as shown by every continuous temperature record and personal experience. Since the air is cold after the night, the warmth was not already in the water, but is newly arrived from the sun that very day. Since the sun cannot heat the air directly, the heat must be coming from the water’s emission of long-wave IR.
You call this an argument from (my own) authority, and it is indeed an argument with the authority of my own observation. What else could give a true authority? I don’t know if there might be a paper explaining this, but if you think there’s a need for it, I will write one. Because, frankly, I cannot believe that you’re disputing that warm water rises.
Cheers.
>”I haven’t followed all the references from everyone,…”
Then you have not determined the facts and are in no position to make an assessment as to whether Nick is lying or not.
>”….but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing”
Firstly, the whole point of James Taylor’s decade-by-decade analysis in his article was to show that the assertions of major hurricanes increasing (e.g. the one you make by misinterpretation above) are entirely wrongful (lies, untruth, dishonest). This was noted by Magoo here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195985
I also (in addition to posting James Taylor’s analysis) addressed the wrongful interpretation here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195993
Secondly, Table 7 is NOT the source of James Taylor’s data as Nick states “This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.” i.e. Nick lied (and it doesn’t show what he asserts anyway i.e. he also misinterprets as you do and both of you propagate your misinterpretation). Then Nick states in a subsequent comment “Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to”. James Taylor did not mention that report let alone explicitly i.e. Nick lied (again). Nick’s two blatant lies are documented here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195971
And here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-196012
>”I cannot see it has been answered so far, even though you get somewhere near it in pointing out that damages adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth show no trend. Because that doesn’t mean the major hurricanes have not been increasing. Of course, explaining the reason for the increase could be problematic”
You cannot see? If you cannot discern the difference between truth and lies then you cannot uphold truth when called for can you? What exactly do you stand for at this blog if you cannot discern right from wrong Richard Treadgold?
My reference to study of hurricane damage was IN ADDITION to the case against Nick’s lies i.e. it is also dishonest to assert, as has been elsewhere (not Nick) that major hurricanes are causing more damage. James Taylor’s decade-by-decade analysis clearly shows major hurricanes are NOT increasing, contrary to Nick’s your misinterpreted assessment.
>”You complain about my “policy”. I don’t have one that differs from courtesy. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but you come across as obsessive and strident”
Damn right I complain about your moderation policy – it stinks. At this point there is nothing that distinguishes this blog from SkS or Hot Topic in terms of truth. I stand for truth and I’m obsessive and strident about that – no apologies, no nitpicking, not a lot of courtesy and plenty of complaints. What do you stand for Richard Treadgold?
>”….frankly, I cannot believe that you’re disputing that warm water rises.”
I’m not. Clearly, going by the above statement, and as Rob Taylor points out too, you are completely ignorant of ocean heating processes, mechanisms and circulation systems. All of the educational material and oceanographic papers presented and discussed on this bog have been a waste of time in your case.
Even Gareth Renowden, Rob Painting et al understand ocean energy absorption and heat circulation far better than you do. They will make mincemeat of you if they get hold of your incredibly inept understanding, that being:-
”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.”
So according to your application of that convention (convective law), energy that has been laid down by radiation path-length to a depth of 100 – 200m depending on water clarity, necessarily rises to the surface of the ocean in its various states of externally forced turbulence and thermal imbalances and gradients both internal and to the overlying air (not at all like a water pot on a stove element note) “within seconds or minutes”?
Why then (just for example) do I find at the very top of a simple internet search of the Web (not even Scholar) for – ocean horizontal heat transport, this paper?:-
‘Estimates of oceanic horizontal heat transport in the tropical Pacific’
1. Alejandro F. Pares-Sierra
2. Masamichi Inoue
3. James J. O’Brien
Article first published online: 20 SEP 2012
DOI: 10.1029/JC090iC02p03293
Meridional heat transport in the tropical Pacific is estimated using a linear numerical model with realistic boundaries and forced by 18 years of observed wind, covering the period from January 1962 to December 1979. The long-term mean heat transport estimated in this study is similar to the estimates based on heat balance and radiation considerations and on complex numerical models that account for thermodynamics as well. This points to the dominant role played by the adiabatic process, the only heat transport mechanism present in this study, in the heat balance for the equatorial Pacific. The combined Ekman and geostrophic heat transport can account for the net meridional heat transport, except near the equator, where continuity requirements dictate. The Ekman and geostrophic transport oppose each other, and their small difference in magnitude gives rise to the net meridional heat transport, resulting in transport away from the equator for the southern hemisphere and north of 6°N, while for the band between 6°N and the equator an equatorward transport is present. Seasonal and interannual variations are found to be as large as, or even larger than, the long-term mean. Seasonal variations in meridional heat transport are in accordance with seasonal variations in zonal winds via Ekman transport, while the geostrophic transport remains more or less constant on this time scale. The results are a net poleward heat transport in the winter hemisphere and a equatorward transport in the summer hemisphere. At the interannual time scale, variabilities in both Ekman and geostrophic components contribute to the interannual variability in heat transport. Major features of the interannual variations in meridional heat transport appear to be associated with the El Nino events. It is interesting to note that the interannual variations associated with El Nino events are not restricted to the near-equatorial region. Phase locking between the interannual variations and the annual cycle is evident in the data set. Major findings in this study, based on an adiabatic model, are expected to carry over to more realistic nonlinear numerical models.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC090iC02p03293/abstract
# # #
How could there possibly be the horizontal heat transport occurring in the ocean described above if, as you assert, “most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”?
