It is very cold here in the Eastern US and the President is joking about the lack of global warming. More interesting by far is the fact that there appears to have been no CO2 induced warming in the last 40 years, which is as far back as the satellite measurements go.
That this incredible fact has gone unnoticed is due mostly to the scientific community’s fixation on the warming shown by the surface temperature statistical models. But as explained here, these complex computer models are completely unreliable.
Also, the satellite measurements do show some global warming, which people have mistakenly assumed somehow supports the hypothesis of human caused, CO2 induced warming. Careful inspection shows that this assumption is false. There is in fact no evidence of CO2 warming in the entire satellite record.
To see this one must look at the satellite record in detail. To understand this, bear in mind that science is all about the specific details of an observation. These details can overthrow grand theories that are widely accepted.
For example, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the revolutionary special theory of relativity. When it comes to global warming, the 40 year satellite measurements provide a strong negative result for the CO2 warming hypothesis. The CO2 warming just is not there.
To see this negative result, let us look closely at this graphic.
It gives the monthly almost-global temperature readings for the lower atmosphere. The satellites do not cover the entire globe, just most of it. There is also a red line showing a 13-month running average temperature.
Note that on the vertical scale the temperatures are shown as what are called anomalies, not as actual temperatures. An anomaly here is the difference in degrees Celsius between the actual temperature and an arbitrarily chosen average temperature. That average temperature defines the zero line in the graph. Why this is done is not important for our discussion.
To begin with look at the period from the beginning to 1997. The red line shows that this is what is called an aperiodic oscillator. It is an oscillator because it consistently goes up and down, up and down, etc. It is aperiodic, as opposed to periodic, because the ups and downs are somewhat irregular.
It should be clear by inspection that there is very little, if any, overall warming during this period. That is, the red line is oscillating around roughly the -0.1 degree line.
When you have an aperiodic oscillator with this few oscillations there is no point in trying to be extremely precise, because the next oscillation might change things a bit. In particular, one must be very careful in doing straight line (that is, linear) trend analysis, because the result will be very sensitive to where you start and stop the trend.
So let’s just say that there is little or no warming during this period. This was well known at the time and it was a major issue in the climate change debate.
Then comes what is often called the giant El Nino, although it is actually a giant El Nino-La Nina cycle in ocean circulation. First the temperatures go way up, then way down, before stabilizing back into a natural aperiodic oscillator.
The giant El Nino-La Nina cycle looks to begin mid-1997, interrupting a downward moving aperiodic oscillation. It ends sometime in 2001, followed by a new aperiodic oscillation. However, this oscillation is warmer, centered roughly on the +0.15 line. The new oscillator continues until another big El Nino-La Nina oscillation hits, around 2015. What this last El Nino cycle will do remains to be seen
Thus the graph looks to have basically four distinct periods. First the little-to-no warming period from 1979 until 1997. Second the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle from 1997 until 2001. Third, the warmer little-to-no warming period from 2001 to 2015. Fourth the new El Nino-La Nina cycle that is still in progress.
Yes there is some warming but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.
But in no case is there any evidence of CO2 induced warming here, nor of any human-caused warming for that matter. These causes would produce a relatively steady warming over time, not the single episodic warming that we clearly see here. In particular, to my knowledge there is no known way that the gradual CO2 increase could have caused this giant El Nino-La Nina cycle.
Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural. In any normal science this result would be sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis that the increasing CO2 concentration is causing global warming.
Thanks for a clear and convincing explanation. In support of your position is the evidence from SSTs, which show how the oceans, with the North Atlantic combining with ENSO, have produced any observed warming in recent decades. For example, here is a graph for the last two decades:
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hadsst31995to2017.png?w=1000&h=280
Detailed explanation is at this link:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/sst-warming-patterns/
Hurrdurr!
climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg
Has anyone tried to calculate how much CO2 is given off by a sum of all the animals on Earth- from ants to elephants? I am speculating that amount would dwarf all the power plant emissions!
Burke, there are such estimates, ironically from the IPCC early days before the agenda took charge completely.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-3_thumb.png?w=640&h=388
More at: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/11/17/co2-fluxes-sources-and-sinks/
Why. CO2 dont do anything. Isnt that right deniers? Ya could decimate the level, or multiply the level by 10 and it wouldnt matter a fig. All the physics are wrong. Everything we know is wrong. Isnt that right deniers?
