Auckland mayoral candidate Vic Crone
During an interview a few days ago, Auckland mayoral candidate Vic Crone would not say if she believed the earth was warming due to man-made pollution, saying only: “Gosh, that’s a very contentious debate.”
Dr James Renwick, a professor of physical geography at Victoria University of Wellington, has slammed Crone’s statement. “The climate is changing and it is due to human activity and that is very clear from all sorts of lines of evidence,” he said. “To say that it’s very contentious suggests a real lack of understanding of the area.” The evidence showed that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming, Renwick said. “To try and say that we’re not sure is very backward thinking.” [emphasis added]
But that’s just not the case. The IPCC make no such categorical statements and official reports are actually soaked in uncertainty. It seems Professor Renwick’s certitude is at odds with the science. Still, perhaps NIWA states things more confidently. So I searched the NIWA web site in an attempt to corroborate this no-nonsense, activist-oriented doctrine that is convinced we cause all or most climate change. I typed ‘climate change evidence anthropogenic’ in the search box and got ten results. But none supported Renwick’s brusque response to Miss Crone. These are the NIWA articles the search returned:
- Understanding past changes in the Southern Ocean
- Climate change, global warming and greenhouse gases
- Greenhouse gases and climate sensitivity – insights from ice cores
- Climate Change
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)
- New Zealand in a warming world
- Global climate models
- Our Far South events
- NIWA says greenhouse gas methane is on the rise again
- The WMO/UNEP 2002 ozone assessment: a New Zealand perspective
I should say there were no surprises here, and NIWA make it no easier to understand anthropogenic climate change since 2009 (when we challenged the national temperature data published on their web site), they make it more difficult. All these articles confuse the reader seeking the cause of human climate change, apparently presenting material only to obscure the lack of evidence. They are, in the legal terminology, prolix.
No. 1 Understanding past changes in the Southern Ocean
Not relevant. Learning about natural climate change so we can recognise anthropogenic climate change when (and if) it occurs.
No. 2 Climate change, global warming and greenhouse gases
Some relevance. An interesting summary but fails to explain how humanity is the cause of global warming and thus of climate change, although it comes close [my emphasis]:
Have greenhouse gas emissions caused global temperatures to rise?
-
Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere. This is due largely to human activities, mostly fossil fuel use, land-use change, and agriculture. About 47% of the warming effect of greenhouse gas increases over the last 100 years is due to carbon dioxide.
-
The second most important greenhouse gas produced by human activities is methane, which accounts for about 35% of the increased warming over the past 100 years (this is an important aspect of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, since sheep and cows produce methane).
-
Warming by greenhouse gases is offset in some regions by cooling due to small airborne particles generated by burning fuel. These are concentrated around areas of industrial activity in the Northern Hemisphere and in developing countries. (The cooling effect of aerosols over the New Zealand region is expected to be small).
-
Global mean surface temperature increased by 0.74°C between 1906 and 2005, a change which is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. Much of the 1.8±0.5 mm yr-1 average global sea level rise between 1961 and 2003 may be related to the rise in global temperature.
These are oily words in weasel expressions shaped in the manner of scientific conclusions but in fact only invitations to draw our own. But NIWA is openly uncertain: the expressions “due largely to human activities”, “about 47% of the warming … is due to carbon dioxide”, “unlikely to be entirely natural” and “a discernible human influence” are incompatible with Renwick’s inflated assertions that it is due [implying ALL due] to human activity.
His most outrageous claim was human influence was the dominant cause of global warming. He used this unscientific statement to belittle Vic Crone’s “lack of understanding”, but I’m curious to know the data that justifies the extraordinary statement.
These public documents don’t corroborate Renwick’s overblown certainty. He says disparagingly: “To say that we’re not sure is very backward thinking.” But an examination of the scientific sources shows our mayoral candidate is absolutely correct to express doubt. The only reason for Renwick to disparage this is that he disagrees with it. Which is no justification for presenting that disagreement as scientific fact.
No. 3 Greenhouse gases and climate sensitivity – insights from ice cores
Not relevant. Ice core research.
No. 4 Climate change
Not relevant. Though it claims that “most” of the increase in temperature since 1950 was due to the increase in our emissions of carbon dioxide, and that came from “a vast array of evidence” and “physics”, it goes on simply to describe the consequences of climate change.
No. 5 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
Not relevant. There are 14 references to increased emissions of the accursed substances carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), their change over time and their respective contributions to radiative forcing, and two references to aerosols and albedo citing tiny negative radiative contributions. There’s one reference to “new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” But there’s no mention of what that evidence might be.
No. 6 New Zealand in a warming world
Not relevant. Looks at the consequences of warming.
No. 7 Global climate models
Not relevant. Looks at the skill of models. Aptly, it asks “How Well do Models Simulate Observed Features of the Climate?” (exactly what we wanted to know). It says the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (Gates, 1992) was to document the performance of GCMs in simulating the contemporary climate. Perfect! But inaptly, it gives us no results at all, saying very weakly that this has all been described at the First AMIP Scientific Conference (AMIP, 1995), and that “results have also been reported extensively in the open literature and in IPCC assessments.” So we’re on our own. When I have a little free time…
No. 8 Our Far South events
Not relevant. A glorious photographic celebration of NIWA research.
No. 9 NIWA says greenhouse gas methane is on the rise again
Not relevant. Describes our methane emissions and claims that methane affects temperature, but doesn’t describe how.
NIWA’s web page mentions methane (CH4) because farmed livestock, especially cattle and sheep, produce large quantities of it. What NIWA doesn’t say is that livestock are part of a cycle; when the herd or flock size is stable, there’s no change in the climate forcing from their methane. That’s before considering the inflated CO2 equivalence assigned to CH4. Methane is measured in parts per billion by volume (ppbv) because there’s so little of it in the atmosphere. Right now its concentration is about 1850 parts per billion, which is only 1.85 parts per million. So atmospheric methane, at 4,300,000,000,000 kg (4.3 billion tonnes) has less mass than a 500th part of the atmospheric mass of carbon dioxide (2.3 × 1012 (2,300 billion) tonnes). It is indeed far-fetched to imagine the tiny mass of methane having any thermal influence on the 5,150,000,000,000,000,000 kg (5.15 quadrillion tonnes) of the whole atmosphere. [12:00 noon 19 Sep 2016 – corrected conversion error; recalculated methane’s fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide using mass, not volume. Thanks, Robin. – RT]
In the last 28 years CH4 has risen from 1675 ppbv to 1850 ppbv, or about 10%. This graph, though it ends in 2009, illustrates the strong increase in atmospheric methane since industrialisation began. Notice that the vertical axis doesn’t begin at 0, it begins at 600, which exaggerates the recent increase. Also, given the infinitesimal amount of atmospheric methane, you could double it a few times more without the climate noticing.
No. 10 The WMO/UNEP 2002 ozone assessment: a New Zealand perspective
Not relevant. Ozone is weird.
NIWA make it hard on their web site to find the link between human activities or emissions and global warming or climate change. It’s as though they don’t want to reveal the details, because the details are doubtful.
But this is a matter that requires substantial public resources. Fighting climate change requires, apparently, decades of effort, many millions of expenditure and deep changes to our industrial infrastructure.
It really is not too much to expect that our publicly-funded scientists will be open with us. What’s it to be, James?
Visits: 354
Richard, could you check the concentration of CH4 units, parts per billion? I thought we used the US standard billion 10^9, not the UK standard billion10^12, resulting in CH4 being 1.85 ppm.
Apparently it is completely unacceptable for Auckland to have a Mayor who is not 100% onboard with the climate change agenda, but OK to have one that has “meetings” with his closest staff in toilets and meeting rooms, meetings that for some reason involve taking ones trousers off
Maybe they need to come off because of “global warming”
The IPCC make no such categorical statements….
Oh yes it does:
The SYR confirms that human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans. Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over
decades to millennia. The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming. In addition, the SYR finds that the more human activities disrupt the climate, the greater the risks
of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems, and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Front_matters.pdf
Thanks, Robin. The old habit of using the increment of a million reasserted itself. Also I mistakenly used volume, not mass, when working out the CO2 fraction (which may have had another error, too). Glad to know someone’s keeping an eye on me, and the basic argument was unchanged. But I’m open to correction, whereas Renwick is actively distorting science to push his activism — refusing to participate in the doubts expressed by the IPCC itself.
[Renwick] >“To say that we’re not sure is very backward thinking”
Being “sure” does not necessarily mean scientifically valid (they’re not as follows). And they have no basis for surety. In fact, just the opposite.
[NIWA re IPCC AR5] >”two references to aerosols and albedo citing tiny negative radiative contributions”
Contrary to the IPCC (of course – this is climate “science” after all). Contrary to NASA (natch). And NASA disagree with the IPCC (natch again).
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (b) (Budget closure of Figure a)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_neg_forcing.gif
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (a) (Theoretical forcing)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_forcing.gif
Aerosols are about 68% of NASA’s GHG forcing (550/1720). No mention of albedo unless in “other forcings”.
IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
Energy Budget Changes 1970 – 2011
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
Aerosols are 50% of the IPCC’s GHG forcing (610/1220) vs NASA’s 68%. No mention of albedo
In no way is between 50% and 68% of theoretical GHG forcing a “tiny negative radiative contribution”. NIWA do not know what they are talking about.
[Reference links here https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/latest-sick-oceans-report-absurd/comment-page-2/#comment-1513785%5D
Astute observers will also note that the IPCC, contrary to NASA (20.3%, 350/1720), have massive OLR uncertainty. Anywhere between 16.4% of GHG forcing (200/1220) and 59.8% (730/1220).
# # #
Renwick claims – ““To say that we’re not sure is very backward thinking”
Fact is, they have no basis for being “sure”of anything; they have massive uncertainty. And their physically impossible (several reasons) anthropogenic ocean warming attribution, critical to keeping their theory alive, is a falsehood (scientific fraud).
Renwick and Naish wildly disagree with the IPCC on how much theoretical GHG forced energy went into the ocean (“93%”). Completely at odds with the IPCC (25%) and NASA (11.6%), who also disagree with each other.
So here we have total disagreement between NIWA, IPCC, NASA, Renwick & Naish, on aerosols OLR and GHG-to-ocean energy which is a scientifically fraudulent attribution.
They may be “sure” but that is more indictment than anything, given the humongous uncertainty and scientifically fraudulent assessment.
[Renwick] >”The evidence showed that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming”
Contrary to the CO2-forced climate models that the IPCC admits neglect natural variation and have the 21st century too warm except for 3 out of 114 at surface, worse in mid and upper troposphere. Counts out climate models as “evidence” of anything.
And only by scientifically fraudulent anthropogenic ocean warming attribution-by-speculation (“expected” “air-sea fluxes”) that the IPCC has no actual observational “evidence” of whatsoever.
And overlooks the fact that the IPCC has a massive blowout of theoretical energy at the top of atmosphere that they are all (including Renwick) scrabbling and disagreeing on how to account for where it all went. The IPCC say between 16.4% and 59.8% of GHG “forcing” simply went out to space as OLR and 25% went into the ocean. Renwick says 93% went into the ocean.
If anything, the IPCC’s “evidence” is actually falsifying the entire Man-Made Climate Change theory.
Renwick is making a tactical blunder drawing attention to the IPCC’s “evidence”.
Simon
>”The IPCC make no such categorical statements….” Oh yes it does [cites AR5 SYR]
Oh no it doesn’t:
NIWA – “about 47% of the warming … is due to carbon dioxide”
IPCC – “humans are the main cause of current global warming”
“Main cause” is anything between 51% and 100% for all influence, not just 47% to CO2. But where’s the IPCC’s “categorical” (unambiguously explicit) breakdown of influence that explicitly isolates CO2 influence?
NASA breakdown from upthread will stand in for the IPCC here:
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (a) (Theoretical forcing)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_forcing.gif
CO2 is roughly 50% (860/1720) of total theoretical GHG forcing so NIWA are right so far (47%). But the IPCC says between 16.4% and 59.8% of total theoretical GHG “forcing” simply went out to space as OLR.
That reduces NIWA’s “47%” CO2 influence to 30% and below. Where do the IPCC state this or similar?
Correction
“That reduces NIWA’s “47%” CO2 influence to [less than 18.9% in respect to 59.8% OLR]”
“That reduces NIWA’s “47%” CO2 influence to [less than 39.3% in respect to 16.4% OLR]”
Where do the IPCC state this or similar?
You guys are aware that Prof. Renwick was a lead author of IPCC Working Group I?
The sole distortion of evidence is this web site.
As the “sceptics” are at pains to point out, the IPCC is the brainchild of the UN, a political organisation. Although the IPCC reports are reviews of the literature by experts giving expert opinions, at the end of the day all countries must agree with what is written. Unanimity means compromise.
And conservative statements. Not necessarily the balance of informed opinion even let alone the most up-to-date thinking or knowledge.
How many informed scientists disagree with Renwick? No one who matters anymore. Lindzen is down and Curry is out. Have Christy and Spencer got their story straight yet?
There is no scientific debate. That’s a myth perpetrated by the oil billionaires and politicians. And their tools.
Simon
>”You guys are aware that Prof. Renwick was a lead author of IPCC Working Group I?”
Yes, but not of any of the critical theory or attribution chapters, or ocean observation.
AR4 Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate [no attribution]
AR5 Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change [natural]
Neither of these have anything to do with radiative forcing theory, attribution, or ocean observations i.e. those are out of his scope and qualifications. And yet he’s making statements in respect to radiative forcing and ocean attribution that are completely at odds with the IPCC and NASA.
Not difficult admittedly, when NASA disagrees with the IPCC too.
AR5 Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean did not find the “expected” “air-sea fluxes” that AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional base their assumed and speculated anthropogenic ocean warming attribution on. In other words, their attribution is scientifically fraudulent.