Thank you for your patience, Richard, but this becomes almost vexatious.
At least you no longer overlook my use of the word most in “most of the energy rises to the surface that very day.” You ask “how could there possibly be the horizontal heat transport.”
Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface. I guess you must consider the possibility that “most” could be anything from 51% to 99%. But you must have considered this yourself, since you bring a scientific bent to everything else you study here.
If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day, then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat. Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.
>”Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.”
As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, the specific heat capacity of air is a fraction of the specific heat capacity of water and the amount of heat in each can be easily calculated if the respective temperatures are known. If “most” of the heat absorbed by the (tropical) ocean in one day were immediately released to the (tropical) atmosphere that same day, the tropical atmosphere would be far hotter than the observed temperature actually is, because (quoting following lecture linked):-
“The upper 2.5m layer of ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above.”
And,
“Heat transport from tropics to polar regions” [Page 19]
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/as222d/lec9-07-atmos-ocean-sm.pdf
But solar insolation is down to 100 – 200m, not 2.5m. The ocean therefore, acts as a “heat-sink” (a store or reservoir of energy) that is far more efficient in that capacity than land is. So “most” of the energy absorbed by the tropical ocean is not released to the tropical atmosphere. It is instead transported to where thermal gradient takes it (the air over tropical seawater is generally warmer than the underlying water so not so much in that direction). The thermal gradients take the heat towards the poles (generally) by thermohaline circulation currents because the thermal gradient from water to air turns from negative (air warmer than water) to positive (water warmer than air) and the water => air thermal gradient increases going north or south from the equator. Thus New Zealand waters are warmed by warm water originating from the tropics where ocean heating is greatest. That warm water, in turn, warms New Zealand air in combination with atmospheric circulation of tropical warm air taken south by weather systems and the diurnal warm-cool cycle of localized solar heating. The ocean however, due to evaporation, thermal lag and circulation currents acts as a modulator of diurnal temperature, without which, both day and night-time air temperature would be much cooler around coastal NZ. I live on a peninsular having ocean on one side and harbour on the other but very rarely are there frosts. Further inland on the same day there are frosts when there are none where I live because the ocean modulates air temperature fluctuation much the same as water vapour modulates air temperature.
If instead, cold air comes up from the Antarctic, the atmosphere doesn’t do much warming in the diurnal warm-cool cycle especially around lower NZ. The same would be the case for the entire country if warm water from the tropics did not reach NZ.
A paper quantifying ocean heat transport fluxes has already been cited on this blog, viz:-
‘Improved estimates of global ocean circulation,heat transport and mixing from hydrographic data’
Alexandre Ganachaud* & Carl Wunsch (2000)
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschnature.pdf
The relevant diagram from that paper is Figure 1:-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg
Caption:-
Figure 1 Hydrographic sections and heat fluxes. Transoceanic sections from the WOCE program were selected to ensure a reasonable temporal consistency (1990±1996) and to avoid crossing sections. Between Jakarta and Australia, the 1989 section from the Franco-Indonesian JADE program was used while pre-WOCE sections (1985, 1987)3
were used in the North Paci®c and at 328 S in the Indian Ocean. Each section is a collection of high-density temperature, salinity, oxygen and nutrient measurements. From temperature and salinity, a geostrophic velocity field is calculated and adjusted so that mass and other conservative tracers (see Methods) are conserved between sections. The resulting heat (or `enthalpy’, where the net mass flux is non-zero) transports are indicated by the arrows and red numbers (positive northward/eastward). The white box at the tail
end of each arrow is the one-standard-deviation uncertainty. Between sections, ocean± atmosphere heat transfers are indicated by the zonal length of the coloured boxes (blue for ocean cooling; red for ocean heating), with the length of the white box inside indicating the uncertainty. (Because the ocean±atmosphere heat transfers are anomaly residuals, that is, corrected for residual mass imbalances, they do not correspond exactly to the
differences between net fluxes across sections, for example, in the North Indian Ocean. But this discrepancy is much less than the uncertainties.)
Clearly, ocean heating is in the tropics (red bars) and cooling south and north towards the poles (blue bars).
Schematic diagrams (and there are numerous versions in Google Images) as follows:-
Ocean Heat Transport [horizontal],
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/graphics/conveyor_lumpkin.jpg
Global Ocean Conveyor Circulation (thermohaline circulation) [horizontal]:-
http://hermes.mbl.edu/news/press_releases/images/thermohaline_circulation.jpg
Should be:-
“Clearly, [generally] ocean heating is in the tropics (red bars) and cooling south and north towards the poles (blue bars).”
There are exceptions of course.