You stupid stupid imbeciles.
No, it is your concept of the physics that is wrong. That CO2 is a GHG does not mean that increasing CO2 will increase the heat content of the atmosphere. There are many other processes at work, some of which are well known not to be well understood.
My point is simply that observation says the CO2 increase has had no warming effect. In science observation trumps conjecture.
Calling people that you clearly do not understand stupid imbeciles is, well, stupid and imbecilic. But I suppose that trying to understand is beneath you.
Everyone YOU know, maybe…
Oops. I had a niggly feeling i got the meaning of decimate wrong and looked it up.
I intended to mean reduce by 90%.
Show me an ant or an elephant that can mine fossil carbon from deep in the earth and release it into the atmosphere.
Breathing is carbon-neutral. That is, it doesn’t add new carbon to the atmosphere.
Then we don’t have to worry about the cow farts either do we…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Better let Gubernator Moonbeam in California know post haste.
Eventually all the natural organically stored solar energy that we don’t burn will get burned as it is subducted into Earth’s hot mantle.
So what? That’s millions of years in the future. The risk to civilization from waste CO2 manifests over the next few decades or centuries.
How could CO2 possibly cause any quantifiable risk that is of a magnitude sufficient to cancel the benefits from CO2 enrichment?
That’s not a serious question. The risks from waste CO2 are extensively documented. JAQ somebody else.
The basis of bwd argument indicates the writer as a candidate for 8th grade Earth Science summer school. Must weigh heavy knowing that…..
Or knowingly attempting to conflate two separate carbon cycles… basic science for …… which would then point to…..
It is a serious question when taken in the context that we are talking about CO2 that is produced from combustion of fuels to release their naturally stored solar energy.
How could the CO2 produced ever cause a negative result that could outweigh the benefit of greater food production from the CO2 enrichment?
And what do you suppose is responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png
As the legend states, your graph is mixing two different measuring methods, which makes it suspect. Also, it only uses the Mauna Loa atmospheric record, and does not include many direct empirically observed atmospheric CO2 measurements which are even higher than your entire chart. Here are some from peer reviewed science Fonsellius(1956) ‘Carbon Dioxide Variations in the Atmosphere’: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05ddd31685ebd76cf05a2acb5c6854dcaa7cf286a072e7389ea84f52baad78fb.png . Also note the peer reviewed paper in 1956 calls attention to the circled values in the Figure from the paper which were cherry picked by Callendar, ignoring the many inconvenient higher direct measurements. Climate alarmists use only Callendar’s cherry picked values.
Also peer reviewed science, Beck(2007) ‘180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods’, http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/09.03.08
Klima, CO2 analyseartikkel 100-2000, EE 18-2_Beck.pdf , documents hundreds of direct CO2 atmospheric higher than today’s values taken from 180 peer reviewed papers written between 1812 and 1961.
You are accepting the biased propaganda from climate alarmists. Today’s CO2 levels are well within previous direct atmospheric measured levels.
So what is responsible for CO2 levels. The latest peer reviewed science, Harde(2017) says:
Nothing climate-related happening currently is outside the bounds of what has happened previously.
Except that Harde’s Paper was debunked soon afterwards here.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015
In a nutshell here were his errors.
The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
[The residence time for an individual molecule is not the same as the perturbation response time of the carbon cycle which has timescales of decades to thousands of years.]
The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
[Actually, it’s 30%.]
Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
[It’s all of it.]
The debunking paper was published in the same journal.
“Harde’s Paper was debunked…”
No, it wasn’t. The paper has not been retracted. Attack pieces were concocted against it so the the IPPC could falsely discount it and avoid including any sciene that is contrary to the climate alarmist religion’s dogmas.
“Actually, it’s 30%”
Even the biased IPCC disagrees with you. Their latest chapter on carbon cycle shows that 210PgC are annually added to the atmosphere from natural sources, https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig3-1a.gif , and only 5.4PgC are added from human FF burning and cement production, https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig3-1b.gif .
“[It’s all of it]”
That’s an evidence-free claim which is based on the false assumption that natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are constant and never change. Real world empirical evidence shows that is a false assumption.
So if it’s Harde’s paper that challenges climate change then it’s a legitimate piece of research. If it’s Köhler’s response to such a paper that points a giant mistake at the heart of the papers methodology (which you did not defend] then it’s an “attack piece” and is to be ignored. Glad I have that straight.