James Renwick was NOT a part of that.
But James Renwick is presenting as an “expert”, under the auspices of the Royal Society which is governed by statutory law in respect to “expert advice”, when the critical statement he is making (the “93%” GHG energy-to-ocean attribution) is clearly NOT “expert”. It is outside his area of expertise, incorrect, contradictory to the IPCC, outside of NZ statutory law (unlawful), and scientifically fraudulent to boot.
James Renwick is in a very precarious position, a glass house; He is no position to throw stones.
Richard C (NZ): [Renwick] ” those are out of his scope and qualifications.”
Renwick may not know every little detail — nobody does, it’s a big field — but he has a thorough understanding of climate change. Certainly competent to make statements in public without fear of contradiction by anyone who matters.
And that includes the two fellows of the RSNZ having a hissy fit. Quote from their complaint: (1) “most scientists believe that manmade greenhouse gases cause some global warming and this presumed majority amounts to convincing scientific evidence that man-made greenhouse gases cause (by implication, dangerous)
global warming. This is, of course, not true.”
Yes, it is true. 97% of climate scientists believe it is true, as shown by several studies. A petition signed by a small percentage of science graduates is a joke. There are countless millions of science graduates who did not sign the drivel.
(2) “Many scientist believe that the satellite records are the most accurate because, unlike the surface temperature records, they cover the whole world uniformly. Anyway both records show that show that, over the last 18 years, the temperature rise has not been statistically significant and is about 0.5 deg below the averaged predictions of the climate models.”
No, scientists don’t believe the satellite records are the most accurate. No, it’s not true there has been no statistically significant temperature rise, and even if it were not statistically significant the trend is clear and unequivocal. Nothing to do with climate models. They have proved very skillful anyway.
Earth has retained more energy due to more CO2. Man-made global warming and climate change.
Whether we can do anything about it is another matter. It would be difficult enough without dealing with an orchestrated campaign of misinformation and lies. Copying the tobacco companies.
Good on the scientists around the world for entering the public arena and speaking the truth.
>”How many informed scientists disagree with Renwick?”
The IPCC: 93% vs 25% of theoretical GHG-forced energy-into-the-ocean (Technical Summary)
And NASA: 93% vs 11.6% of theoretical GHG-forced energy-into-the-ocean (Energy Budget).
So the number disagreeing with Renwick is all the authors of the IPCC Technical Summary and whatever the source chapter of TS TFE 4.1 is, and all the authors of NASA’s earth energy budget (that you referred me to Dennis – thanks for that BTW).
The only agreement I can find is Tim Naish and these blogs:
The “93.4%” diagram at the top is from Skeptical science.
[1] links to David Appell’s blog:
New Ocean Heat Data Shows Global Warming is Accelerating
David Appell August 24, 2015
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2015/08/latest-ocean-heat-content-numbers-show.html
[2] links to Yale’s Environment 360 blog:
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
Environment 360 30 Mar 2015
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat/2860/
And a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California study reported here:
Firstly. An anthro attribution to ocean warming is scientifically fraudulent but critical for the IPCC to keep the Man-Made Climate change theory alive.
Secondly. The energy these reports and blog calcs are referring to is just the observed atmospheric (2.3%) +land+ice (4.7%) energy increase (7% total but negligible in IPCC and NASA graphs upthread) and the observed ocean energy increase (93%) as a proportion of an observed total (100%).
This is bogus. They neglect the total theoretical GHG forcing which as both the IPCC and NASA show (see upthread) is a far GREATER total than just ocean+atm+ice energy increase.
The total theoretical GHG “forcing” is actually a humongous blowout approaching 2000 ZetaJoules 1750 – 2016 in excess of observed earth’s energy increase even including bogus ocean attribution.
Renwick appears to have confused himself with blog “science” and now he’s passing on his confusion to as many gullible listeners he can get to believe him.
>”Good on the scientists around the world for entering the public arena and speaking the truth.”
Renwick’s not speaking the truth Dennis. His “93%” GHG-forced energy-into-the-ocean is wrong thermodynamically and totally contradicts the IPCC and NASA.
And energy increase in the atmosphere is negligible as many warmists agree. You will see so when RT digs out my comment that went to spam.
There is no debate. Dangerous or catastrophic climate change is 100% certain
We need to immediately stop all development of all schools, hospitals, roads and industry, and spend all our money “taking action” on climate change
Hang on, is there a debate?
Simon,
Lead authors? Scientists? Let me tell you what the scientists do. They study the science and write voluminous reports on the state of the climate system, all sparkling new and the best it can be. Then they sit back and watch the politicians (REMEMBER: “Intergovernmental Panel”) rewrite the conclusions of their reports and republish them to ensure “social climate justice” and adherence to Agenda 21.
But do they advise us their conclusions have been wrested from them? No, worse than that. They adopt the new orthodoxy as their own, for all its errors, and argue it around the world. They sound increasingly hollow, adopting ridiculous fallback positions like “the evidence is mounting up and is now incontrovertible” and “we know from multiple lines of evidence that there’s been warming”, though the question was “what’s the evidence of warming.”
Back to bed.
Richard C (NZ)
Funny how you scoff at NASA and the IPCC and all, but quote them when is suits you.
If you stopped thinking like a refrigeration engineer for five minutes and used your brains instead of writing meaningless mumbo-jumbo you’d realise most of the energy has gone into the oceans as heat because that’s where the mass is. Heat sink. (Plus melting ice.)
Richard Treadgold: Back to bed.
Don’t bother with a blanket. Won’t warm you. 😉
RT, thank you for retrieving my comment
>”The “93.4%” diagram at the top is from Skeptical Science.”
Source:
Global Warming Components – Where is global warming going?
SkS Resources that use this Graphic [Index]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12
Graphic
http://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/GW_Components_500.jpg
# # #
There is no connection between this graphic and any attribution. By itself it is a very good apportionment of solar forcing as a result of 0.6 W.m-2 surface solar forcing (SSR).
Skeptical Science only make any anthro connection in other “resources” that use the graphic and even then it is a very vague narrative.
For example from the links in above index:
Apart from their minimal anthro attribution, neglect of toatal theoretical GHG forcing, and hopeless solar case, I actually agree with the rest of this.
[Note that SkS are NOT making the assertion Renwick and Naish are making]
Dennis,
My wife’s the authority and she says otherwise. Must be a physicist.
Richard Treadgold: My wife’s the authority and she says otherwise. Must be a physicist.
Ah, physicist-pecked, eh.
“There is no debate”
Probably true since people generally don’t debate things is science; they go out and measure things, make conjectures, test them, write papers, etc.
To suggest that all these scientists are in 100% lock step agreement seems a little implausible
>”most of the energy has gone into the oceans as heat because that’s where the mass is. Heat sink”
Yes, the ocean is the earth’s heat sink Dennis. I agree. Heat supplied by solar energy. The sun heats the ocean, predominantly in the tropics (around 24 W.m-2 tropical solar accumulation)
It’s the respective specific heat capacities of water vs air that matter i.e. properties. Mass is one parameter. Heat supplied, specific heat, and temperature change are the others:
Specific Heat
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_339.html
Specific Heat Capacities (cp)
Water, pure liquid (20oC) : 4182 J/kgoC
Water, vapor (27oC): 3985 J/kgoC
Air, dry (sea level) : 1005 J/kgoC
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html
Water is the hardest element to heat apart from lithium, air is heated relatively easily. Air is a minor heat sink in the earth’s energy system. All the heat in the atmosphere can be accommodated in the top 3.5m of the ocean according to Kevin Trenberth:
The Role of the Oceans in Climate
Kevin E Trenberth
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/roleofOcean.html
I think you will find I’ve been saying this on this blog for years before you turned up here Dennis. And since you have turned up too, which you would have known if you had been paying attention. The energy into the atmosphere as a proportion of total theoretical GHG “forcing” is so small it is hard to detect (see) in the IPCC and NASA graphs upthread.
Ocean warming attribution is where the climate argument is for anyone versed in thermodynamics. It is critical for the IPCC, without an anthro attribution their theory is sunk. But their attribution is scientifically fraudulent i.e. they’re sunk.
BTW, are you now realizing you made a tactical error referring me to NASA’s earth energy budget poster?
Trenberth in ‘The Role of the Oceans in Climate’:
In other words, we have have to wait at least 10 years for a tropospheric temperature response to solar change and the response is spread over 90 years according to Trenberth. Others narrow it down considerably.
Recent solar change began (minimally) after 2005 and is progressively increasing. Look for a tropospheric temperature response around the mid 2020s or so.
Richard C (NZ): “are you now realizing you made a tactical error referring me to NASA’s earth energy budget poster?”
Eh? I’m not trying to teach you not beat you.
“The energy into the atmosphere as a proportion of total theoretical GHG “forcing” is so small it is hard to detect”
Of course. We know that. Global mean temperature atmosphere up 1C. In a bath tub 1C would be neither here nor there.
Takes an awful lot of heat to warm the oceans enough to measure any increase with precision and accuracy. Ice loss is difficult too on the scale we are talking about but now obvious.
Keep shovelling, Richard C (NZ). You can dig yourself out of this.
>”The energy into the atmosphere as a proportion of total theoretical GHG “forcing” is so small it is hard to detect (see) in the IPCC and NASA graphs upthread.”
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (b) (Budget closure of Figure a)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_neg_forcing.gif
If it wasn’t for the text and arrow nobody would even know there was any atmospheric energy accumulation. And this is over the IPCC’s anthro attribution period beginning 1950 up to 2004.
About 1.16% in that graph (20/1720), including land. Renwick implies 7% including land but he neglects total theoretical GHG “forcing”
Richard C (NZ)
What is you difficulty with heat and temperature?
[Me] >“The energy into the atmosphere as a proportion of total theoretical GHG “forcing” is so small it is hard to detect”
[Dennis] >”Of course. We know that. Global mean temperature atmosphere up 1C. In a bath tub 1C would be neither here nor there.”
Rubbish, other way around Dennis (see below). And total theoretical GHG “forcing” is in Joules (Watts per second), not Celsius.
A rise of 1C in a bath tub is much more Joules than a rise of 1C in air. In the previous post the ocean exhibits only a 0.15C rise 1978 – 2016 but that is a massive amount of energy in Joules relative to 1C air rise. http://www.climate4you.com/images/World3monthTemperatureSince1979Depth0-700m.gif
From Specific Heat link upthread:
From Specific Heat Capacities (cp) upthread:
Water, pure liquid (20oC) : 4182 J/kgoC
Air, dry (sea level) : 1005 J/kgoC
4182 Joules to heat 1kg of water 1C is 4.16 times the 1005 Joules to heat 1kg of air 1C and obviously the volume of 1kg of air (856 litres at 25C) is much greater than the volume of 1kg of water (1 litre).
You are out of your depth here Dennis. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Should be:
“And total theoretical GHG “forcing” is in Joules [and Joules per second (Watts)] not Celsius.”
Specific heat capacity of sea water is around 3993 J/kg/K, 3.97 times air.
0 – 700m OHC in ZetaJoules converted to temperature in Celcius – Ocean Temperature And Heat Content
Willis Eschenbach / February 25, 2013
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/
Energy content, the heat is on: atmosphere -vs- ocean
Anthony Watts
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
What is the total heat content of the Earth’s atmosphere, partitioned between its various layers?
Answer: Patrick Pieper, BSc in Meteorology
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-heat-content-of-the-Earths-atmosphere-partitioned-between-its-various-layers
Watts:
Think El Nino just from a small part of the Pacific ocean. Makes the CO2 conjecture look idiotic.
From another source:
1,600,000 ZetaJoules (10^21). This is a different statement than Jeff Id or Patrick Pieper upthread (5.6×10^24 Joules/Degree Kelvin = 5600 ZetaJoules/Degree Kelvin). 1.6 x 10*27 total makes more sense.
The NODC’s 0-2000m OHC change is about 300 ZetaJoules plus some.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
That’s about 0.0188% of total.
Should be:
“This is bogus. They neglect the total theoretical GHG forcing which as both the IPCC and NASA show (see upthread) is a far GREATER total than just ocean+atm+[land]+ice energy increase.”
“They” referring to the likes of Renwick and their erroneous “93%” of human-forced energy-into-the-ocean meme.
Richard C (NZ)
You think like a refrigeration engineer.
You have no understanding of the basic principles.
1. More CO2 means more energy retained. Fact.
2. More energy means more heat. Fact.
3. More heat means higher temperatures. Fact.
I repeat. A 1C rise in one bath tub is inconsequential. In very way. To everybody.
A 1C rise in the global mean surface temperature, when that represents only a small proportion of the energy retained due to man’s behaviour, with most going into the oceans, with more to come even if we stop emissions of GHGs now, is an entirely different matter.
Business as usual will certainly destroy our civilisation and might even render Earth uninhabitable for humans.
That’s what the science says.
It’s not what the IPCC says
Dennis
>”1. More CO2 means more energy retained.”
Yes. But only in IPCC theory. ZetaJoules of it. Since 1750 getting up around 2000 ZetaJoules. But all excess to the actual observed earth’s system. Atmosphere + Land + Ice is negligible. Leaves Ocean heat which is solar forced at surface.
>”Fact. 2. More energy means more heat.”
Yes. But theoretical GHG-forced energy is excess to the earth’s system. See the IPCC and NASA graphs uupthread. Atmosphere + Land + Ice is negligible. Leaves Ocean heat which is solar forced at surface.
>”Fact. 3. More heat means higher temperatures.”
Yes. Ocean heat accumulation (solar forced at surface by 0.6 W.m-2) TRANSFERRED to the atmosphere. The heat TRANSFER system is (predominantly):
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere (+ Space) => Space.