Schematic diagrams showing predominant global “Heat release to atmosphere/air” from the heat transport circulation belt occurs from the North Atlantic (2 regions), and a lessor loss occurs from the South Atlantic (1 region). All 3 regions of predominant loss are adjacent to either the North or South Pole.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/images/image2.jpg
https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/earth540/ocean_conveyor.jpg
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif
http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/thermocirc2.gif
http://www.eoearth.org/files/111001_111100/111095/620px-2_thermohaline_003.png
But those diagrams however, do not reconcile with the heat gain/loss quantities in Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1:-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg
They calculate a gain in the South Atlantic and South Pacific with the major loss occurring from the Southern Indian (add south of Australia to that too), The next order of losses are almost equal across the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Mid-South Atlantic. The gains/losses are in units of PW where 1 W = 1 J/second i.e. enormous amounts of energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere every second.
The major heat gain on the other hand, is the even greater influx of energy to the equatorial/tropical Pacific. The next but lessor gain is to the southern tropical and equatorial Atlantic. None of the major oceanic heat loss regions are in the tropical zone of either Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian.
>”Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface.”
Before you preach to me RT, with nothing to back your claim, no citation of relevant studies, no energy budget diagram i.e. hand-waving waffle, I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg
>”I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently”
To assist, a description in words from Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000):-
“Figure 1 shows the heat (actually, enthalpy) transports, across
each hydrographic section (arrows) along with the residuals reflecting
atmospheric heat exchanges (boxes). Residuals are accurately
determined at middle and high latitudes, but are more uncertain at
lower latitudes (for example, in the Atlantic Ocean) owing to an
enhancement of the geostrophic noise there. Nevertheless, the total
heating over the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans are well determined,
respectively 0:7 ± 0:2PW (1PW = 10^15 W) and
1:6 ± 0:4 PW. No significant heat transfers are found in the
Indian Ocean because of the large, uncertain, warm water inflow
from the Pacific Ocean. This large warm water flux is the main heat
escape from the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a northward heat flux in
the South Pacific. In the southern Pacific sector, significant heating
is found, in contrast with the sparse in situ observations, but in
qualitative agreement with the recent re-analysis of the European
Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts.
Figure 3 shows the globally integrated heat fluxes compared to independent estimates.
Most of the cooling occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, at a rate of
-1:7 ± 0:2 PW, in balance with the 2:3 ± 0:4 PW heating in the
tropical band and the -0:7 ± 0:3 PW cooling in the Southern Ocean.”
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/ganachwunschnature.pdf
Proportional allocation of solar radiation absorption in the tropics to atmosphere/ocean latitudinal transport from an educational resource:-
1.3 Latitudinal energy transfer
Energy deposition is not uniform with latitude. Less solar radiation is deposited at high
latitudes than low, and in the winter than in the summer hemisphere. A local equilibrium
temperature can be computed at each latitude, but the resulting temperature distribution has
a much steeper decline toward the poles than is observed. Thus, energy must be transported
from the tropical regions toward the poles.
Let us make a quantitative calculation of this eect for the case in which the sun is directly
over the equator, i. e., at the equinox. The key issue is the actual versus the projected area
of a latitudinal strip of the earth’s surface, as illustrated in gure 1.4. The actual area of the
strip of earth’s surface illustrated in this gure is S = 2Rcos R , while the projected
area of this strip as seen from the sun is Sp = 2Rcos Rcos . Assuming albedo A
at latitude , the energy balance at this latitude is Fs(1 A)Sp = T4
radS, resulting in a radiative temperature there of
Trad( ) = ” Fs(1 A) cos #1=4 : (1.7)
Figure 1.5 shows the latitudinal distribution of radiative temperature as well as the
global radiative temperature and the mean sea surface temperature as a function of latitude.
Also plotted is the sea surface temperature minus 40 K, slightly greater than the dierence
between the surface temperature and the radiative temperature in the globally uniform case.
This can be taken as an approximation of the actual local radiative temperature. Within
50 of the equator the predicted radiative temperature exceeds the actual value, whereas
at higher latitudes the reverse is true. This implies lateral export of energy by the oceans
and atmosphere from low latitudes to high, i. e., transport of energy down the temperature
gradient. In other words, there is a net flow of energy into the atmosphere and oceans at
low latitudes, followed by transport to high latitudes, where there is net export.
Figure 1.6 shows that this transport actually does take place. On an annual average,
import of energy by radiation at the top of the atmosphere exceeds export by 2 + 5 + 2:5 =
9:5 PW between 30S and 30N. the same amount is exported to space at higher latitudes.
The poleward transport of energy is shared almost equally by the atmosphere and the ocean,
with the ocean contributing slightly more.
Within 10 of the equator, the atmospheric absorption of solar radiation and the emission
of infrared are nearly in balance, so that the net absorption is only about 2 PW. The
absorbed energy is exported to higher latitudes. This compares with a solar input of Fs(1
A) 2R2 cos2 , which equals 27 PW for = 0 and = 20=57:3radians. Thus, the
atmosphere in this band exports laterally only about 7% of the incoming solar radiation.