Re the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, are you deliberately mixing up the annual contribution and the aggregate contribution as a result of anthropogenic actively causing an imbalance as a ruse or was that by accident? Do I need to do the analogy of a bath with taps and a plug hole and someone turning on a second tap and the depth of the water rising etc?
So have you deleted this comment too like you did your comment to David on El Ninos?
Why do you immediately delete comments that you make?
Evidently you know they can’t stand up to scrutiny by real science, so you delete so your logically fallacious arguments can’t be pointed out.
Köhler’s response is fatally flawed because it is based on the false assumption that natural CO2 level is constant, and the only thing that can change it is human addition of CO2.
Your arguments fail.
Err, I still see my comments. If disq.us or cfact are zapping them, I can’t control that. Indeed it annoys the crap out of me! I do sometimes read back my comments and notice they need SPAG corrections, so I correct them.
EDIT: DISQUS MARKED MY LAST COMMENT TO DAVID AS SPAM?! I WILL TRY TO REPOST.
The work on how much CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans has a lot of papers dedicated to working it out. They do an accounting for the known sources and sinks of CO2 and see how the known contribution from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities plays into that. It is not Köhler that you have to tackle there. It’s the hundreds of papers that established the figures that generally accepted and went into the last IPCC report etc.
Köhler was not establishing a new figure. He was scrutinising the Harde paper and pointing out the error in Harde’s methodology that Harde used to get his much lower figure. If someone else can come to Harde’s aid (and if he is onto something then they really should be able to) then one would expect another paper, preferably in a slightly better regarded journal, replicating Harde’s results. That has not happened, but if it does, then I a, happy to re-evaluate my views in light of it.
Your comments will continue to show up on your loaded webpage. You must reload the page to see if the comment is still there. Disqus should filter the comment prior to it being posted. If the post is caught in the website’s spam/keyword filter system, it will tell you something like ‘Hold on, this comment is awaiting moderation’ or something like that, and it will never show up to others. I doubt if David Wojick is deleting your comments.
Again, you are ignoring the fatal flaw of Kohler, the assumption that the only cause of changes in CO2 is human perturbation. The history of the planet shows that is not true. And recent empirical data also shows that is not true, as the levels of CO2 are constantly changing, and the changes are tied to temperature changes, not the fairly steady release of CO2 by humans.
Plus, the this empirical data shows that CO2 lags temperature changes. Thus climate alarmists have the cause and effect reversed. The cause much come before the effect. Temperature changes first, THEN CO2 changes happen later. This is observed in this graph of surface temperature and CO2: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f48db4df5cbc38ca843c756622008703ecc4ac880193230512800128199d8c0e.png
The same thing is observed in the graph of sea surface temperature and CO2: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b567a1366f5275a87214374ea62561e19a82dc649f9b56f54717befcb5b5bc3c.png
Peer reviewed science shows that CO2 lags temperature changes in all the various temperature records:
First, I think it’s unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Köhler situation with material from other papers that is not directly relevant. It’s all related to climate change of course, but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was. Humlum is not a defence of Köhler, so unless you have anything that is, then let’s leave that to one side. Harde made some assertions. The same journal later published another paper that refuted it fairly fundamentally. No one has since come to Harde’s aid to stand up his methods or conclusions AFAIK.
So onto Humlum. Well, remarkably, it looks like a similar story with a different cast of characters. The Humlum paper got panned by Richardson 2013. Again both papers published in the same (seemingly not so well edited) journal. It’s modest impact factor will be on the skids if they keep this up. Anyway, here is Richardson 2013.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
Richardson is actually one of the authors on SkepticalScience.com so he did a fairly comprehensive write up of his own paper here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html
The criticisms are not trivial. Highlights
•Humlum et al.’s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
•Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
•This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
•Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
•The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
So, again, if anyone has come to Humlum’s aid or knocked down Richardson’s rebuttal (which amount to the same thing) then let me know. But it looks like it would’ve unwise to rely on Humlum when his conclusions have been fundamentally attacked and no other group or author can stand up his claims again. If you have a paper that does, hopefully not in Global and Planetary Change as it seems rather error prone, then do point me at it.
Once again, it appears that MichaelR deleted his comment after he posted it. His comment raised a strawman about conflating the Harde/Kohler situation with the Humlum paper. I didn’t do that.