The El Nino process compresses that system into a very short timeframe from the ocean onwards. Accumulated ocean heat (order of 24 W.m-2 in tropics) must be TRANSFERRED out through the troposphere towards the poles. Hence troposphere warming (and cooling). The initial state of the atmosphere from surface to TOA is determined by mass/gravity/pressure and solar input to the system (Standard Atmosphere).
>”Fact. I repeat. A 1C rise in one bath tub is inconsequential. In very way. To everybody. ”
You repeat your total misconception.Your comparison with air was dead wrong Dennis as I showed upthread. You’ve got that the wrong way around. You have no idea what you are talking about in this instance. You are out of your depth on this.
Global OHC rise certainly IS consequential even given basin differentials. Everyone (other than you Dennis), Warmists (Skeptical Science, Yale, Appell, Renwick), Lukewarmers (Watts), and everyone versed in thermodynamics agrees. Look at the articles upthread on this.
>”A 1C rise in the global mean surface temperature, when that represents only a small proportion of the energy retained due to man’s behaviour, with most going into the oceans>
Yes air heat is negligible. Yes ocean heat is the earth’s solar-forced heat sink and biggest energy player on earth. No, GHGs do not force ocean heat.
The IPCC’s GHG-forced ocean warming attribution is scientific fraud. The IPCC make attribution-by-speculation but they have no physical evidence. The ocean observations in AR5 Chapter 3 contradict their attribution in Chapter 10. Their earth’s energy budget cited in Chapter 2 precludes it. The Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes it. The physics of the AO interface precludes it.
Air is relative easy to heat as I showed upthread Dennis. A 1C rise in air heat is negligible Joules compared to OHC and SST rise. But the troposphere does not have the capacity to store heat of any consequence once extra warming is introduced. What you are looking at in GMST is actually just one parameter in the heat TRANSFER medium from sea to space. Atmospheric heat is integrated right up though the surface to TOA temperature profile. Same for OHC, it is integrated right down the temperature profile from surface to sea floor.
Kevin Trenberth puts it succinctly in ‘The Role of the Oceans in Climate’:
The troposphere is only a bit player in global energy and heat, a TRANSFER medium. The ocean modulates climate and is the greatest heat sink and source of tropospheric warming (above initial mass/gravity/pressure/solar heat) after the sun heats the ocean and the heat is TRANSFERRED through the troposphere to space.
CO2 is a heat TRANSFER medium in the atmosphere whether troposphere, thermosphere or anywhere in between. A COOLANT by definition.
A new paper looking at the hiatus in global surface temperatures.
“A hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect”
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315
>”Atmospheric heat is integrated right up though the surface to TOA temperature profile. Same for OHC, it is integrated right down the temperature profile from surface to sea floor.”
Ocean heat content – Definition and measurement
The areal density of ocean heat content between two depth levels is defined as:[2]
[Equation of integral from 2 below]
where ρ \rho is seawater density, c p c_{p} is the specific heat of sea water, h2 is the lower depth, h1 is the upper depth, and T ( z ) T(z) is the temperature profile. In SI units, H H has units of J·m-2. Multiplying this quantity by the area of an ocean basin, or entire ocean, gives the total heat content, as indicated in the figure to right.
[2] Dijkstra, Henk A. (2008). Dynamical oceanography ([Corr. 2nd print.] ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag. p. 276. ISBN 9783540763758.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
Richard C (NZ)
Where did I compare the water in a bath tub with heating air? You imagined it. 1C warmer in a bath tub is inconsequential compared with the temperature range of the bath water taken all together, ie the mean temperature of the total mass.
1C global mean increase is huge, when you consider most of the energy is going into the oceans because that’s where the mass is AND the climate doesn’t change like this without a reason: a forcing.
The oceans are warming. There is no increase in energy from the Sun.
You can’t account for this without the greenhouse effect. Increasing due to more greenhouse gases. Yes CH4 but principally CO2. Our CO2 emissions.
What you “know” is wrong and you will never learn because you cling to it like a frightened child to his mother’s apron.
Dennis
>”Where did I compare the water in a bath tub with heating air? You imagined it. ”
No I didn’t.
Here:
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the relative specific heat capacities of air and water because global air can be simply compared to bathtub water on a kg by kg basis or litre by litre basis.
I showed how you had it backwards here:
Richard C (NZ) on September 19, 2016 at 9:56 pm said:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/renwick-distorts-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-1514317
Look at the articles I posted on the respective difference.
>”1C warmer in a bath tub is inconsequential compared with the temperature range of the bath water taken all together, ie the mean temperature of the total mass.”
This is nonsensical Dennis. 1C warmer is 1C warmer by mean temperature of total mass. The 1C represents a change in heat. In my comment I showed how to calculate change of heat for 1C change in air and water.
If the bathtub is 100 litres (for convenience), the change of heat in Joules is 4182 x 100 = 418,200 Joules.
For 100 litres of air, the change of heat in Joules is 1005 x 100 / 856 = 117.4 Joules.
The change of air heat is negligible compared to change of water heat.
>”1C global mean increase is huge”
In the troposphere, relative to ocean, in terms of heat in Joules, no it isn’t as above. It is negligible.
0.15C rise in SST is NOT negligible as shown upthread. That is an enormous amount of energy in Joules.
>”when you consider most of the energy is going into the oceans because that’s where the mass is AND the climate doesn’t change like this without a reason: a forcing.”
Gobbledegook. There is no net air-sea energy flux into the ocean in the surface energy budget apart from solar i.e. solar forcing at surface.
>”The oceans are warming. There is no increase in energy from the Sun.”
This is what thermodynamic illiterates, including IPCC solar specialists, will never understand. You do NOT need an increase Dennis. The solar forcing at the surface is 0.6 W.m-2 (24 W.m-2 tropics) and constant this century (albeit fluctuating about 0.6). Vic Rawls tried to explain this to a dozen IPCC solar specialists but gave up.
0.6 W.m-2 is 0.6 Joules per second/m-2 excess energy from the sun.
>”You can’t account for this without the greenhouse effect. Increasing due to more greenhouse gases. Yes CH4 but principally CO2. Our CO2 emissions.”
I just did.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33315
Abstract
The rate at which the global average surface temperature is increasing has slowed down since the end of the last century. This study investigates whether this warming hiatus results from a change in the well-known greenhouse effect.
Discussion
The Earth’s environment is suitable for life because of the greenhouse effect. Our planet has become increasingly warm since the Industrial Revolution because of the increased GHG emissions, which greatly enhance the greenhouse effect. However, the uprising rate of the Earth’s Ts has slowed down in recent years. Whether this global warming pause is accompanied by a hiatus of the greenhouse effect is investigated in this study.
Acknowledgements
This work was jointly funded by the National Grand Fundamental Research 973 Program of China (2015CB452800) and the National Science Foundation of China (grant 41375075).
Good to have the Chinese aboard.
Article received February. Every month this year been the hotter than any other in recorded history.
Fairly useless “hiatus”.
Richard C (NZ)
Don’t be so tedious. I never said anything about heating air compared with heating water.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Global mean temperature up 1C. In a bathtub 1C would be neither here nor there.
Which it wouldn’t be, and no amount of gobbledygook changes it.
Maggy, re “A hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect” Song, Wang & Tang (2016)
Notice they never provide the breakdown of the CO2 contribution to DLR. Lots about water vapour and cloudiness which are the major components (the total air mass radiates at T^4) but CO2 takes a back seat.
CO2 was only 2% (6 W.m-2) of total DLR in the 1970s (Wang & Liang 2009). Now maybe 3%. The change per decade is a fraction of that. Changes in total DLR per decade is an order of magnitude greater than the CO2 contribution.
Cloudiness change is the major driver of surface solar radiation change (SSR) and therefore of SSR forcing at the surface.
Richard C (NZ)
Your whole processing is mumbo-jumbo.
Earth is receiving no more energy from the Sun now than before. Earth is warming because less energy is being radiated to space than before.
Why?
Dennis >”I never said anything about heating air compared with heating water”
Yes you did Dennis. And you get it horribly wrong too when the respective litre by litre change in heat is calculated for 100 litres of water and air and 1C temperature change.
Heat change in 100 litres for 1C increase:
418,200 Joules – water
117.4 Joules – air.
Richard C (NZ)
Okay, Richard, have it your way. Mean global temperature increase of 1C is neither here nor there but your bath water increasing 1C would be highly significant. Yes?
Feel better now?
This article seems relevant to the ongoing discussion
“Why I Deny Big Climate Alarmism”
http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/
Dennis
>”Your whole processing is mumbo-jumbo.”
As I said:
You’ll never understand Dennis. Alec (not Vic, my ex workmate) Rawls tried to get through to a dozen IPCC solar scientists but they couldn’t grasp the concept either.
>”Earth is receiving no more energy from the Sun now than before.”
Yes it is since the LIA. The IPCC parameterizes solar change even if inadequately e.g. neglecting ‘surface forcing’. Shapiro et al say 6 W.m-2. The IPCC dismisses that of course. And Usoskin says the recent Maximum was highest in 11,000 years. There’s no need to invoke any more change at that level as above. The solar forcing has reached max and is little changed i.e. the forcing remains.
>”Earth is warming because less energy is being radiated to space than before.”
Rubbish. Before what?. Don’t get confused between theory and actual. If anything OLR is either increasing or fluctuating all over the shop:
Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
http://climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif
OLR from NOAA 1979 to 2012
http://www.kiwithinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/OLWIR-Temp-and-SB.jpg
When temperature increases OLR should increase according to S-B (T^4). In reality it’s all over the place.
Dennis
>”Mean global temperature increase of 1C is neither here nor there”
Yes. Negligible in term of heat in Joules relative to OHC increase.
>”but your bath water increasing 1C would be highly significant. Yes?”
No. OHC increase in Joules and Celcius (0.15C say as above) is highly significant.
The relative insignificance of 100 litres of air increasing 1C vs 100 litres of water increasing IC is:
418,200 Joules – water
117.4 Joules – air.
Richard C (NZ).
I was comparing Earth with a bathtub. The notion I was comparing heating air and water is purely in your muddled mind.
A 1C change for all Earth is a huge change.
1C in a bath is neither here nor there.
Dennis
>”Earth is receiving no more energy from the Sun now than before.”
Then how do you explain the 100 ZetaJoules of excess solar energy here:
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (a) (Theoretical forcing)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_forcing.gif
That’s the graph you referred me to Dennis. Didn’t you look at it?
Remember, that’s just the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory (RF) at TOA. It’s not actual heat in the earth’s system. The IPCC says the bulk of that GHG forcing simply radiated to space. They MUST have an anthro ocean warming attribution to sink the rest in the climate system.
They get that by scientifically fraudulent attribution-by-speculation.
Richard C (NZ)
So you don’t need more energy to warm (Earth) more.
What about my house?
Can you work this miracle for me. Thanks.
Dennis
>”I was comparing Earth with a bathtub. The notion I was comparing heating air and water is purely in your muddled mind.”
You were comparing heating air respective to water – you just can’t comprehend that because you’re thermodynamically illiterate.
It was a simple exercise to relate 100 litres of earth’s air over 100 litres of water in a bathtub for a 1C change to arrive at the relative insignificance of 1C heat in earths air:
418,200 Joules – water
117.4 Joules – air.
>”A 1C change for all Earth is a huge change.”
Again, In the troposphere, relative to a small change in ocean temperature (much less than 1C), in terms of heat in Joules, no it isn’t huge. It is negligible.
NASA Energy Budget Changes 1950 – 2004 Figure (b) (Budget closure of Figure a)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/cumulative_neg_forcing.gif
If it wasn’t for the text and arrow pointing out “land + atmosphere” nobody would even know there was any atmospheric energy accumulation. And this is over the IPCC’s anthro attribution period beginning 1950 up to 2004.
>”1C in a bath is neither here nor there.”
It is when related to your 1C change in an equivalent volume of earth’s air :
418,200 Joules – water
117.4 Joules – air.
Now think of a small change in ocean temperature (say 0.15C) and how much heat that is compared to a 1C change in air):
62,739 Joules – water 0.15C change 100 litres
117.4 Joules – air 1C change 100 litres
Dennis
>”So you don’t need more energy to warm (Earth) more.”
Are you seriously suggesting 0.6 W.m-2 surface solar forcing global average (24 W.m-2 tropics) is NOT “more energy” ?
Multiply that by the earth’s surface area Dennis. Then find the cumulative sum over decades.
I think you will find it is “more energy”.
On the subject of local elections, Gen Zero – the Hitler Youth of the climate movement, have a handy guide to the politically correct local government candidates and their response to the pseudo-science of CAGW
http://www.localelections.nz/
Note who they have cunningly bought the domain to make it look official and not run by an astro-turf eco-fascist organisation
Richard C (NZ)
Where does the 0.6 W/m2 come from?
It comes from Earth radiating less energy than it is receiving.
Due to a greater greenhouse effect.
Because we have added greenhouse gases – notably CO2 – to the atmosphere.
So Earth will warm up until it radiates the same energy out as comes in, as it was doing before we altered the CO2 level.
I’m sorry I can’t make it any easier for you to understand. You’ve got too much gobbledygook locked away.
Maybe electroconvulsive therapy would help loosen it.
Dennis
The IPCC equate the net TOA flux to ocean heating rate:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
The ocean heating rate is on average 0.6 W.m-2 and solar forced at surface:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
No rational person can deny this Dennis.
Where does the 0.6 W/m2 come from?
This is within the range of natural variability. All the RCP models assume a much higher energy imbalance that this,
Andy. Thanks for the link. This comment sums it up.
http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/
Sou from Bundanga
The question about what leads an objective non-scientist to reject mainstream science is interesting, not for the face value question, but for the inclusion of the word “objective”. There have been quite a few cognitive science studies about why people (who presumably all regard themselves as being rational, objective people) reject or embrace notions that aren’t supported by fact. One common finding is that a person’s world view is so entrenched that it prevents them from being objective. See if you can find papers about “mental models”, “world view” and “motivated rejection of science”.