However, an additional 11%, or 3 PW of incoming solar energy travels indirectly to higher
latitudes via the oceans.
The transition between net infl ow from space to net out flow to space occurs near latitudes
30. This is lower in latitude than suggested by the estimate in fi gure 1.5 where this
transition occurs nearer 50. However, we must remember that fi gure 1.5 is based on rather
loose arguments.
Figure 1.7 shows the global energy flows as in figure 1.6, except averaged over December,
January, and February only, i. e., during the northern winter. As would be expected from
the southerly position of the sun during this period, there is a net in ow of energy into
the southern hemisphere and a net out ow in the northern hemisphere. These hemispheric
imbalances are partially compensated by ow of energy from south to north in both the
atmosphere and the ocean. However, this ow doesn’t account for all of the southern hemi-
sphere gains and northern hemisphere losses. Substantial warming with time occurs in the
southern hemisphere as well as substantial cooling north of the equator. This heat storage
eect is most important in the oceans, as the oceanic heat capacity is much higher than that
of the atmosphere. The situation for the northern summer is nearly a mirror image of that
for the northern winter.
http://kestrel.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph332/notes/energyflows/energyflows.pdf
# # #
Between 10 N and 10 S, 11% of 27 PW input or 3 PW is exported latitudinally by the ocean. 7% or 2 PW is exported latitudinally by the atmosphere (note that that the 27 PW is NOT what is absorbed by the ocean, that figure will be reduced to some – unstated – degree)
Between 30 N and 30 S, [?]% of [?] PW, or 9.5 PW is exported latitudinally. Half by the atmosphere, half by the ocean.
The proportion exported by the ocean from between 30 N and 30 S will be greater than the 11% from between 10 N and 10 S because solar input is less further from the equator.
Also see:-
Figure 1.7: December-January-February averaged net energy flows (in petawatts; fl uid trans-
port plus radiation) between space and various latitudinal segments of the atmosphere and
ocean. The numbers at the bottom are the rates at which energy is stored in the ocean
segments. Zero storage is assumed for the atmosphere. Data adapted from Peixoto and
Oort (1992).
If “most” energy is exported from the ocean to the atmosphere each day, it would be impossible for 9 PW of the net SH summer TOA inflow of 14.5 PW (i.e. there’s more energy coming into the SH system than going out to begin with in the SH summer) to be stored in the ocean between 0 and 90 S. 8.5 PW of that storage going to between 30 S to 90 S, and 13 PW more energy coming into the SH ocean than leaving.
Almost the opposite is occurring in the NH winter at the same time (ocean energy loss, no ocean storage) but greater latitudinal transport in the NH than SH and more energy leaving TOA (18 PW) than entering.
‘The flow of energy through the earth’s climate system’
By KEVIN E. TRENBERTH∗ and DAVID P. STEPANIAK
National Center for Atmospheric Research†, Boulder, USA
(Received 1 June 2004)
(Symons Memorial Lecture: delivered on 21 May 2004)
[Page 9]
(b) The oceans
[…] The mixed layer on average involves ∼90 m of ocean. The thermal inertia of the ocean depends on the rate of ventilation of water between the mixed upper ocean layers and the deeper more isolated layers through the thermocline. Such mixing is not well known and varies greatly geographically. An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10 to 100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/QJRMSenergyflow04.pdf
# # #
“fastest”: 10 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – tropics (expected)
“slowest”: 100 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – high latitudes (expected)
That 10 – 100 year lag is consistent with Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Usoskin (I think) and others I can’t recall right now. But is in no way consistent with “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”.
If, in respect to the tropical ocean say, “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”, then we should expect to see a diurnal SST and subsurface day-time maximum to pre-dawn minimum temperature fluctuation range of about 20°C (or more than 15) for day-time SST of about 30°C.
But the largest observed diurnal fluctuation (variation) I can find in the literature is 3.5°C from Deschamps and Frouin (1984), in the Mediterranean Sea, and Stramma et al. (1986), near the Long Term Upper Ocean Study (LOTUS) mooring in the Atlantic.
Diurnal warming can be on the order of 3°C or more in the Tropics under calm and clear conditions according to Fairall et al. (1996) and Soloviev and Lukas (1997). Clayson and Weitlich (2006) show typical fluctuations of 0.37°C and 1.48°C on successive days, see:-
FIG. 1. Several days of SST observations from a TAO buoy, along with indications of the predawn and maximum SST and resulting dSST value for two of the days.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/pne/pdf/clayson_weitlich_07_jc.pdf
Cronin and McPhaden (1997), ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western equatorial Pacific warm pool during September-December 1992’, presents graphs of diurnal SST and subsurface T.:-
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/cron1713.shtml
Figure 7. Hourly time series of the vertically averaged surface layer temperature (Ta), SST at 1 m depth, and the temperature at the base of the surface layer (Th, where the base of the surface layer is defined as the depth of the 21.8 kg m density surface).
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig07.gif
The largest diurnal SST variation is about 1.7°C in the 4 month period. The maximum subsurface diurnal variation is about 1°C.