Then MichaelR claimed that Richardson(2013) rebutted Humlum(2013), but as I pointed out in my reply, which I couldn’t post because he had deleted the comment, none of the attempted rebuttals even addressed the main point of Humlum(2013) which was the phase relation between CO2 and global temperature.
Here is my entire reply to MichaelR which I couldn’t post because he apparently deleted his comment because he didn’t want to see it refuted.
“it is unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Kohler situation with material from other papers…”
You are fabricating a strawman. I didn’t conflate the two.
I
pointed out the fatal flaw in Kohler’s attempted refutation of Harde,
the false assumption that CO2 levels would be constant without human
perturbation. You have not even attempted to address that.
The
totally separate point I made was that your climate alarmist meme that
anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming is shown
to be false because all the temperature records show that CO2
lags temperature changes, both up and down. Since a
cause must come before an effect, that means that temperature changes
cause CO2 changes, NOT the other way around, like you claim.
“remarkably, it looks like a similar story”
It’s
not remarkable at all. It’s SOP for your climate cult to write attack
pieces on any peer reviewed science that is contrary to your CAGW-by-CO2
climate cult’s agenda/narrative/meme. They began that after the
climategate emails exposed the climate alarmists’ corrupt practice of
gatekeeping to keep any papers contrary to “the cause” from being
published in peer reviewed journals.
And really, to use one of
your climate cult’s dishonest propaganda blogs which is run by a
self-described “cartoonist” and “professional scrawler”,
http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
, is absurd. The dishonest practices of changing/deleting and
misrepresenting comments on the SkS blog is documented in these
examples: bit.ly/Pkj847 , bit.ly/RN6I4v , bit.ly/qnhi4m , bit.ly/AgQux8 ,
bit.ly/pahc21 , bit.ly/n9tpeK , bit.ly/WsptzJ , bit.ly/PlTBbQ ,
bit.ly/154jl4z , bit.ly/Qku4E8 , bit.ly/JAVQKZ , bit.ly/Kr7etP ,
bit.ly/1fjxZNz The evidence shows that it is an untrustworthy blog.
But
setting that aside, neither Richardson’s paper nor any of the other
attempted refutations even addressed the main issue of Humlum’s paper,
the phase relationship between CO2 and global
temperature. They were all focused on human vs. anthropogenic CO2, which
was an inconsequential and really irrelevant aspect of Humlum’s paper,
‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon
dioxide and global temperature’.
So all those so-called rebuttals
rebutted none of the fundamental conclusion of the paper that
temperature changes preceded CO2 changes. And none of the so-called
rebuttals presented any evidence that CO2 led temperature changes. They
were mere handwaving, which allowed the IPCC to ignore Humlum’s paper.
Thus
there was no reason for anyone to rebut the so-called rebuttals,
because they didn’t refute the main conclusions of the paper, that
changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2. And as I said, a cause
must come before the effect, so the empirical data shows that
temperature changes drive and cause changes in CO2, not the other way
around. Thus you climate alarmists have the cause and effect reversed.
Your whole human-caused climate change meme fails.
Neither you nor anyone else has refuted this fact at all. Humlum’s conclusion remains intact.
!!!I am not deleting my posts. They are being marked as spam. I have zero control over it. It’s impo to get disqus to fix it. FFS please stop being so petty and accusing me of deleting them because I can’t take criticism.
Here is my comment reposted again.
First, I think it’s unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Köhler situation with material from other papers that is not directly relevant. It’s all related to climate change of course, but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was. Humlum is not a defence of Köhler, so unless you have anything that is, then let’s leave that to one side. Harde made some assertions. The same journal later published another paper that refuted it fairly fundamentally. No one has since come to Harde’s aid to stand up his methods or conclusions AFAIK.
So onto Humlum. Well, remarkably, it looks like a similar story with a different cast of characters. The Humlum paper got panned by Richardson 2013. Again both papers published in the same (seemingly not so well edited) journal. It’s modest impact factor will be on the skids if they keep this up. Anyway, here is Richardson 2013.
http://www.sciencedirect.co…
Richardson is actually one of the authors on SkepticalScience.com so he did a fairly comprehensive write up of his own paper here
https://www.skepticalscienc…
The criticisms are not trivial. Highlights
•Humlum et al.’s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data
•Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
•This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
•Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero.
•The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise.