Of course one’s world view and mental models may also cause one to reject cognitive science as well as mainstream physics, chemistry, (climate), and biological science.
Richard C (NZ)
There would be no warming without an energy imbalance, that is, an increase in the energy retained. That increase arises because Earth is radiating less than it is receiving. It will do so until it radiates the same energy as it receives, when it reaches a higher temperature. It won’t do that if we keep adding more CO2.
That’s it.
Suck it up.
Dennis, which bit of the article did you disagree with?
Apparently, according to our local council, sea levels will transition from a linear rate from the last 100 years to treble overnight and then rapidly accelerate to 100cm
I think that the reason a lot of people buy this kind of BS is that they are mentally retarded and believe everything the government tells them, and are incapable of a rational analysis of facts using logic, reason and science
Dennis, was the Earth in perfect equilibrium with no energy imbalance for the entire history of Earth before we started emitting CO2?
Dennis
>”There would be no warming without an energy imbalance, that is, an increase in the energy retained.”
Correct. Solar forced in the ocean as shown by IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3 and IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1.
>”That increase arises because Earth is radiating less than it is receiving.”
Correct. The 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance at TOA is the solar forced 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance at the surface.
>”It will do so until it radiates the same energy as it receives, when it reaches a higher temperature.”
Or until the accumulated solar-forced ocean heat dissipates as solar forcing recedes over time. At 2003, 2007, and 2010 the imbalance was barely above zero:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
All 3 of those years were weak or moderate El Nino years:
El Niño and La Niña Years
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Expect the same for 2015/16. The imbalance could very easily be erased by the strong El Nino.
May even go negative given the minimal 2010 imbalance in a moderate El Nino.
Worth pointing out at this juncture that theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA is now 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm.
But the earth’s energy imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2.
So much for that theory.
Dennis,
There are at least two variables missing from this long argument: clouds and water vapour, both of which are poorly known, especially water vapour. You give the impression you believe that the amount the earth radiates is determined by its present temperature; it is not. As you know, when more energy is absorbed by the earth, less energy will be radiated. In the same way, if more energy is reflected to space by, say, more cloud cover, ice or snow, less energy will be absorbed.
Forgive this simplistic approach, but I thought it shouldn’t be omitted from your spat with RC.
Richard Treadgold: “the amount the earth radiates is determined by its present temperature; it is not”
Yes, it.
Earth radiates (mainly) from the outer part of the atmosphere according to the temperature. LW.
Energy is reflected, SW: albedo. Lower with less ice; that sent the Arctic temperatures up this year.
The energy imbalance is caused by Earth retaining more energy than it loses so the temperature goes up until a steady state is established at a higher temperature.
Nothing to do with El Nino and La Nina. That’s the ocean and atmosphere exchanging energy: internal variability.
I’m not sure anyone is disputing that there exists a small energy imbalance. The issues are that this is somewhat less than the theoretical CO2 forcing and not increasing as far as I know
Dennis
>”Earth radiates (mainly) from the outer part of the atmosphere according to the temperature.”
No it doesn’t.
Atmospheric radiation from TOA is not the big OLR flux. Satellites measure OLR at TOA but they are mostly “seeing” top of troposphere (see IPCC). Some prefer effective emission level (ERL) which is centre of mass which is mid troposphere.
>”“the amount the earth radiates is determined by its present temperature; it is not” Yes, it. [is]
Yes and no. RT was referring to “absorbed” energy.
As RT alludes, energy “absorbed” at surface e.g. below ocean surface, stays “absorbed” until dissipation by either latent heat, radiation or sensible heat. It does not radiate at TOA, or anywhere else, when it is 1000m below MSL.
Yes the earth emits according to S-B (T^4) but the ocean can only emit from the surface. And observed OLR is nothing like theoretical S-B emission as shown upthread.
>”The energy imbalance is caused by Earth retaining more energy than it loses so the temperature goes up until a steady state is established at a higher temperature.”
How then do you explain the almost zero energy imbalance (“steady state”) during the El Nino years 2003, 2007, and 2010? The error margin negative in a couple of years (see plot below).
>[Imbalance] “Nothing to do with El Nino and La Nina. That’s the ocean and atmosphere exchanging energy: internal variability.”
This is drivel Dennis. You don’t know what you are talking about. El Nino is a release of heat from the ocean (but yes “exchange” if you like). The energy passes through the troposphere to space. OLR hikes up closing up the earth’s energy imbalance. See imbalance 2003, 2007, 2010:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
Margin of uncertainty in negative imbalance territory 2003 and 2010.
And from paper: Interannual variability of outgoing longwave radiation as observed by AIRS and CERES, Susskind et al, Journal of Geophysical Research (2012)
Figure 2. OLR Anomaly Time Series September 2002 through through June 2011.
Global Mean and Tropical Mean [All Sky and Clear Sky]
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/susskind-2012-ceres-airs-elnino.png?w=750&h=1058
Clearly OLR is up during 2003, 2007, and 2010.
The 2016 El Nino was much stronger than these years so we can expect OLR to hike up again and the imbalance to maybe go negative or at least zero imbalance.
NASA JPL,
El Nino is an abrupt oceanic heat dissipation process.
El Nino and Outgoing Longwave Radiation: Observations from Nimbus-7 ERB [1982/83 El Nino]
Ardanuy and Kyle (1985)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1986)114%3C0415:ENAOLR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
In respect to FIG. 6(b) page 14 pdf,
CERES data for OLR and solar SW, and combined for imbalance, is very clear. Willis Eschenbach has plotted it all here:
CERES data plots
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/08/three-clocks/
Figure 4. Upwelling longwave radiation [OLR]. Top panel shows actual data. Middle panel shows the regular seasonal variation. The bottom panel shows the residual, calculated as the data minus the seasonal component.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/top-of-atmosphere-upwelling-longwave-ceres-global-actual-loess.jpg
Figure 7. Net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance. Note that this is an anomaly, because there is a known error of about a 5 W/m2 difference in the incoming and outgoing CERES radiation data. So while we can use it for trends and standard deviations, it cannot tell us if there is an overall persistent imbalance in the TOA radiation. Positive values show the system gaining energy, and negative values show it losing energy. Panels as in previous figures, showing the data (top panel) along with the seasonal and residual components of the signal.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/top-of-atmosphere-toa-imbalance-ceres-global-actual-loess.jpg
He gets the same OLR profile as Loeb et al (natch) showing pronounced El Nino peaks and the same TOA imbalance profile but points out that his plot CANNOT be used to determine whether there is an actual imbalance or not.
NOAA’s data from a different satellite system is a different story. Inverse OLR index when plotted against ENSO and has missing data in 2009 unfortunately:
NOAA: ENSO vs OLR Polar Orbiting
https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/enso_and_olr.jpg?w=675&h=449
“Negative …..OLR [red] are indicative of enhanced ……..convection and hence more ……..cloud coverage typical of El Niño.” [W.m-2]
201507 -0.3
201508 -1.4
201509 -1.5
201510 -1.4
201511 -1.3
201512 -2.5
201601 -1.9
201602 -2.4
201603 -1.6
201604 -0.9
201605 -0.2
201606 +0.1
These negative index values correspond to positive OLR in the CERES plots above.
1997/98 was not as pronounced in this dataset:
199702 +0.5
199703 -1.0
199704 -1.2
199705 -1.7
199706 -0.9
199707 -1.4
199708 -1.6
199709 -1.2
199710 -2.4
199711 -0.4
199712 -1.3
199801 -0.6
199802 -0.3
>”The 2016 El Nino was much stronger than these years so we can expect OLR to hike up again……..”
Sure enough, from NOAA’s inverse index:
201507 -0.3
201512 -2.5
Richard C (NZ)
Where did I say Earth radiates from the top of the atmosphere (TOA)?
As you say, Earth radiates from the atmosphere where the greenhouses gases and water (clouds) reside.
We even have the numbers. Don’t we.
In round figures: Earth surface absorbs 48% incoming energy (solar, SW), atmosphere 23%. 71%
Energy radiated to space (LW): from surface 12%, cloud 9%, atmosphere (GHGs) 50%. 71%
They be the round figures. Actually, Earth has a net gain of 0.6 w/m2. So it’s warming.
So there we are. You knew all along about the greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect.
Do we have any evidence that the 0.6 W/m2 is caused by greenhouse gases?
Dennis
>”Where did I say Earth radiates from the top of the atmosphere (TOA)?”
Here:
Not true.
That’s where the satellites measure OLR, but the source is “mainly” the ERL in the centre of mass which is in the troposphere. The IPCC’s convention is the tropopause (top of troposphere).
>”Earth has a net gain of 0.6 w/m2. So it’s warming.”
Yes, oceanic warming solar forced at the surface according to IPCC surface energy budget by 0.6 W.m-2 which is 0.6 Jpules every second. The ocean warming is then eventually dissipated out through the troposphere or directly to space. An El Nino demonstrates this process in a compressed timeframe.
It’s NOT warming according to theoretical GHG forcing:
CO2 now 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm.
2.83 is 4.7 times actual (0.6). Hence the IPCC’s massive theory blowout of excess energy.
Correction
The NOAA OLR data and graph upthread is NOT an “inverse” index as I assumed. It is exactly opposite to CERES because CERES is Global but NOAA is OLR for a very small region – EQUATOR/160E-160W
NOAA’s OLR data source is here:
OUTGOING LONG WAVE RADIATION EQUATOR/160E-160W
ORIGINAL DATA, ANOMALY, STANDARDIZED DATA
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
ANOMALY
2010 -30.9 -35.7 -23.0 -4.9 9.7 15.8 13.9 16.5 22.1 23.0 26.5 37.2
STANDARDIZED DATA
2010 -2.0 -2.3 -1.5 -0.3 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.4
El Nino peak was JAN -2.0, FEB -2.3
CERES Global OLR anomaly is opposite and a much smaller anomaly (JAN +1.0):
CERES Global: Upwelling longwave radiation [OLR]. Top panel shows actual data. Middle panel shows the regular seasonal variation. The bottom panel shows the residual, calculated as the data minus the seasonal component.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/top-of-atmosphere-upwelling-longwave-ceres-global-actual-loess.jpg
NOAA say about El Nino:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/olr/
This is just for the Equatorial region 160E-160W. Obviously the global response is almost exactly opposite. NOAA does not explain why this opposite response (that I can find).
Maps of CERES Global OLR for January and December 2010 in following comment.
A global map of January 2010 OLR can be viewed here:
CERES: Outgoing Longwave Radiation (1 month) – January 2010 [Adjust setting from December]
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M&year=2010
Just guessing (no other way I can think of), the NOAA data above is for the blue zone on the right side at the equator. Compare that to December 2010 when NOAA’s El Nino region had gone from max negative to max positive but Global CERES had gone in the opposite direction:
CERES: Outgoing Longwave Radiation (1 month) – December 2010
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M&year=2010
Not nearly as much global OLR after an El Nino.
Richard C (NZ)
You explained to me where the radiation that allows Earth to lose energy comes from. That part of the atmosphere where we find the greenhouses gases and clouds (water). Mostly.
So. You knew the science all along. Don’t be so modest.
Earth is inhabitable due to the greenhouse effect. We have increased an important GHG 40% so the GHE has increased and Earth is warming.
Nothing to be ashamed of, Richard C (NZ), realising you find yourself in agreement with the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society … and every scientific institution and society on the planet.
Welcome back to Earth, Richard C (NZ) !
>”NOAA does not explain why this opposite response (that I can find).”
Just looking at those CERES maps, Jan 2010 vs Dec, there’s a “blob” of red at top right of Jan in the Northern Hemisphere that almost disappears in Dec. There is also much less red across the NH in Dec.
These are the major differences that I can see. Seems to indicate that the 2010 El Nino was biased to the NH. Changing the settings to Feb 2013 and Feb 2016 shows the 2015/16 El Nino. GMST was biased almost exclusively to the NH but that doesn’t show up in OLR although there is extra red in the NH. But there is extra red in the SH too.
CERES: Outgoing Longwave Radiation (1 month) – 2013 2016
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_LWFLUX_M&year=2016
What this does demonstrate is that GHGs don’t “trap” El Nino OLR. Clouds decrease OLR in the tropics but OLR actually increases globally.
Dennis
>”So. You knew the science all along.”
Yes, The troposphere is an energy TRANSFER medium. TRANSFERRING energy from the surface to space – Period
>”Earth is inhabitable due to the greenhouse effect.”
Earth is habitable because there’s an ENTIRE atmosphere. The Standard temperature profile of which is determined by mass/gravity/pressure and solar input. Nothing to do with “greenhouse effect”.
>”We have increased an important GHG 40% so the GHE has increased and Earth is warming.”
Non sequitur. Theoretical RF of WMGHG at TOA (2.83 W m–2 AR5) and increasing rapidly does NOT cause a constant solar-forced 0.6 W.m-2 surface warming.
Game over. You lose Dennis. But continue to DENY DENY DENY. It’s what you do.
Richard C (NZ)
Earth would not be inhabitable without the greenhouse effect; the temperature would be -18 instead of +15.
The idea began with Fourier in 1824 and has been studied ever since. Nowadays, tens of thousands of scientists study climate science and all agree it’s the greenhouse effect.
More CO2 means more energy retained so more warming and more ice lost.
You can call it a non sequitur but the global community of scientists calls it a fact.
Why do you continue confusing yourself trying to prove otherwise?
You know the truth! You explained it to me… (Remember your delight pointing out something I didn’t say!)
Earth would not be inhabitable without the greenhouse effect; the temperature would be -18 instead of +15
Other than by sucking all the CO2 out of the atmosphere, I’m not sure how we can prove or disprove this conjecture
Andy. We’re doing the experiment right now: we’ve added so much CO2 to the atmosphere the level has gone up 40% from 280 to 400ppm.