The thermal characteristics (properties) of sea water just do not allow the rapid diurnal warming-cooling-warming that occurs in near surface air temperature. Land damps diurnal temperature fluctuation similar to water as can be seen in equivalent observations to the sea water above.
There will be egress of energy from near the surface that was laid down by solar radiation earlier that day, no dispute, especially when the mixed layer is very shallow in the tropics in calm conditions (see Clayson and Weitlich above). But the deeper the mixed layer and with wind and turbulence (see Cronin and McPhaden above), the longer the inertial time lag between ingress and egress of energy from the active layer. Trenberth and Stepaniak in their 2004 lecture up-thread expected a 10 year ocean => atmosphere temperature lag in the tropics. This means, a large measure of the energy leaving the surface of the tropical ocean in the surface heat budget (see Cronin and McPhaden above), was laid down by solar radiation 10 years previously by their expectation.
There are however, more recent papers identifying planetary inertia (thermal lag) by different methods that arrive at global averages a little longer than 10 years (e.g. 14 yrs +/- 6 Abdussamatov). But Scafetta argues for a 2-stage lag consideration, the first 1 year, the second 12 years. This makes cognizance of the fact that there are more immediate responses than 8 – 10 – 14 – 20 – 100 years (see Tallbloke plot below). The most immediate response in the atmosphere to solar radiation striking the ocean would be virtually instantaneous (speed of light). That is in the case of reflection where there is no surface absorption and no change of wavelength from SW to LW. Reflected SW remains SW after reflection. But the reflection response is negligible from what I can gather. Equally, the response to same-day ocean energy ingress-egress is also negligible. The major solar-ocean-atmosphere lag is in the order of 8 – 20 years in century-scale data (Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Trenberth, Stepaniak).
An example by Tallbloke of UAH near surface atmosphere temperature lagging HadSST2 by “several months” is here:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sst-lt-lag.png
Cronin and McPhaden show heat budget diagrams in Figures 10a,b (top) and 10c,d (bottom).
Figure 10. Box diagrams of the heat balance (equations (2a) and (2b)) for (a) the pre-wind burst period from September 19 to October 17, 1992, (b) the wind burst period from October 18 to November 12, 1992, (c) the post-wind burst period from November 13 to December 7, 1992, and (d) the beginning of the December wind burst from December 8 to 17, 1992. The mean wind speed during each period is listed, and the mean layer depth is indicated in the boxes. As discussed in the text, although we generally interpret the residual in terms of entrainment mixing, during the post-wind burst period the residual is positive and therefore cannot represent mixing. Instead, we believe that during this period it may represent horizontal advection of a sharp temperature front.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10a.gif [Fig 10a,b]
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig10b.gif [Fig 10c,d]
Difficult to interpret the values but the system boxes show the effect of a “wind burst” on subsurface heat storage, horizontal advection (heat transport), and active layer depth over a 3 month period. Little of the change in heat would occur if most of the diurnal subsurface energy ingress mixed down to 68m (Fig 10b), rose to the surface the same day.
Rather than the active ocean layer diurnal temperature fluctuating over a large range, the temperature in the active (mixed, say sfc – 80m tropics) is maintained at almost the same level in the layer, say 28.5 – 30 C tropics. Below the active layer the isotherm contours are much closer together because temperature is maintained at levels of say (tropics) 28.5 down to 17 C from depth 40/80m down to 200m. Cronin and McPhaden graph that situation in Figure 4a:-
Figure 4. Daily averaged subsurface (a) temperature, (b) salinity, (c) potential density, (d) ADCP zonal flow, and (e) meridional flow. The surface layer is defined as the depth of the 21.8 kg m density surface (ATLAS moorings use the 28.5�C isotherm as the surface layer depth). The subsurface temperature contour interval (CI) is 1�C for values less than 28�C and 0.5�C for warmer values. The salinity CI is 0.2 psu. The density CI is 0.1 kg m for values less than 21.4 kg m and 0.4 kg m for denser values. The velocity CI is 25 cm s. Westward and southward directed currents are contoured with dashes.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/cron1713/images/fig04a.gif
Assuming solar radiation penetration to 150m (clear water), the 20 C water at 150m depth is just not going to lose “most” of that 20 C level daily down to 8 C say and gain it back again. Or, if the 20 C isotherm were to be a daily average where “most” of the energy was lost daily, the maximum would be about 28 C and the minimum about 13 C (“most” lost 15) to give an average of 20 C. Similarly assuming radiation penetration of 100m and 24 C isotherm or 80m/25,26,27,28 C.
I personally cannot conceive of a 15 C diurnal ocean temperature fluctuation from 28 C to 13 C and back again at 150m depth, but if there’s proof to the contrary that I need to consider I’d certainly like to see it. At that depth I’m inclined to think the diurnal fluctuation would be less than 1 C, possibly 0.5 C, but more likely nil, negligible, or unmeasurable.