So, again, if anyone has come to Humlum’s aid or knocked down Richardson’s rebuttal (which amount to the same thing) then let me know. But it looks like it would be unwise to rely on Humlum when his conclusions have been fundamentally attacked and no other group or author can stand up his claims again. If you have a paper that does, hopefully not in Global and Planetary Change as it seems rather error prone, then do point me at it.
“Here is my comment reposted again”
Why repost a debunked comment?
I totally debunked your comment above: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/#comment-3692241515
And I see another of your comments has been deleted.
Perhaps Disqus has perfected an honesty filter and it filtered out your most recent comment because it contained blatant lies. In any event, it was spam, as it contained no valid content.
Here’s my reply to it, with quotes of parts of your comment:
“I did not accuse you of conflating Harde and Humlum.”
That’s a blatant lie: You said: “I think it’s unhelpful to conflate the Harde/Köhler situation with material from other papers that is not directly relevant. It’s all related to climate change of course, but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was.”
That is clearly accusing me of conflating Harde and Humlum.
“I said that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful”
That’s another lie. You never said that. And I never tried to cite Humlum to defend Humlum. You are just making stuff up.
“If Richardson’s paper was not worthy of publication then how did it make it into the same journal as Humlum.”
Could be pal review.
Could be because Richardson’s attempted rebuttal was about human-vs-natural CO2, not the phase relationship which was the main point of Humlum’s paper.
Next you posted a lot of verbosity claiming that Richardson did refute Humlum’s phase relationship between CO2 and temperature, but it was totally false. And you totally fail to mention that neither Richardson or anyone else presented any data that showed that CO2 preceded changes in temperature.
So the fact remains that no paper has rebutted Humlum(2013)’s conclusion that in all the temperature records temperature change precedes CO2 changes. That is totally independent of what the source of CO2 is.
And since a cause must come before the effect, that debunks you climate alarmists’ claim that CO2 has been the primary cause of recent climate warming.
“does that mean that methane is not a GHG?”
More logically fallacious strawman argumentation. No one is claiming that CO2 is not a GHG.
Youhave totally failed to refute anything that anyone has posted here. You appear to be just trolling to defend your climate alarmist religious beliefs with jihadist zeal just like Dr. Lindzen said climate alarmists do. Sad.
So the now customary repost…
I did not accuse you of conflating Harde and Humlum. I said that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful. At the very least you are just changing the subject without a good reason. We were talking about Harde. I cited the rebuttal. Your next move in that conversation was to switch the conversation to another paper by Humlum that is nothing to do with Harde’s hypothesis. That is not helpful.
As to the Richardson paper, I did not cite SkepticalScience as the paper rebutting Humlum. I cited it as it gives a quick summary of the paper that rebuts Humlum. It’s reasonable to mention it as it was written by the author of the paper and it gives addition context. If Richardson’s paper was not worthy of publication then how did it make it into the same journal as Humlum.
As for the rebuttal of the lag issue that you cite, Richardson addresses that directly. I will quote the SS page as it’s more concise.
“But what about Humlum et al’s calculations showing that there is a correlation between natural CO2 and atmospheric CO2? I find that as well, but while Humlum et al only report the ‘correlation coefficient’, I go a bit further. ‘Correlation’ just means that two things change in the same direction as each other – when one goes up, the other goes up and vice versa. It doesn’t say whether it’s a big change or a tiny one.
I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Humlum et al didn’t report this number, but the 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980 would need a 30 C (over 50 F) rise in average temperatures rather than the half a degree C we’ve seen. That’s like warming from Greenland to Miami rather than the 0.5 C warming we’ve measured since 1980.”
I would add that it is not the first time that warming has caused CO2 increases. It’s just that it’s vitally important to get the quantitative part right. Effectively, outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is a positive feedback effect. Richardson demonstrates that Humlum gets this very badly wrong.
It’s like what happened at the end of the last ice age, the Milankovich cycle caused a small temp rise of the atmosphere. Then the oceans started slowly outgassing CO2 as a response. Then the CO2 started causing warming, and so a positive feedback cycle kicked in that was sufficient to melt most of the planet’s ice cover.
For comparison, you could consider methane as well. Now methane is a very powerful GHG. But warming actually causes it’s release from the permafrost. So if you observe warming, then methane appearing, does that mean that methane is not a GHG? Of course not. In the case of CO2, yes, a small amount of CO2 is released by warming due to oceanic outgassing, but it’s tiny compared to the man made contribution.