And guess what, Andy?
The mean global temperature has gone up and we’re losing ice. Due to more energy retained.
Evidence clear; science incontrovertible.
Dennis
>”Earth would not be inhabitable without the greenhouse effect; the temperature would be -18 instead of +15.”
The earth would not be habitable without an atmosphere – Period. The moon does not have an atmosphere. Warm side +100 degrees C, cold side -173 degrees C.
The temperature of the surface (+15.000), and every other altitude, is determined without recourse to any “greenhouse effect”. You’ve been shown this over and over but you continue to DENY it Dennis. As you do.
>”The idea began with Fourier in 1824″
You’ve also been shown that’s wrong too. Arrhenius made a miss-attribution to Fourier and clearly didn’t understand Fourier’s paper.
Fourier doesn’t even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).
Fourier (1824)
http://fourier1824.geologist-1011.mobi/
You don’t even get the history of your own proposition right Dennis.
>”Remember your delight pointing out something I didn’t say!”
No Dennis. What you DO say:
[Dennis Horne] >”Where did I say Earth radiates from the top of the atmosphere (TOA)?”
Here:
Dennis N Horne on September 20, 2016 at 6:27 pm said:
“Earth radiates (mainly) from the outer part of the atmosphere according to the temperature. LW.”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/renwick-distorts-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-1514431
Dennis,
You seem fixated on the thought that CO2 is the only factor increasing atmospheric temperature, when the record shows temperature fluctuating widely while CO2 rises almost monotonically. If what you say were true, temperature would be rising steadily too.
Dennis >”The mean global temperature has gone up and we’re losing ice. Due to more energy retained.
Yes, solar forced at surface (0.6 W.m-2)
>”Evidence clear; science incontrovertible.”
Yes. The IPCC provides the evidence for solar forcing at the surface.
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
Quite simple really. Odd the IPCC missed that in their attribution assessment. They could have saved themselves a lot of time and effort.
Dennis, your assertion is that without CO2 the Earth would be an average of -18 degrees
So, given that we haven’t removed all the CO2 and observed that the temperature is -18 degrees, it is reasonable to assume that we haven’t done the experiment, and this claim is a conjecture.
RC,
Yes. The IPCC provides the evidence for solar forcing at the surface.
Curious. It shows the surface imbalance as 0.6±17. What does it mean?
RT >”Curious. It shows the surface imbalance as 0.6±17. What does it mean?”
Firstly. It means massive uncertainty at the surface. The same uncertainty does not exist at TOA.
Secondly. It simply means more solar energy is going into the surface than there is energy coming out.
188.0 in (solar SW)
187.4 out (solar SW, SH, LH, LW)
0.6 difference
This is ‘surface forcing’ that the IPCC explicitly discards in AR4 because it does not fit their TOA paradigm.
The ‘surface forcing’ is surface solar radiation (SSR). The IPCC can’t have that.
RT
>”This is ‘surface forcing’ that the IPCC explicitly discards in AR4 because it does not fit their TOA paradigm”
IPCC AR4 WG1
2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing
This chapter also uses the term ‘surface forcing’ to refer to the instantaneous perturbation of the surface radiative balance by a forcing agent. Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1). Nevertheless, it is a useful diagnostic, particularly for aerosols (see Sections 2.4 and 2.9).
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
# # #
What they neglect to mention is that SSR ‘surface forcing’ not only perturbs the radiative balance it overwhelms Latent Heat (LH) and Sensible Heat (SH) too. This is particularly apparent in the tropics where SSR ‘surface forcing’ is in the order of 24 W.m-2 (Fairall et al 1996).. This is a massive forcing proving the sun heats the ocean in the tropics and where the current oceanic heat accumulation arises.
As is the case with much of the IPCC’s narrative, it’s not what they say that matters (voluminous), it’s what they don’t say that matters most (equally voluminous).
RC,
This is ‘surface forcing’ that the IPCC explicitly discards in AR4 because it does not fit their TOA paradigm.
But that 0.6 W.m-2 can vary between -16.4 W.m-2 and 17.6 W.m-2. That’s a very broad variability. You’re pretty dismissive of the IPCC’s rigour or conscientiousness in this but they’re not thick; surely they’ve noticed? Do they not explain it? Point me to it: where would they explain, if they were to explain?
RT
>”surely they’ve noticed?”
Oh yes, they’ve noticed. In AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 they cite the updated Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) from which the Figure 1 that you are looking at was sourced.
‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’
Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock & Timothy Andrews
(2012)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html
>”Do they not explain it?”
They explain why they dismiss ‘surface forcing’ in AR4. See my followup comment with the AR4 link and quote from Chapter 2, 2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing.
In respect to the specific 0.6 W.m-2 surface imbalance I’ll have to look that up in AR5 to see if they say anything at all. It will be in either the Technical Summary or Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere or Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution (or combinations of the 3).
>”Point me to it: where would they explain, if they were to explain?”
Working on that as above. Either:
Technical Summary; or
Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere; or
Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution; or
More than one of these 3.
“Technical Summary; or
Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere; or
Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution; or
More than one of these 3.”
Haha. The runaround. Thanks, I’ll keep trying to sort through it myself, but this is most helpful.
RT >”Point me to it: where would they explain, if they were to explain?”
First from Technical Summary
TS.2.3 Changes in Energy Budget and Heat Content
The Earth has been in radiative imbalance, with more energy from the Sun entering than exiting the top of the atmosphere, since at least about 1970. It is virtually certain that the Earth has gained substantial
energy from 1971 to 2010. The estimated increase in energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 is 274 [196 to 351] × 10^21 J (high confidence), with a heating rate of 213 × 10^12 W from a linear fit to the annual
values over that time period (see also TFE.4). {Boxes 3.1, 13.1} Ocean warming dominates that total heating rate, with full ocean depth warming accounting for about 93% (high confidence), and warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64%. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents each account for 3% of the total. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%. The 1971–2010 estimated rate of ocean energy gain is 199 × 10^12 W from a linear fit to data over that time period, equivalent to 0.42 W m–2 heating applied continuously over the Earth’s entire surface, and 0.55 W m–2 for the portion owing to ocean warming applied over the ocean’s entire surface area. The Earth’s estimated energy increase from 1993 to 2010 is 163 [127 to 201] × 10^21 J with a trend estimate of 275 × 10^15 W. The ocean portion of the trend for 1993–2010 is 257 × 10^12 W, equivalent to a mean heat flux into the ocean of 0.71 W m–2. {3.2.3, 3.2.4; Box 3.1}
Thematic Focus Elements
TFE.4 | The Changing Energy Budget of the Global Climate System
The global energy budget is a fundamental aspect of the Earth’s climate system and depends on many phenomena within it. The ocean has stored about 93% of the increase in energy in the climate system over recent decades, resulting in ocean thermal expansion and hence sea level rise. The rate of storage of energy in the Earth system must be equal to the net downward radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere, which is the difference between effective radiative forcing (ERF) due to changes imposed on the system and the radiative response of the system. There are also significant transfers of energy between components of the climate system and from one location to another. The focus here is on the Earth’s global energy budget since 1970, when better global observational data coverage is available. {3.7, 9.4, 13.4; Box 3.1} The ERF of the climate system has been positive as a result of increases in well-mixed (long-lived) greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, changes in short-lived GHGs (tropospheric and stratospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour), and an increase in solar irradiance (TFE.4, Figure 1a). This has been partly compensated by a negative contribution to the ERF of the climate system as a result of changes in tropospheric aerosol, which predominantly reflect sunlight and furthermore enhance the brightness of clouds, although black carbon produces positive forcing. Explosive volcanic eruptions (such as El Chichón in Mexico in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991) can inject sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, giving rise to stratospheric aerosol, which persists for several years.
Stratospheric aerosol reflects some of the incoming solar radiation and thus gives a negative forcing. Changes in surface albedo from land use change have also led to a greater reflection of shortwave radiation back to space and hence a negative forcing. Since 1970, the net ERF of the climate system has increased, and the integrated impact of these forcings is an energy inflow over this period (TFE.4, Figure 1a). {2.3, 8.5; Box 13.1}
TFE.4, Figure 1 | The Earth’s energy budget from 1970 through 2011. (a) The cumulative energy inflow into the Earth system from changes in well-mixed and shortlived greenhouse gases, solar forcing, tropospheric aerosol forcing, volcanic forcing and changes in surface albedo due to land use change (all relative to 1860–1879) are shown by the coloured lines; these contributions are added to give the total energy inflow (black; contributions from black carbon on snow and contrails as well as contrail-induced cirrus are included but not shown separately). (b) The cumulative total energy inflow from (a, black) is balanced by the sum of the energy uptake of the Earth system (blue; energy absorbed in warming the ocean, the atmosphere and the land, as well as in the melting of ice) and an increase in outgoing radiation
inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature. The sum of these two terms is given for a climate feedback parameter α of 2.47, 1.23 and 0.82 W m–2 °C–1, corresponding to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.5°C, 3.0°C and 4.5°C, respectively; 1.5°C to 4.5°C is assessed to be the likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity. The energy budget would be closed for a particular value of a if the corresponding line coincided with the total energy inflow. For clarity, all uncertainties (shading) shown are likely ranges. {Box 12.2; Box 13.1, Figure 1}
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
Technical Summary
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
# # #
Highly problematic
1) Total warming for only the short period 1970 – 2010 was 274 ZetaJoules of which 93% was into the ocean (255 ZJ). But theoretical GHG forcing in TFE 4 Figure 1(a) was 1220 ZetaJoules i.e. they have a massive excess of theoretical energy just from 1970 – 2010, let alone 1750 – 2016.
1a) They MUST have an anthro ocean warming attribution to sink their excess theoretical GHG energy, otherwise their theory is sunk (it is, because their attribution is scientifically fraudulent)
2) They don’t actually refer to the 0.6 W.m-2 entire surface imbalance. Instead they waffle on about ocean warming “equivalent” fluxes spread over the entire surface, for some inexplicable reason (0.42 W m–2 and 0.55 W m–2).
3) They neglect to address the surface energy budget where surface warming is simply SSR (0.6 W m-2) because they threw out ‘surface forcing’ in AR4. Instead they resort to their TOA paradigm where they waffle on about the “ERF” and invoke GHG forcing. But the “ERF” is a blow out, far in excess of (3.8 times) 0.6 W m-2.
ERF: 2.3 W m-2
RF of WMGHG: 2.83 W m-2
RF of CO2: 1.82 W m-2
Actual: 0.6 W m-2 surface and TOA.
This is scientific fraud on a grand scale. Enough to chew on for now. I’ll have a look at Chapters 2 and 10 another time (maybe).
“This is scientific fraud on a grand scale.”
The numbers were numbing and this grabbed me by the throat so I retraced the final paragraphs. Where to start? The 0.6 Wm-2 at surface isn’t much; is there evidence that it’s anthropogenic? I’ll keep chewing. Thanks.
RT >”Point me to it: where would they explain, if they were to explain?”
Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution, Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean (Technical Summary previously).
Executive Summary – Ocean Temperatures and Sea Level Rise
It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to upper ocean warming (above 700 m) observed since the 1970s. [………] Observations of ocean warming are consistent with climate model simulations that include anthropogenic and volcanic forcings but are inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings. Simulations that include both anthropogenic and natural forcings have decadal variability that is consistent with observations.
10.4 Changes in Ocean Properties
10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content
The oceans are a key part of the Earth’s energy balance (Boxes 3.1 and 13.1). Observational studies continue to demonstrate that the ocean heat content has increased in the upper layers of the ocean during the second half of the 20th century and early 21st century (Section 3.2; Bindoff et al., 2007), and that this increase is consistent with a net positive radiative imbalance in the climate system. It is of significance that this heat content increase is an order of magnitude larger than the increase in energy content of any other component of the Earth’s ocean–atmosphere–cryosphere system and accounts for more than 90% of the Earth’s energy increase between 1971 and 2010 (e.g., Boxes 3.1 and 13.1; Bindoff et al., 2007; Church et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2011).
[…]
Gleckler et al. (2012) examined the detection and attribution of upperocean warming in the context of uncertainties in the underlying observational data sets, models and methods. Using three bias-corrected
observational estimates of upper-ocean temperature changes (Domingues et al., 2008; Ishii and Kimoto, 2009; Levitus et al., 2009) and models from the CMIP3 multi-model archive, they found that multi-
decadal trends in the observations were best understood by including contributions from both natural and anthropogenic forcings. The anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean warming, driven by
global mean and basin-scale pattern changes, was also detected. The strength of this signal (estimated from successively longer trend periods of ocean heat content starting from 1970) crossed the 5% and 1%
significance threshold in 1980 and progressively becomes more strongly detected for longer trend periods (Figure 10.14b), for all ocean heat content time series.
[…]
The high levels of confidence and the increased understanding of the contributions from both natural and anthropogenic sources across the many studies mean that it is very likely that the increase in global ocean heat content observed in the upper 700 m since the 1970s has a substantial contribution from
anthropogenic forcing.
Although there is high confidence in understanding the causes of global heat content increases, attribution of regional heat content changes are less certain. Earlier regional studies used a fixed depth data and only considered basin-scale averages (Barnett et al., 2005). At regional scales, however, changes in advection of ocean heat are important and need to be isolated from changes due to air–sea heat fluxes (Palmer et al., 2009; Grist et al., 2010). Their fixed isotherm (rather than fixed depth) approach to optimal detection analysis, in addition to being largely insensitive to observational biases, is designed to separate the ocean’s response to air–sea flux changes from advective changes.
Air–sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences.