>”Assuming solar radiation penetration to 150m (clear water), the 20 C water at 150m depth…”
That is not to say I’m also assuming that the daily solar radiation pass is actually the direct and only mechanism that heats the water to 20 C at 150m. My understanding is that NIR IR-A and SWIR IR-B absorption is most effective in only about the 10 micron to 10m depth range (also a little but minimal UV heating effect) and that is where most energy is laid down by radiation. That’s going by Hale & Querry (1973) primarily:-
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
It’s the subsequent mixing and conduction/convection processes (“venting” as Trenberth and Stepaniak term it) that heat the water lower down in the main in my understanding and also the major cause of oceanic thermal lag along with water’s thermal properties, the radiative heating is all but exhausted at 100 – 200m depending on water clarity I think I recall i.e. there’s not equal amounts of energy laid down over the entire pathlength of radiation penetration therefore the effectiveness as a heating agent is not equal at every point on the penetration pathlength (I think I could dig up a formula for the energy laid down at each point if I had to).
I think photosynthesis still occurs relatively unhindered at depth in clear water but I could be wrong on the radiative heating effect at depth (or wrong on both). There’s at least one paper I know of that investigates sunlight penetration at depth, that one in the Caribbean but I can’t recall the details and can’t be bothered looking it up.
>”If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day,
Yes I do, but Tair is not necessarily dependent on Tskin or SST (0.45m deep). See Chen and Houze Jr (1997) quote below for the diurnal air/sea heating process and Figure 15 (page 18) for the respective temperature profiles. It is not possible to conclude therefore that ALL of the warming occurring in the air each day is a direct result of ALL of the energy being released from the sea surface that arrived in the sea from the sun the same day after subtraction of horizontal transport to give “most”.
>…then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat.”
No I don’t. As for above and also, there is varying heat storage in a unit mass of surface water and transfer to lower depths (Cronin and McPhaden up-thread) which is not released to the air diurnally. Also, Chen and Houze Jr (see below) state “direct solar absorption by the moist surface air apparently plays a role in the diurnal cycle of Tair”, meaning not all of the energy added to the air during the day necessarily comes from the underlying water. And some LWup/OLR goes directly to space. So the “residual” after subtracting the “remaining fraction” which by adding terms is more like [horizontal transport(+ or 0) + storage(+,-, or 0) + transfer down + direct solar=>air + LWup/OLR direct to space] is less than just subtracting a “remaining fraction” of horizontal transport alone.
[Note 1: a comment follows (maybe tomorrow) by which anecdotal means (local NZ rather than tropical) are used to distinguish between heating of air over land and heating of air over water, and possible conflation/confusion of land/air heating with sea/air heating in the assumption that “most” diurnal solar energy ingress to the sea is released to heat the overlying air the same day (or even in seconds or minutes)]
[Note 1a: When comparing local NZ land/air heating in Note 1 above to tropical sea/air heating in Chen and Houze Jr (rather than local NZ), the latter range is “The observed diurnal variation of SST and Tair can be as large as 1-2 degC over the western Pacific (Lukas 1991; Chen et al. 1995; Weller and Anderson 1996)” i.e. Tair over sea and SST variation is relatively small in the tropics compared to local NZ variation]
>”Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.”
For this, and wrt the tropical case, I defer to the relevant section of Chen and Houze Jr (1997) commencing page 17 (there may be a more recent and better updated study that I’m not aware of however):-
‘Diurnal variation and life-cycle of deep convective systems over the tropical Pacific warm pool’
By SHUYI S. CHEN* and ROBERT A. HOUZE Jr
University of Washington, USA
Q. J. R. Meteorol. SOC. (1997), 123, pp. 357-388
5. DIURNAL VARIATION OF SURFACE CONDITIONS
In this section we present some observational evidence of the diurnal cycle in surface variables relevant to convective variability. These observations suggest that the phase of the diurnal cycle in certain surface and near-surface thermal variables are in favour of the afternoon initiation of convective systems (Figs. 10(a) and 13(a)).
Until recently, the diurnal variation of SST and surface air temperature (Tair) were thought to be negligible over the tropical oceans, Spectral analysis of surface data from the TOGA TAO and the IMET moored buoys, however, shows a clear diurnal peak in Tair as well as in SST (Zhang 1995). The observed diurnal variation of SST and Tair can be as large as 1-2 degC over the western Pacific (Lukas 1991; Chen et al. 1995; Weller and Anderson
1996). The same characteristics of the diurnal cycle in Tair are found in data collected by different types of instruments (M. McPhaden (1996), personal communication). There is no clear signal of the diurnal cycle, however, in the surface water vapour specific humidity (Young et al. 1992; Zhang 1995).
To examine the diurnal variation of surface conditions in relation to atmospheric deep convection, we divided the surface measurements from the IMET buoy into the convectively suppressed and active periods of the ISO [intra-seasonal oscillation], the same way we did for the IR cloud-top temperature over the IFA in Fig. 7. Figure 15 shows the diurnal cycle of SST, Tair, skin sea surface temperature (Tskin), water vapour specific humidity (q) and equivalent potential temperature (0e) measured at the IMET buoy for the convectively suppressed and active periods of the IS0 (as indicated in Fig. 6). The SST is a bulk sea surface temperature measured at 0.45 m below the sea surface (Weller and Anderson 1996). T,, is calculated using a warm layer and cool skin correction of Fairall et al. (1996). The vertical error bars indicate the mean standard deviation for each surface variable, computed from the diurnal variation (subtracting daily mean from each hourly data).