You are just trolling. What else would be your point in posting a comment that is full of lies that I have already refuted here: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/#comment-3693282067
Thanks for more evidence that you are nothing more than a climate alarmist troll.
First then, a mea culpa. I did accuse you of conflating Harde/köhler with Humlum. My mistake.
I think I was right first time. You did. At least you did cite a paper that was nothing to do with Harde’s assertions to back him up.
When I said “but Humlum is not trying to make the point that what Harde was.”, that is me saying that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful. It’s implied. I will try to be more clear next time.
Richardson does address the phase relationship directly. I will quote him again.
“But what about Humlum et al’s calculations showing that there is a correlation between natural CO2 and atmospheric CO2? I find that as well, but while Humlum et al only report the ‘correlation coefficient’, I go a bit further. ‘Correlation’ just means that two things change in the same direction as each other – when one goes up, the other goes up and vice versa. It doesn’t say whether it’s a big change or a tiny one.
I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Humlum et al didn’t report this number, but the 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980 would need a 30 C (over 50 F) rise in average temperatures rather than the half a degree C we’ve seen. That’s like warming from Greenland to Miami rather than the 0.5 C warming we’ve measured since 1980.”
He is saying, yes, warming causes CO2, just very little. And the amount that we see could not have come from the mechanisms that are triggered by warming.
And I am glad that you agree that CO2 is a GHG. I presume you just think it is a very weak one?
In any case, I wish that was a more widely held belief. I have had plenty of conversations on this site where people deny that.
Does David accept that fact?
“You did.”
You are lying. I never conflated Harde/Kohler with Humlum.
Humlum was a totally separate point. No where in my Humlum post did I refer to Harde/Kohler.
“It’s implied”
You are lying again. It’s not implied at all.
“Richardson does address the phase relationship directly”
You are lying again. All he said was: “when one goes up the other goes up” He explicitly said he was talking about ” ‘Corellation’ “. He made no argument at all about the phase relation, ie. which happens first.
He provided no data to show that CO2 changes happened before temperature, so neither Richardson nor anyone else refuted Humlum’s point that changes in CO2 lagged changes in temperature. THAT was the main point of Humlum’s paper, and it has NEVER been refuted.
You’ve refuted nothing posted in the original article nor in anyone’s comments. You are just trolling.
Now stop your trolling and stop your lying.
Richardson does talk about the lag. It’s right there. He says
“I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm).”
That is a statement about CO2 lagging temperature increase that you say he doesn’t make. He agrees it happens, but just very very little, and certainly not enough to explain the observed increase in CO2.
I gave the example of the end of the last ice age to illustrate this on a bigger scale. CO2 does get released when the temperatures rise, as does methane. But that does not rule out it being a cause of warming as well.
And can I please ask you to stop calling me a liar. It’s pretty undignified. If you think I am mistaken then say I am wrong or I am mistaken but lying carries the deliberate intention to deceive and is highly pejorative. I think any objective reader would conclude that I am making statements in good faith. You showed me that I contradicted myself. I apologised without hesitation. I am not lying. If you disagree with me, that’s fine – knock yourself out, just stop insulting me please. It is uncalled for and you are the only person here doing it.
“Richardson does talk about the lag”
When I say that Richardson didn’t address Humlum’s phase relation, that means he didn’t present any evidence to refute it, like you claim he did. The fact is, Richardson agrees with Humlum that CO2 lags temperature, so there is no way that he refuted Humlum’s main point that CO2 lags temperature in the various temperature records.
So the fact remains that neither Richardson nor anyone else refuted Humlum’s main point that temperature changes first, THEN CO2 changes later, so the the main point of Humlum’s paper has never been refuted.
I don’t know why you continue to beat this dead horse. That’s evidence of trolling.
“can I please ask you to stop calling me a liar.”
I pointed out your mistake in arguing about the total OHC multiple times. You continue to cling to that false argument, thus you have turned your mistake into a lie.
You have not tried to refute my argument that global OHC is irrelevant. That would be valid. But to just keep using your debunked argument is dishonest.
You’ve done the same thing about the imagined Harde/Kohler – Humlum conflation. Once I told you that it was a totally different point, your continuing to raise that issue is dishonest, a lie.
Give it a rest. If you want to talk substance, ok. Just don’t continue to beat trivial dead horses that are irrelevant non-issues. It makes you appear quite childish.