[…]
Considering that individual ocean basins are affected by different observational and modelling uncertainties and that internal variability is larger at smaller scales, detection of significant anthropogenic
forcing through space and time studies (Palmer et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 2012) provides more compelling evidence of human influence at regional scales of near-surface ocean warming observed during the
second half of the 20th century
10.8.2.2 Estimates Based on Top of the Atmosphere Radiative Balance
With the satellite era, measurements are now long enough to allow direct estimates of variations in the energy budget of the planet, although the measurements are not sufficiently accurate to determine
absolute top of the atmosphere (TOA) fluxes or trends (see Section 2.3 and Box 13.1).
Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
# # #
Highly problematic (again)
1) As previously, they don’t defer to the 0.6 W.m-2 surface imbalance and budget at any time. Instead they waffle about climate models and that “this [OHC] increase is consistent with a net positive radiative imbalance in the climate system”. Well yes, of course it is. But it is solar forced the surface.
2) They neglect to mention their humongous theoretical GHG energy excess which is far greater than the TOA imbalance i.e. OHC is “consistent” with the solar forced 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance both TOA and surface but “inconsistent” with GHG forcing.
3) As previously, they MUST have an anthro ocean warming attribution to sink their excess theoretical GHG energy, otherwise their theory is sunk (it is, because their attribution is scientifically fraudulent). But Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean had no evidence whatsoever for their “expected” “air-sea fluxes” (see below).
4) In Chapter 3 below, they miss-attribute the surface imbalance – “The estimate of increase in global ocean heat content for 1971–2010 quantified in Box 3.1 corresponds to an increase in mean net heat flux from the atmosphere to the ocean of 0.55 W m–2”. There is NO “mean net heat flux from the atmosphere to the ocean” in the surface energy budget.
They couldn’t find their “expected” “air-sea fluxes” and there is no net DLR flux into the surface in the surface energy budget anyway.
Again, this is scientific fraud an a grand scale.
RT >”Point me to it: where would they explain, if they were to explain?”
Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface (Technical Summary, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution, Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean previously).
2.3.1 Global Mean Radiation Budget
Since AR4, knowledge on the magnitude of the radiative energy fluxes in the climate system has improved, requiring an update of the global annual mean energy balance diagram (Figure 2.11 [Adapted from Wild et al., 2013, note 0.6 “solar absorbed surface”]). Energy exchanges between Sun, Earth and Space are observed from space-borne platforms such as the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES, Wielicki et al., 1996) and the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE, Kopp and Lawrence, 2005) which began data collection in 2000 and 2003, respectively.
[…]
The estimate for the reflected solar radiation at the TOA in Figure 2.11, 100 W m–2, is a rounded value based on the CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) satellite data product (Loeb et al., 2009, 2012b) for
the period 2001–2010. This data set adjusts the solar and thermal TOA fluxes within their range of uncertainty to be consistent with independent estimates of the global heating rate based on in situ ocean
observations (Loeb et al., 2012b). This leaves 240 W m–2 of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth, which is nearly balanced by thermal emission to space of about 239 W m–2 (based on CERES EBAF), considering
a global heat storage of 0.6 W m–2 (imbalance term in Figure 2.11) based on Argo data from 2005 to 2010 (Hansen et al., 2011; Loeb et al., 2012b; Box 3.1). The stated uncertainty in the solar reflected TOA fluxes from CERES due to uncertainty in absolute calibration alone is about 2% (2-sigma), or equivalently 2 W m–2 (Loeb et al., 2009). The uncertainty of the outgoing thermal flux at the TOA as measured by CERES due to calibration is ~3.7 W m–2 (2σ). In addition to this, there is uncertainty in removing the influence of instrument spectral response on measured radiance, in radiance-to-flux conversion, and in time–
space averaging, which adds up to another 1 W m–2 (Loeb et al., 2009).
The components of the radiation budget at the surface are generally more uncertain than their counterparts at the TOA because they cannot be directly measured by passive satellite sensors and surface measurements are not always regionally or globally representative.
[…]
Estimates of absorbed solar radiation at the Earth’s surface include considerable uncertainty. Published global mean values inferred from satellite retrievals, reanalyses and climate models range from below
160 W m–2 to above 170 W m–2.
[…]
Recent independently derived surface radiation estimates favour therefore a global mean surface absorbed solar flux near 160 W m–2 and a downward thermal flux slightly above 340 W m–2, respectively
(Figure 2.11 [Adapted from Loeb et al., 2012b.)]).
[…]
The emerging debate reflects potential remaining deficiencies in the quantification of the radiative
and non-radiative energy balance components and associated uncertainty ranges, as well as in the consistent representation of the global mean energy and water budgets (Stephens et al., 2012b; Trenberth and Fasullo, 2012b; Wild et al., 2013).
2.3.2 Changes in Top of the Atmosphere Radiation Budget
The variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance is strongly influenced by ocean circulation changes relating to the ENSO (Box 2.5); during cooler La Niña years (e.g., 2009) less thermal radiation is emitted and the climate system gains heat while the reverse is true for warmer El Niño years (e.g., 2010) (Figure 2.12).
2.3.3 Changes in Surface Radiation Budget
2.3.3.1 Surface Solar Radiation
[SSR – see following comment]
2.3.3.2 Surface Thermal and Net Radiation
Thermal radiation, also known as longwave, terrestrial or far-IR radiation is sensitive to changes in atmospheric GHGs, temperature and humidity. Long-term measurements of the thermal surface components as well as surface net radiation are available at far fewer sites than SSR. Downward thermal radiation observations started to become available during the early 1990s at a limited number of globally
distributed terrestrial sites. From these records, Wild et al. (2008) determined an overall increase of 2.6 W m–2 per decade over the 1990s, in line with model projections and the expectations of an increasing
greenhouse effect. Wang and Liang (2009) inferred an increase in downward thermal radiation of 2.2 W m–2 per decade over the period 1973–2008 from globally available terrestrial observations of temperature, humidity and cloud fraction. Prata (2008) estimated a slightly lower increase of 1.7 W m–2 per decade for clear sky conditions over the earlier period 1964–1990, based on observed temperature and humidity profiles from globally distributed land-based radiosonde stations and radiative transfer calculations. Philipona et al. (2004; 2005) and Wacker et al. (2011) noted increasing downward thermal fluxes recorded in the Swiss Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network since the mid-1990s, corroborating an increasing greenhouse effect. For mainland Europe, Philipona et al. (2009) estimated an increase of downward thermal radiation of 2.4 to 2.7 W m–2 per decade for the period 1981–2005.
There is limited observational information on changes in surface net radiation, in large part because measurements of upward fluxes at the surface are made at only a few sites and are not spatially representative. Wild et al. (2004, 2008) inferred a decline in land surface net radiation on the order of 2 W m–2 per decade from the 1960s to the 1980s, and an increase at a similar rate from the 1980s to 2000, based on estimated changes of the individual radiative components that constitute the surface net radiation. Philipona et al. (2009) estimated an increase in surface net radiation of 1.3 to 2 W m–2 per decade for central Europe and the Alps between 1981 and 2005.
2.3.3.3 Implications from Observed Changes in Related Climate Elements
[SSR – see following comment]
Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
# # #
1) They explicitly state by figure that the power flux absorbed at surface is “solar absorbed surface” – “(Figure 2.11 [Adapted from Wild et al., 2013, note 0.6 “solar absorbed surface”])”. Right next to that on the figure is “0.6”. It is perfectly obvious then that that the 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance is “solar absorbed surface” and the IPCC know it. For them to then miss-attribute surface absorption is scientific fraud.
2) They explicitly state “absorbed” solar flux at surface – “surface radiation estimates favour therefore a global mean surface absorbed solar flux near 160 W m–2”, but they do NOT state any net downward thermal flux “absorbed” because there isn’t one. It is therefore impossible to make an anthro ocean warming attribution but they do so anyway. Clearly, ocean warming is solar forced and the IPCC is indulging in scientific fraud.
3) They have plenty of literature presenting the surface energy budget – Wild et al., (2012/13), Loeb et al., (2012), Hansen et al., (2011), Stephens et al., (2012), Trenberth and Fasullo, (2012), so there is no excuse for not adopting 0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing at surface. In the following comment they have screeds on SSR ‘surface forcing’ but its all discarded.
4) DLR per decade changes are huge in the order of several W.m-2 but the CO2 component of DLR is minor, about 3% now. And the per decade change in the CO2 is only fractions of total CO2 i.e. fractions of 3% of total DLR. And they they don’t state any DLR absorption at the surface because there isn’t any and net surface IR is OLR.
This is an incredibly deceptive and scientifically fraudulent assessment. Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) to follow.
Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
2.3.3 Changes in Surface Radiation Budget
2.3.3.1 Surface Solar Radiation [SSR]
Since AR4, numerous studies have substantiated the findings of significant decadal SSR changes observed both at worldwide distributed terrestrial sites (Dutton et al., 2006; Wild et al., 2008; Gilgen et al.,
2009; Ohmura, 2009; Wild, 2009 and references therein) as well as in specific regions. In Europe, Norris and Wild (2007) noted a dimming between 1971 and 1986 of 2.0 to 3.1 W m–2 per decade and subsequent brightening of 1.1 to 1.4 W m–2 per decade from 1987 to 2002 in a pan-European time series comprising 75 sites. Similar tendencies were found at sites in northern Europe (Stjern et al., 2009), Estonia (Russak, 2009) and Moscow (Abakumova et al., 2008). Chiacchio and Wild (2010) pointed out that dimming and subsequent brightening in Europe is seen mainly in spring and summer. Brightening in Europe from the 1980s onward was further documented at sites in Switzerland, Germany, France, the Benelux, Greece, Eastern Europe and the Iberian Peninsula (Ruckstuhl et al., 2008; Wild et al., 2009; Zerefos et al., 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013). Concurrent brightening of 2 to 8 W m–2 per decade was also noted at continental sites in the USA (Long et al., 2009; Riihimaki et al., 2009; Augustine and Dutton, 2013).
The general pattern of dimming and consecutive brightening was further found at numerous sites in Japan (Norris and Wild, 2009; Ohmura, 2009; Kudo et al., 2011) and in the SH in New Zealand (Liley, 2009).
Analyses of observations from sites in China confirmed strong declines in SSR from the 1960s to 1980s on the order of 2 to 8 W m–2 per decade, which also did not persist in the 1990s (Che et al., 2005; Liang and Xia, 2005; Qian et al., 2006; Shi et al., 2008; Norris and Wild, 2009; Xia, 2010a). On the other hand, persistent dimming since the mid-20th century with no evidence for a trend reversal was noted at sites in India (Wild et al., 2005; Kumari et al., 2007; Kumari and Goswami, 2010; Soni et al., 2012) and in the Canadian Prairie (Cutforth and Judiesch, 2007). Updates on latest SSR changes observed since 2000 provide a less coherent picture (Wild, 2012). They suggest a continuation of brightening at sites in Europe, USA, and parts of Asia, a levelling off at sites in Japan and Antarctica, and indications for a renewed dimming in parts of China (Wild et al., 2009; Xia, 2010a). The longest observational SSR records, extending back to the 1920s and 1930s at a few sites in Europe, further indicate some brightening during the first half of the 20th century, known as ‘early brightening’ (cf. Figure 2.13) (Ohmura, 2009; Wild, 2009). This suggests that the decline in SSR, at least in Europe, was confined to a period between the 1950s and 1980s. A number of issues remain, such as the quality and representativeness of some of the SSR data as well as the large-scale significance of the phenomenon (Wild, 2012). The historic radiation records are of variable quality and rigorous quality control is necessary to avoid spurious trends (Dutton et al., 2006; Shi et al., 2008; Gilgen et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012e; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013). Since
the mid-1990s, high-quality data are becoming increasingly available from new sites of the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) and Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program, which allow the determination of SSR variations with unprecedented accuracy (Ohmura et al., 1998). Alpert et al. (2005) and Alpert and Kishcha (2008) argued that the observed SSR decline between 1960 and 1990 was larger in densely populated than in rural areas. The magnitude of this ‘urbanization effect’ in the radiation data is not yet well quantified. Dimming and brightening is, however, also notable at remote and rural sites (Dutton et al., 2006; Karnieli et al., 2009; Liley, 2009; Russak, 2009; Wild, 2009; Wang et al., 2012d).
Globally complete satellite estimates have been available since the early 1980s (Hatzianastassiou et al., 2005; Pinker et al., 2005; Hinkelman et al., 2009). Because satellites do not directly measure the
surface fluxes, they have to be inferred from measurable TOA signals using empirical or physical models to remove atmospheric perturbations. Available satellite-derived products qualitatively agree on a brightening from the mid-1980s to 2000 averaged globally as well as over oceans, on the order of 2 to 3 W m–2 per decade (Hatzianastassiou et al., 2005; Pinker et al., 2005; Hinkelman et al., 2009). Averaged over land, however, trends are positive or negative depending on the respective satellite product (Wild, 2009). Knowledge of the decadal variation of aerosol burdens and optical properties, required in satellite retrievals of SSR and considered relevant for dimming/brightening particularly over land, is very limited (Section 2.2.3). Extensions of satellite-derived SSR beyond 2000 indicate tendencies towards a renewed
dimming at the beginning of the new millennium (Hinkelman et al., 2009; Hatzianastassiou et al., 2012).