The diurnal cycle in SST and Tskin is driven by diurnal solar heating but modulated by other factors. Surface wind, either directly related to local deep convection or indirectly as part of large-scale atmospheric responses to convection, enhances vertical mixing in the ocean surface layer, redistributes the incoming solar energy over a larger water mass, and therefore reduces the SST diurnal cycle. The cloud radiative effect at the surface is to reduce the diurnal cycle in SST, because it reduces the daytime solar heating. Convective downdraughts often cool and dry the boundary-layer and surface air (Zipser 1969, 1977)
and, therefore, increase the air-sea temperature and humidity differences and enhance the air-sea heat fluxes. Air-sea fluxes can also be enhanced by convectively induced wind gusts. These convective effects tend to decrease SST and, thus, amplify (reduce) the SST diurnal cycle if they occur at night (day). The effects of precipitation on the diurnal cycle are the most complicated (Anderson et al. 1996) and also depend on whether the rainfall
occurs during the day or night.
Despite all these complex effects, the diurnal cycles of Tskin and SST exhibit similar diurnal peaks at 1200 and 1400 LST, but quite different amplitudes in the suppressed (- 1.2 degC and – 0.7 degC, Fig. 15(a)) and active (- 0.6 degC and – 0.3 degC, Fig. 15(c)) phases of the ISO. The smaller amplitudes in the active phase of the IS0 are likely due to the effect of strong surface wind (e.g. Lukas 1991; Zhang 1995; Weller and Anderson 1996). Webster et al. (1996) showed that the SST diurnal cycle diminishes when the surface wind speed > 10 m s-l. Although the surface winds were generally strong during the active phase of the ISO, they varied over a broad range from [less than] 1 to > 10 m s-‘ (Weller and Anderson 1996). It is not surprising that average Tskin and SST still exhibit a diurnal cycle during the active periods. The results in Fig. 15 are consistent with observations over other parts of the tropical ocean. The diurnal cycle of SST – 0.5-1.0 degC was observed near the coast of north Africa under clear sky and light winds (Halpern and Reed 1976) and – 0.3 degC (from daily minimum to maximum) under disturbed conditions over the eastern Atlantic Ocean (Reed and Lewis 1980).
Tair has a diurnal minimum at 0600 LST and increases rapidly after sunrise and reaches
the diurnal maximum slightly before Tskin. Cool convective downdraughts from the daytime
convection produce a cooling signature in Tair in the afternoon of the suppressed days (Figs. 7(a) and 15(a)), whereas they decrease Tair significantly before dawn during the active periods, when the large convective systems reached maximum strength at night (Figs. 7(b) and 15(b)). The convectively generated cold pools associated with organized convective systems can reduce Tair by as much as 4-5 degC (Parsons et al. 1994; Young et
al. 1995; LeMone et al. 1995), similar to values found in GATE* (Houze 1977; Johnson
and Nicholls 1983). The diurnal variation in q is very weak, if any (Figs. 15(b) and (d)), as
found by Young et al. (1992). The diurnal cycle in Oe, is practically similar to that of Tair.
The large standard deviations in 0e, and Tair are a result of the variability of the convective
activity.
These results show the consistent feature that all the variables (except q) reach their maxima in the afternoon in both the active and suppressed phases of the ISO. These diurnal maxima indicate that the surface conditions are the most favourable to the formation of the cloud systems in the afternoon regardless of the IS0 phase.
The above observations raise several questions. First, to what degree is the diurnal cycle in Tair related to that in SST and Tskin? A strong diurnal cycle in SST and Tskin can enhance the diurnal cycle in Tair through sensible-heat flux. Zhang (1995) observed that the diurnal cycle in surface sensible-heat flux is quite weak and the diurnal cycle in Tair remains significant while that of SST is small during high-wind and clear-sky situations.
Therefore, the diurnal cycle in Tair seems not completely dependent on that in Tskin. The
direct solar absorption by the moist surface air apparently plays a role in the diurnal cycle of Tair.
Second, to what extent is the diurnal cycle in Tair a result of convection? To isolate
the surface diurnal variability with and without the influence of deep convection, Zhang
(1995) composited surface conditions for the non-cloudy (‘clear sky’) and cloudy days
using data from two TAO buoys (circled buoy locations in Fig. 1) for the four-month
period of TOGA COARE. Under clear skies (solid curve in Fig. 16), the air temperature,
on average, reached a maximum of over 29°C at about 1600 LST. On days when the
minimum cloud-top temperature occurred between 0000-0600 LST over the TAO buoys,
the diurnal cycle of Tair (dashed curve in Fig. 16) resembled that on the clear days in
timing and amplitude, but the average diurnal maximum is only a little over 28 “C and the
minimum is 27 ‘C. The convectively induced night-time cooling evidently enhanced the
diurnal cycle in Tair during the active periods (Fig. 15(c)).