Btw, you said:
“You are lying. I never conflated Harde/Kohler with Humlum.
Humlum was a totally separate point. No where in my Humlum post did I refer to Harde/Kohler.”
Look above. It’s right there. I quote you:
“Again, you are ignoring the fatal flaw of Kohler, the assumption that the only cause of changes in CO2 is human perturbation. The history of the planet shows that is not true. And recent empirical data also shows that is not true, as the levels of CO2 are constantly changing, and the changes are tied to temperature changes, not the fairly steady release of CO2 by humans. [All about Harde/Köhler]
Plus, the this empirical data shows that CO2 lags temperature changes. Thus climate alarmists have the cause and effect reversed. The cause much come before the effect…. [then you go onto extensively quote Humlum]”
So again, you are resorting to calling me a liar over something which would be pretty trivial, but you are mistaken that I was wrong and you also impute my imagined mistake with the intent to deceive. Can you accept that this kind of abuse is not justified?
How many times do I have to tell you that my Humlum phase relation statement was a totally different point than the Harde/Koher discussion. Nowhere in my Humlum discussion did I argue or even mention Harde. You continue to beat that dead horse. Drop it.
“you are resorting to calling me a liar over something which would be pretty trivial, but you are still mistaken that I was wrong and you also impute my imagined mistake with the intent to deceive.”
Come on. I have told you that I raised Humlum was a totally separate issue/point about a different error of you climate alarmists. Why do you refuse to accept that?
And nowhere in my separate Humlum point did I argue it had anything to do with Harde/Humlum. I never even mentioned Harde/Kohler. They were two separate issues/points. Give it a rest.
Yet now you continue to deny that you were wrong in claiming I conflated the two. You are just confirming that you are trolling, beating a trivial dead horse. Quite pathetic and childish.
Ok, I accept that you don’t think Humlum supports Harde, although of course I acknowledge that you would say they both attack AGW, though from different sides.
I did not make any mistakes intentionally. You’ll just have to trust me on that, just like you did not intentionally make a error when you that your Humlum post did not mention Harde/Köhler. I believe that you are arguing honestly. You should by now be able to believe the same about me. Mistakes happen. I prefer that they are just pointed out in a civil manner. You can’t see into my mind and I can’t see into yours. I propose that in future we give onanother the benefit of the doubt over intentions when we make mistakes.
And I am not trolling. You need to stop accusing me of that just like you need to stop accusing me of lying. I am pointing out what look like factual or logical errors in articles on this site, or in the comments. I am sure you don’t want or expect the comments here to be a total echo chamber of self congratulating self confirming bias. I read sceptic sites and I read non-sceptic sites and I comment on both. I am not abusive. I am not intentionally deceiving or misleading. I am not off topic, I am not making ad hominem comments. I am not setting out to annoy people although I accept that this can be the effect of challenging people’s beliefs – but that’s not my fault or my problem while I do so I’m a civil and genuine manner.
I am setting out to challenge what look to me like bad ideas, and doing so in a civil and polite manner. I believe you are perfectly content to defend your position, as are most readers and commenters on this site. If I don’t accept your arguments I will give reasons. You don’t get to call me a troll for just finding fault in your arguments or those of the authors of the articles. And if you keep dismissing my criticisms as blather rather than actually showing where I am wrong, then it’s not reasonable to expect me to back off until you have properly falsified my argument, or acknowledged my argument is valid or said that you don’t know.
Your personal style of dismissing and trying to belittle people who disagree with you (which is quite specific to you on this site btw) does you and your arguments no favours. Calling me childish, pathetic, an irrational zealot and a liar is not advancing your argument one iota and yet you drop one or more of these epithets into almost every comment to me. It only does the opposite and makes you appear hypersensitive about your opinions like they are a delicate flower than cannot stand up to attack. I am not saying that is what they are – I am saying that is how you make them appear. For avoidance of doubt, I am not making a comment about your integrity or character, just your style of debate. I trust you will accept my comments in the good faith that they are made.
Just one last thing, I don’t know that I accept that last definition of a lie as an error that is clung to. If you or I do not understand why our belief is an error then we will continue to propound that belief until we do understand it’s error. We will propound it in good faith as our true belief on the matter.
Only a false statement made deliberately to mislead or deceive deserves to be called a lie.