[…]
Overall, these proxies provide independent evidence for the existence of large-scale multi-decadal variations in SSR. Specifically, widespread observations of declines in pan evaporation from the 1950s to the 1980s were related to SSR dimming amongst other factors (Roderick and Farquhar, 2002). The observed decline in DTR over global land surfaces from the 1950s to the 1980s (Section 2.4.1.2), and its stabilisation thereafter fits to a large-scale dimming and subsequent brightening, respectively (Wild et al., 2007). Widespread brightening after 1980 is further supported by reconstructions from sunshine duration
records (Wang et al., 2012e). Over Europe, SSR dimming and subsequent brightening is consistent with concurrent declines and increases in sunshine duration (Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2008), evaporation
in energy limited environments (Teuling et al., 2009), visibility records (Vautard et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009b) and DTR (Makowski et al., 2009). The early brightening in the 1930s and 1940s seen in a few
European SSR records is in line with corresponding changes in sunshine duration and DTR (Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2008; Wild, 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo and Wild, 2012). In China, the levelling off in SSR in
the 1990s after decades of decline coincides with similar tendencies in the pan evaporation records, sunshine duration and DTR (Liu et al., 2004a; Liu et al., 2004b; Qian et al., 2006; Ding et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2012d). Dimming up to the 1980s and subsequent brightening is also indicated in a set of 237 sunshine duration records in South America (Raichijk, 2011).
2.3.3.3 Implications from Observed Changes in Related Climate Elements
The observed multi-decadal SSR variations cannot be explained by changes in TSI, which are an order of magnitude smaller (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003). They therefore have to originate from alterations
in the transparency of the atmosphere, which depends on the presence of clouds, aerosols and radiatively active gases (Kvalevag and Myhre, 2007; Kim and Ramanathan, 2008). Cloud cover changes (Section 2.5.7) effectively modulate SSR on an interannual basis, but their contribution to the longer-term SSR trends is ambiguous. Although cloud cover changes were found to explain the trends in some areas (e.g., Liley, 2009), this is not always the case, particularly in relatively polluted regions (Qian et al., 2006; Norris and Wild, 2007, 2009; Wild, 2009; Kudo et al., 2012). SSR dimming and brightening has also been observed under cloudless atmospheres at various locations, pointing to a prominent role of atmospheric aerosols (Wild et al., 2005; Qian et al., 2007; Ruckstuhl et al., 2008; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009b; Zerefos et al., 2009).
Aerosols can directly attenuate SSR by scattering and absorbing solar radiation, or indirectly, through their ability to act as cloud condensation nuclei, thereby changing cloud reflectivity and lifetime (Chapter
7). SSR dimming and brightening is often reconcilable with trends in anthropogenic emission histories and atmospheric aerosol loadings (Stern, 2006; Streets et al., 2006; Mishchenko et al., 2007; Ruckstuhl et
al., 2008; Ohvril et al., 2009; Russak, 2009; Streets et al., 2009; Cermak et al., 2010; Wild, 2012). Recent trends in aerosol optical depth derived from satellites indicate a decline in Europe since 2000 (Section 2.2.3), in line with evidence from SSR observations. However, direct aerosol effects alone may not be able to account for the full extent of the observed SSR changes in remote regions with low pollution levels
(Dutton and Bodhaine, 2001; Schwartz, 2005). Aerosol indirect effects have not yet been well quantified, but have the potential to amplify aerosol-induced SSR trends, particularly in relatively pristine environments, such as over oceans (Wild, 2012). SSR trends are also qualitatively in line with observed multi-decadal surface warming trends (Chapter 10), with generally smaller warming rates during phases of declining SSR, and larger warming rates in phases of increasing SSR (Wild et al., 2007). This is seen more pronounced for the relatively polluted NH than the more pristine SH (Wild, 2012). For Europe, Vautard et al. (2009) found that a decline in the frequency of low-visibility conditions such as fog, mist and haze over the past 30 years and associated SSR increase may be responsible for 10 to 20% of Europe’s recent daytime warming, and 50% of Eastern European warming. Philipona (2012) noted that both warming and brightening are weaker in the European Alps compared to the surrounding lowlands with stronger aerosol declines since 1981.
Reanalyses and observationally based methods have been used to show that increased atmospheric moisture with warming (Willett et al., 2008; Section 2.5) enhances thermal radiative emission of the
atmosphere to the surface, leading to reduced net thermal cooling of the surface (Prata, 2008; Allan, 2009; Philipona et al., 2009; Wang and Liang, 2009). In summary, the evidence for widespread multi-decadal variations in solar radiation incident on land surfaces has been substantiated since AR4, with many of the observational records showing a decline from the 1950s to the 1980s (‘dimming’), and a partial recovery thereafter (‘brightening’). Confidence in these changes is high in regions with high station densities such as over Europe and parts of Asia. These likely changes are generally supported by observed changes in related, but more widely measured variables, such as sunshine duration, DTR and hydrological quantities, and are often in line with aerosol emission patterns. Over some remote land areas and over the oceans, confidence is low owing to the lack of direct observations, which hamper a truly global assessment. Satellite-derived SSR fluxes support the existence of brightening also over oceans, but are less consistent over land surface where direct aerosol effects become more important. There are also indications for increasing downward thermal and net radiation at terrestrial stations since the early 1990s with medium confidence.
Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
# # #
1) SSR is the ONLY surface heating agent. There is no other. The 0.6 W.m-2 surface imbalance is surface solar radiation (SSR) forcing i.e. ‘surface forcing’. The above assessment, having been done in AR5 Chapter 2, is then discarded because the IPCC threw out ‘surface forcing’ in AR4. So all of the above is effectively of no consequence in the overall AR5 assessment.
2) Mutlidecadal SSR changes are huge, several W.m-2. They easily overwhelm any other fluxes because SSR is the surface heating agent. And “SSR trends are also qualitatively in line with observed multi-decadal surface warming trends”. Surface warming of air and ocean is largely explained just by this alone. Now consider all that (discarded) SSR assessment in comparison to their “evidence” for their “expected” “air-sea fluxes” (Chapter 10) upon which they make anthro ocean warming attribution-by-speculation:
They cannot detect their “air-sea” fluxes because they do not exist. There is no heat transfer from air to sea. Those speculated but unidentified “air-sea fluxes” do not exist in their surface energy budget. And they are a physically impossible heating agent anyway on account of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the physics of the AO interface.
3) SSR accounts for surface warming. The IPCC explicitly states “solar absorbed surface” by diagram in Chapter 2. There is no other surface absorbed flux. Therefore, SSR accounts for warming of the air above surface because surface heat passes through the troposphere to space. This is demonstrated by an El Nino in a compressed timeframe.
4) Multidecadal SSR changes explain multidecadal warming and cooling along with ocean oscillations in phase (the MDV signal). Longer term bi-centennial and millennial warming and cooling is explained by TSI at TOA i.e. the secular trend (ST). The current surface imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and constant, This is easily explained by solar change at TOA (TSI) which has been found in the literature to be up to 6 W.m-2 by Shapiro et al which the IPCC dismiss. Lessor solar change at TOA since the LIA easily explains 0.6 W/m-2.
That the IPCC discards SSR and any other solar change that explains a minor 0.6 W.m-2 surface heat accumulation that is obviously solar forced, is scientific fraud.
RT >”Point me to it: where would they explain, if they were to explain?”
Me >”1) They explicitly state by figure that the power flux absorbed at surface is “solar absorbed surface” – “(Figure 2.11 [Adapted from Wild et al., 2013, note 0.6 “solar absorbed surface”])”. Right next to that on the figure is “0.6”. It is perfectly obvious then that the 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance is “solar absorbed surface” and the IPCC know it. For them to then miss-attribute surface absorption is scientific fraud.”
Me >”2) They explicitly state “absorbed” solar flux at surface – “surface radiation estimates favour therefore a global mean surface absorbed solar flux near 160 W m–2” [2.3.1 Global Mean Radiation Budget], but they do NOT state any net downward thermal flux “absorbed” because there isn’t one. It is therefore impossible to make an anthro ocean warming attribution but they do so anyway. Clearly, ocean warming is solar forced and the IPCC is indulging in scientific fraud.”
Here is that Figure:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure 2-11 Adapted from Wild et al., 2013, note “0.6” and “solar absorbed surface”
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2002/Fig2-11.jpg
Me >”3) They have plenty of literature presenting the surface energy budget – Wild et al., (2012/13), Loeb et al., (2012), Hansen et al., (2011), Stephens et al., (2012), Trenberth and Fasullo, (2012), so there is no excuse for not adopting 0.6 W.m-2 solar forcing at surface. In the following comment they have screeds on SSR ‘surface forcing’ but its all discarded.
“Surface shortwave absorption” again in Stephens et al, no other surface absorption:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
So from the IPCC’s literature, solar SW SSR is the ONLY flux “absorbed” at the surface. There is no other possible attribution for ocean warming. But the IPCC attribute ocean warming to theoretical GHG energy forcing at TOA:
There is NO surface “absorption” apart from solar SW SSR. Therefore, there is NO “substantial contribution from anthropogenic forcing” to ocean warming. Note they do not actually quantify their “substantial contribution”.
This is scientific fraud on a grand scale by the IPCC.
>”4) Multidecadal SSR changes explain multidecadal warming and cooling along with ocean oscillations in phase (the MDV signal). Longer term bi-centennial and millennial warming and cooling is explained by TSI at TOA i.e. the secular trend (ST). The current surface imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and constant, This is easily explained by solar change at TOA (TSI) which has been found in the literature to be up to 6 W.m-2 by Shapiro et al which the IPCC dismiss. Lessor solar change at TOA since the LIA easily explains 0.6 W/m-2.”
‘Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies’
by Javier on September 20, 2016
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/
Frequency analysis of solar variability during the Holocene identifies several cycles (McCracken et al., 2013), with the most important being the 11.4-yr Schwabe cycle, the 87-yr Gleissberg cycle, the 208-yr de Vries cycle, the ~ 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the ~ 2400-yr cycle. Even longer cycles can be identified from 10-Berilium (10Be) records in ice cores, like a 9600-yr cycle (Sánchez-Sesma, 2015). Comparison of climate and solar variability records leads to the important observation that the length of the cycle correlates with the amplitude of the climate effect observed and in general the longer the cycle the more profound effect it appears to have on climate.
For an analysis of solar cycles during the Holocene you can read:
“Periodicities in solar variability and climate change: A simple model”
http://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/
For this article I am going to concentrate mainly on the ~ 2400-yr cycle during the Holocene and on its effects both on climate and people
B1. 0.4 kyr BP. Little Ice Age (LIA)
B2. 2.8 kyr BP. Sub-Boreal/Sub-Atlantic Minimum
B3. 5.2 kyr BP. Mid-Holocene Transition. Ötzi buried in ice. Start of Neoglacial period
B4. 7.7 kyr BP. Boreal/Atlantic transition and precipitation change
B5. 10.3 kyr BP. Early Holocene Boreal Oscillation
B6. 12.8 kyr BP. Younger Dryas cooling onset
Figure 18. Solar cycles and temperatures during the Holocene. Major palinological subdivisions of the Holocene (names on top) match a 2500-yr regular spacing (light blue arches on top). (a) The global temperature reconstruction (black curve; Marcott et al., 2013 by the differencing method with proxy published dates) has been rescaled in temperature anomaly to match biological, glaciological, and marine sedimentary evidence, resulting in the Holocene Climate Optimum being about 1.2°K warmer than LIA (see Appendix). (b) The general temperature trend of the Holocene follows the Earth’s axis obliquity (purple), and significant downside deviations generally match the lows of the ~ 2400-year Bray cycle of solar activity (light blue bands labeled B-1 to B-4 that correspond to similar bands in previous figures). (c) Significant negative climate deviations manifest also in strong increases in iceberg detrital discharges (red curve, inverted; Bond et al., 2001) that generally agree well with the lows in the ~ 2400-year Bray cycle and ~ 1000-year Eddy cycle (orange bands) of solar activity. (d) Solar activity reconstruction (Steinhilber et al., 2012) shows that the majority of grand solar minima correspond very well with Bond events and tend to occur at the lows of the Bray (light blue bars) and Eddy (orange bars) cycles. Significant Holocene climate changes tend to occur when Bray and Eddy cycle lows coincide, like at the Mid-Holocene Transition that ended the Holocene Climatic Optimum and started the Neoglacial period, and the LIA that started the Current Warm Period, now proposed to be named Anthropocene. The regular spacing of the ~ 1000-yr Eddy cycle is shown by orange arches at bottom. Solar cycles can be projected into the future, when the situation could be analogous to interglacial MIS 19 (Marine Isotope Stage) AIM C (Antarctic Isotope Maximum) that is likely to represent a natural global warming event at 771 kyr BP (e). Considering all these factors, temperatures can be projected into the future (f) defining a Pre-Glacial period that could end around 4000 AD in the next glacial inception.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/figure-18.png
# # #
Millennial solar change produced the Holocene. Now we’re saying good-bye to it from a 1000 yr warm blip.
@ RC
Good to see that you’ve picked up the posting on the Bray Cycle.
Although Roger Bray (J.R.) is well known from his solar cycle – climate change work, he is also well known as the leading plant-ecologist of the post-war years. He shifted to NZ in the 1970s and after some time at P.N. settled in Nelson. I met him in the late 1970s when I was doing my Ph.D in the Marlborough Sounds (where he & wife Gwen Struik had a holiday bach). At that time he was researching links between climate cooling and volcanism.
Maggy.
Thanks for that background. The name Roger Bray has always rung a bell to me for something other than solar but I’ve never followed up to find out why (or if I did I’ve forgotten). Now I know. I think it was something from NZ that made his name stick but I don’t know what. I probably didn’t realize that the Roger Bray in NZ was the same Roger Bray of solar cycles. Just searched roger bray new zealand plant science and it explains why his name came up.
I think it was the Tiritiri Matangi Project. I assume this is the same Roger Bray (maybe not):
Tiritiri Matangi Open Sanctuary Project
https://tiritirimatangi.worldsecuresystems.com/Default.aspx?A=Search&ID=/searchresults
There is also Roger Bray and Peter Bray apiarists (Airborne Honey) but they weren’t what I was thinking about. Other Bray’s in the science search too.