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/MG/PDFs/QJR97_chen_diurnal.pdf
# # #
I think now that there is a standstill in atmospheric temperature and the focus has moved to the ocean (e.g. the “AGW continues in the ocean” meme) that it is important to have a handle on ocean heat (e.g. Bob Tisdale’s articles and rebuttals to Balmaseda et al etc) and especially on the solar-ocean-atmosphere system but extra-specially on the oceanic thermal inertia lag component of that system because the CO2-centric warmists (incl IPCC solar specialists) demand an almost instantaneous atmospheric response to solar change when the reality is that there is considerable lag of at least a decade in the most significant response.
Getting to grips with above discourse and follow-up comment to come (maybe tomorrow) would go a long way to understanding from a basis in the literature, just how the oceanic heat-sink performs the major planetary heat accumulation/release role (i.e. modulation) over a complete cycle of the quasi-1000 year solar cycle of Grand Minimum solar input => Grand Maximum solar input => Grand Minimum solar input and over the intermediate shorter fluctuations because a 50 or 400/500 year ocean heat accumulation say, starts in the tropical diurnal cycle but what happens in the tropical diurnal heating cycle of the ocean has significant atmospheric impact in 8 – 20 years time rather than just the 24 hour 1-2 degC diurnal fluctuation that has a direct solar-to-air input also.
The atmospheric temperature REGIME response (not merely fluctuation) to the lower solar output now evident (of any consequence and thus lessor input to the ocean diurnally), the consequential onset of which was about 1997 – 2007 (mid-range at 2002), is predicted to become evident after 2014 (12 – 14 year lag after 2002). The temperature REGIME change that will accrue 2060 – 2100 is predicted to be about -1.3 degC by Abdussamatov here:-
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EAKAvpnnFqM/Tkbk2aBl1MI/AAAAAAAAAGU/2dWg-fgn7pw/s1600/Two+century+cyclic+variation+of+the+TSI%28Total+Solar+irradiance%29.jpg
-1.3 degC is almost exactly opposite in magnitude and sign to the lower CS estimates being submitted to the IPCC right now. So if come 2015, GMAST is obviously following a downward trajectory (it’s already showing signs of that), I hope after all of the above I don’t have the occasion to say “I told you so”.
Off topic, but this might cheer you up a bit RC:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/sunspot-cycle-and-the-global-temperature-change-anomaly/
>”…this might cheer you up a bit RC”
Not really Magoo. I’m convinced solar cycles control climate from all the evidence and R.J. Salvador’s correlation just adds to that already very large body.
But as with the warming scenario of climate controlled by GHGs, the solar explanation will undergo the test of time in the very near future too just like any other scenario prediction. I certainly wont be cheered up if the solar cooling scenario is proved correct because the consequences are considerable to human well being, to put it mildly. I will however be satisfied that the solar explanation is the correct one when cooling is evident in non-La Nina conditions over the next few years i.e. from empirical observation.
That satisfaction, if realized, is what is colloquially referred to I believe, as “cold comfort” so any cheering up in that event would be bittersweet (to use another colloquialism). Hasn’t happened yet though but the early indicators are in-the-money.
>”…the early indicators are in-the-money”
Like this one:-
‘Temperature change in a Nutshell’
Written by Ed Hoskins MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond)
[See graphs]
The UK Met Office long term Central England Temperature record has kept a continuous and consistent data set since the 1660s. It appears to be reliable and to have maintained its quality. It has not been adjusted as have so many other official temperature records.
Although the CET record covers only a small part of the northern hemisphere, it has shown a consistent rise since the end of the little ice age in 1850 at a rate of about +0.45°C / century or about +0.67°C in the last 150 years. This rise accords well with other temperature records.
However since the year 2000, diminishing solar activity in solar cycle 24, moving back towards little ice age patterns, appears to be having an real effect.
So since 2000 the CET shows an annual temperature diminution at the rate of -0.49°C / decade or -0.59°C in 12 years: this negates ~80% of the entire CET temperature rise since 1850. Although this is a very short period, the extent of the climate change that has been observed since the turn of the millennium is remarkable.
Using the March 2013 CET value it is possible to show the winter temperature values up until March 2013 with a combination of the four months December – March for the first 13 years of this century. The diminution of the four winter months temperatures is more remarkable at a rate of -1.11°C / decade or -1.49°C in the last 13 years. This compares with a winter temperature increase rate from 1850 to the year 2000 of +0.32°C / century or +0.48°C for the whole 150 year period.
Continues>>>>>>
http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_May_3_2013
On the topic of activists, Bill McKibben is coming to NZ for a speaking tour in June.
Dates are at Hot Topic.
Gareth is publicizing John Cooks latest survey
http://hot-topic.co.nz/measuring-climate-consensus-crowd-sourced-survey/
However, Lucia has questions
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/dear-john-i-have-questions/
Penetrating questions!
Hilary Ostrov has some thoughts on IPCC lead author Andrew Weaver and the role of the taxpayer-funded CBC in Canada
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/