Makes sense that a plant-ecologist would be interested in solar change. There’s been plenty of that over the Holocene:
‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’
Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland
(2010)
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
‘Paper [Usoskin 2010] demonstrates solar activity was at a grand maximum in the late 20th century’
Anthony Watts / September 13, 2012
“However, according to the IPCC, none of this has nothing to do with 0.7C of global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. And, even if you were to point it out to them for AR5, they have now clearly demonstrated they have no intention of paying any attention to any factual data that doesn’t fit the ‘CO2 and nothing else’ meme.[hotlink]”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/
Addition re Chapter 3, 3.4.2.3 Net Heat Flux and Ocean Heat Storage Constraints
“They cannot detect their “air-sea” fluxes because they do not exist. There is no heat transfer from air to sea. Those speculated but unidentified “air-sea fluxes” do not exist in their surface energy budget. And they are a physically impossible heating agent anyway on account of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the physics of the AO interface [where the lack of LW radiation-matter “tuning” precludes heating and penetration]”
This is what happens when the lack of ocean surface penetration by DLR is pointed out to the IPCC:
They do not have “robust evidence”. They do not have “evidence” from observations. They have observations but could not find their “expected” “air-sea fluxes” in the observations.
They have climate models. Climate models are not “evidence”.
@Richard C
Some background on Roger Bray
http://esa.org/history/bray-j-roger/
>”4) Multidecadal SSR changes explain multidecadal warming and cooling along with ocean oscillations in phase (the MDV signal). Longer term bi-centennial and millennial warming and cooling is explained by TSI at TOA i.e. the secular trend (ST). The current surface imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2 and constant, This is easily explained by solar change at TOA (TSI) which has been found in the literature to be up to 6 W.m-2 by Shapiro et al which the IPCC dismiss. Lessor solar change at TOA since the LIA easily explains 0.6 W/m-2.”
>”So from the IPCC’s literature, solar SW SSR is the ONLY flux “absorbed” at the surface. There is no other possible attribution for ocean warming. But the IPCC attribute ocean warming to theoretical GHG energy forcing at TOA:”
OK, so now we pull down from the top of the thread the IPCC’s energy budget closure:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b)
Energy Budget Changes 1970 – 2011
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS_TFE.4-1.jpg
In the IPCC’s TOA paradigm and assumed solar change, solar forcing at TOA does not account (wholly) for ocean heat storage at surface. Given the only heating flux into the surface is solar and that flux must account for the ocean heat storage, it is obvious that the IPCC’s solar forcing rationale and assumptions are dead wrong.
Maggy
Didn’t realize until your link that Roger Bray produced his solar papers from NZ. That’s a revelation. I have say I don’t know much about that – just a name in the solar respect.
I think now it was a combination of his other NZ activities that stuck his name in my mind. – anti-nuclear bombs and nuclear-free NZ, and conservation projects. Probably read or saw him in the news regarding nuclear free NZ.
This paper caught my eye:
‘An Analysis of the Possible Recent Change in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration’
By J. R. BRAY (1958)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1959.tb00023.x/pdf
Table 1
421ppm Fodor
1014ppm, 466, 469 Bornemann 1920
468ppm, 451, 434, 462 Kreutz 1941
Table 3
413ppm Russel (in Letts & Blake).1882-84
442ppm Kreutz 1941
Table 4
410ppm Puchner 1892
E. G. Beck references that Bray paper here:
‘Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 20th century’
Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Postfach 1409, D-79202 Breisach, Germany
Discussion paper May 2008
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/evidence-var-corrRSCb.pdf
Beck on CO2 and Temperature
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/beck-on-co2-oceans-are-the-dominant-co2-store/
Graohic: Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 20th century
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/NY20081e.jpg
Lots of denial of this in certain quarters.
The Beck graphic references a website carrying the Beck paper below. The link is to a graphic synopsis.
The Greatest Scandal in Modern History of Science – 7 essential findings of the study in pictures
‘180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods’
StD Ernst-Georg Beck Dipl. Biol.; ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT; VOLUME 18 No. 2, 2007
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/180CO2_summary.pdf
The Greatest Scandal in Modern History of Science – 7 essential findings of the study in pictures
6. UN published a distorted view of history of natural science and postulated that there were no accurate measurements prior to 1958. This study is able to prove that there are more than 90 000 direct accurate measurements of CO2 used to reconstruct the real CO2 contour over the last 200 years.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/180CO2_summary.pdf
@Richard C.
Yes, I’ve always been fascinated by the history of CO2 measurements and the tight control the Keeling whanau have over the 20th C. measurements and their relationship with the IPCC.
http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/news/dont-want-know-co2-tim-ball/
Seems not so many folks are aware of the great variability of CO2 levels across the globe.
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/01/05/surprising-results-from-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory/
Maggy.
The OCO-2 satellite has changed the game somewhat. Both Tim Ball and Jonathan DuHamel present graphs:(DuHamel was never surprised. I’ve followed his articles for years, he’s no ignoramus)
OCO-2 CO2
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nasa.png
Difficult to explain by industrial emissions. Or any human emissions.
DuHamel,
Just another Warmer World fantasy.
@Richard C
That NASA animation is a scandal.
Look at the Southern hemi for 6 mo….. NOTHING…. and then suddenly whoosh Carbon Monoxide floods the Southern skies….
Why they didn’t wait until they had the first year of results from the Orbiting CO2 satellite?
Perhaps it wouldn’t have told the same dramatic tale as their Disney version.
Richard C (NZ) re Beck.
Estimating the CO2 from carbon in fossil fuels by estimating the amount oxidised and determining the proportion of carbon13 in the atmosphere gives real science an unfair advantage.
I see the CO2 went up with the lunar cycle. If it’s the warming causing the CO2 does that mean it’s the moon that’s causing Earth to become warmer?
IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) has no anthro ocean warming attribution. They did allude vaguely to “the warming” in Section 6 however.
All very brief:
7.7 Sub-Surface Ocean Temperature and Salinity Variations
The sub-suilace ocean data base is now just becoming sufficient foi climate change studies in the North Atlantic and North Pacific basins to be carried out A few, long, local time sencs of sub-surface measurements exist, sufficient to alert the scientific community to emerging evidence of decadal scale temperature variability in the Atlantic Ocean Beginning about 1968, a fresh, cold water mass with its origins in the Arctic Ocean appears to have circulated aiound the sub-Arctic gyre of the North Atlantic Ocean This event has been described by Dickson et al (1988) as the Gieat Salinity Anomaly Some of this cold, Iresh water penetrated to the deep waters of the North Atlantic (Bicwer et al, 1983) The marked cool anomalies in the Noith Atlantic SST shown in Figure 7 H loi 1967- 76 partly reflect this event
Recently, Levitus (1989a, b, c d) has can led out a majoi study ol changes ol sub surlace temperature and salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean between 1955 59 and 1970 74 1955-59 was near the end of a very warm period ol North Atlantic suiface waters, but by 1970-74 the subsequent cool period was well developed (Figure 7 13) Coolei water extended liom neai the sea surface to 1400m depth in the subtropical gyre O0-50°N) Beneath the subtropical gyre, a warming occurred between the two periods North ol this gyre there was an increase in the temperature and salinit) of the western sub aictic gyic The density changes associated with these changes in tempeiature and salinity indicate that the tiansport ol the Gull Stream may have decieased between the two periods Temperature difference lields along 24 5°N and ~b 5°N piesented by Roemmich and Wunsch (1984) based on data gathered during 1981 and the late 1950s, aie consistent with these ideas Antonov (1990) has earned out a complementary study lor the North Atlantic and North Pacilic using subsurface tempeiature data held in the USSR and SST data fiom the UK Meteoiological OH ice He finds that zonal aveiages of tempeiature changes between 1957 and 1981 show statistically significant cooling in the upper layers and a warming below 600m when averaged over the North Atlantic as a whole This agrees well with Levitus results for the North Atlantic Basin mean tempeiatuie changes (1957 to 1981) for the North Atlantic and North Pacific, as computed by Antonov, aie shown in Figure 7 18
The reasons for some of these changes are partially understood For example, the cooling of the upper 1400m ol the subtropical gyre was due to an upwaid displacement ol cooler lieshei watei Why this displacement occuned is not definitely known but most piobably is lclated to changes in the large scale wind held ovei the Noith Atlantic Ol paiticular importance is the temperatuie increase of approximately 0 1°C ovei, on average, a thousand metre thick layei in the deep North Atlantic because it represents a relativel} large heat storage Even the uppei few metres of the ocean can store as much heat as the entire overlying atmosphenc column ol an Scientists have long lecogm/ed (Rossby, 1959) that the ocean could act to store large amounts of heat thiough small temperature changes in its sub-surface layeis loi hundreds or thousands ot years When this heal ieturns to the atmospheie/cryosphere system it could also sigmticantlv affect climate Section 6 gives more details The magnitude and extent of the obseived changes in the temperature and salinity of the deep Noith Atlantic are thus large enough that they cannot be neglected in future theories of climate change
6.3 Expectations Based on Transient Simulations
The first simulations with these global, coupled GCMs applied to the CO~2 problem used the same methodology as that employed in the earlier simple mixed-layer models That is, CO”2 was doubled instantaneously and the model run for some time-period to document the climate changes It has been suggested, however, that because of the long thermal response time ot the full ocean, and the fact that
the warming penetrates downward from the ocean surface into its interior, the traditional concept of a sensitivity experiment to determine a new equilibrium may be less useful with such a coupled system (Schlesinger and Jiang, 1988)
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
# # #
>6.3 – “the warming penetrates downward from the ocean surface into its interior”
This of course is “the warming” in the climate models. Impossible in reality from GHG forcing but that is how climate models impute theoretical GHG-forced (but non-existent) energy into the ocean. Hence the only “evidence” the IPCC has for an anthro ocean warming attribution is from spurious climate model methodology.
Other than the model discussion there is nothing about anthropogenic ocean warming whatsoever. It is only since their GHG forcing has blown out massively that the IPCC has been forced (heh) to sink the excess GHG generated, but fictitious, energy into the ocean and make an explicit attribution statement.
Du Hamel,
This may be not too far from reality. Strong outgassing of CO2 as the oceans significantly cool would be expected and the magnitude may well overshadow industrial, even citywide sources. Though the red colour represents the highest CO2 concentration in the still image of averaged CO2 concentration, it sits well below halfway in the video concentrations. I see in the video no use of the colours from purple (387 ppmv) to magenta (395 ppmv), and the Arctic seems to be assigned colours in the lowest range, from 377 to 385 ppmv. The Southern Ocean and Antarctica seem to be displaying their CO abundance, in monochrome. The Goddard scientists seem very excited about this new simulation and can’t wait to share it with the “modeling and data assimilation community” but it would be a thousand times more informative to see the observational data rendered like this.
Richard C (NZ)L ” Impossible in reality from GHG forcing…”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
For kids with graph of ocean warming:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/oceans.html
Playback of observational CO2 data from Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) for Sept 2014 to Sept 2015 is here:
https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU
Dennis
>”Estimating the CO2 from carbon in fossil fuels by estimating the amount oxidised and determining the proportion of carbon13 in the atmosphere gives real science an unfair advantage.”
Except that was NOT the methodology:
”180 Years accurate CO2 – Gasanalysis of Air by Chemical Methods’ (Short version)
Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006
2. Results of the literature review of this study:
[…]
11 often used measuring techniques ( gravimetric, titrimetric, volumetric and manometric) had been
evolved from 1812 to modern times, from which the so called Pettenkofer method ( titrimetric) was easy,
fast and well understood and the optimized standard from 1857 for 100 years. Mentioned authors had
calibrated their methods against each others and samples with known content. All measuring parameters, local modalities and measuring errors can be extracted out of available literature.
The available data used in this study can be researched in several comprehensive bibliographies:
Table 1 Bibliographies und citation of papers
It could be shown that between 1800 to 1961 more than 320 technical papers exists on the subject of air
gas analysis conteining verified data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Callendar( engineer), Keeling (chemist) and IPCC do not evaluate these chemical methods though being
standard in analytical chemistry, discredited these techniques and data and rejected most as faulty and
highly inaccurate because not helpful proving their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of carbon
dioxid in the atmosphere. In using their concept of unpolluted background level theyhad examined about
10% of available literature and considered >>>>>>http://www.kin152.org/climatologie/CO2.pdf
Richard Treadgold: “Strong outgassing of CO2 as the oceans significantly cool would be expected and the magnitude may well overshadow industrial, even citywide sources…”
The 40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, from 270 to 400 ppm, is due to man.
Outgassing is merely putting CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place back into the atmosphere. Part of the cycle. It’s not at all like newly generated CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
Dennis,
Is this what Beck did (it’s a while since I read about him)? It is certainly what “real” science does today, that is, each nation makes annual return of its carbon inventory from estimates of its activities. It’s not as good as directly observing the atmospheric concentrations, but apart from that, what’s wrong with it?
Why should the CO2 not follow the lunar cycle? Please stop asking loony questions. Although I note there is heat energy released from the movement of the earth’s crust and the sloshing of the oceans under the influence of the moon. Perhaps CO2 is thus released?
Richard C (NZ): “Except that was NOT the methodology”
No I know it wasn’t. That’s why I said, “Estimating the CO2 from carbon in fossil fuels by estimating the amount oxidised and determining the proportion of carbon13 in the atmosphere gives real science an unfair advantage.”
You see, the carbon cycle is (fairly) well understood and Beck is bunk.
Okay, no more loony questions. What about loony answers?
RT >”The video, for some reason, puts the highest carbon dioxide concentrations in the Arctic.” This may be not too far from reality.
But the video is human-only emissions – “The input data were surface measurements of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and completely ignored natural sources”. Why would human emissions concentrate in the Arctic?
All sources flux in the Arctic for a season but that’s all. And even more proof that atm CO2 has no relationship to human emissions.