So to respond to your response to missing comment,
I did not accuse you of conflating Harde and Humlum. I said that citing Humlum to defend Humlum is not helpful. At the very least you are just changing the subject without a good reason. We were talking about Harde. I cited the rebuttal. Your next move in that conversation was to switch the conversation to another paper by Humlum that is nothing to do with Harde’s hypothesis. That is not helpful.
As to the Richardson paper, I did not cite SkepticalScience as the paper rebutting Humlum. I cited it as it gives a quick summary of the paper that rebuts Humlum. It’s reasonable to mention it as it was written by the author of the paper and it gives addition context. If Richardson’s paper was not worthy of publication then how did it make it into the same journal as Humlum.
As for the rebuttal of the lag issue that you cite, Richardson addresses that directly. I will quote the SS page as it’s more concise.
“But what about Humlum et al’s calculations showing that there is a correlation between natural CO2 and atmospheric CO2? I find that as well, but while Humlum et al only report the ‘correlation coefficient’, I go a bit further. ‘Correlation’ just means that two things change in the same direction as each other – when one goes up, the other goes up and vice versa. It doesn’t say whether it’s a big change or a tiny one.
I calculate the strength of the relationship between the two and find that for every degree Celsius that temperatures go up, the CO2 in the air later goes up by 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Humlum et al didn’t report this number, but the 50 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1980 would need a 30 C (over 50 F) rise in average temperatures rather than the half a degree C we’ve seen. That’s like warming from Greenland to Miami rather than the 0.5 C warming we’ve measured since 1980.”
I would add that it is not the first time that warming has caused CO2 increases. It’s just that it’s vitally important to get the quantitative part right. Effectively, outgassing of CO2 from the oceans is a positive feedback effect. Richardson demonstrates that Humlum gets this very badly wrong.
It’s like what happened at the end of the last ice age, the Milankovich cycle caused a small temp rise of the atmosphere. Then the oceans started slowly outgassing CO2 as a response. Then the CO2 started causing warming, and so a positive feedback cycle kicked in that was sufficient to melt most of the planet’s ice cover.
For comparison, you could consider methane as well. Now methane is a very powerful GHG. But warming actually causes it’s release from the permafrost. So if you observe warming, then methane appearing, does that mean that methane is not a GHG? Of course not. In this case, a small amount of CO2 is released by warming, but it’s tiny compared to the man made contribution.
Makes accusation of cherry-picking, then provides a single 60-year old paper and some astrology.
“Makes accusation of cherry-picking”
An accusation supported by the evidence pointed out in the peer reviewed paper. When someone uses only the circled values and ignores all those other higher values it IS cherry picking.
“then provides a single 60-year old paper and some astrology.”
The 60-year old paper was relevant because is was a graphic confirmation of Beck(2007)’s paper which shows that there have been many previous direct atmospheric CO2 measurements higher than present levels.
And astrology? No, you are the believer in climastrology.
Rubbish and intentionally misleading. Your focus on a single 60-year old paper is laughable. Yet you can’t refute the evidence that human-caused GHG emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2. Go and spend some time at the Scripps Institute and then come back and tell us what you learned.
“Rubbish and intentionally misleading”
No, factually correct and relevant to your comment by showing previous direct CO2 measurements of over 400ppm which were natural.
“Your focus on a single 60-year old paper is laughable.”
No, I cited two peer reviewed papers, and that was all that was necessary to answer show that your chart was intentionally misleading because it didn’t include many higher CO2 levels which would have made your whole chart and comment pointless.
What’s laughable is your hypocrisy in criticizing me for citing a relevant 60-year old paper which includes still valid empirical CO2 data from the mid-1900s and 1800s that supports Beck’s 2007 paper, when you climate alarmists cite Arrhenius’ 1896 paper.
“Yet you can’t refute the evidence that human-caused GHG emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2”
Beck(2007) and Fonsellius(1956) show that today’s levels are no higher than previous natural levels. Your claim is moot.
You know perfectly well that it isn’t my chart. It comes from Scripps Institute of Oceanography and represents the longest running continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2. And you suggest it is misleading? All you have provided is a reference to 2 papers -as though they somehow undermine the direct evidence of rising CO2. Keeling and Meijer refuted the findings of Becks 2007 paper and you know that too. You cling to a 60+ year old paper and a 10+ year old paper while systematically dismissing the direct evidence and current literature on atmospheric C02. Shameful dishonesty.
It’s shamefully dishonest to deny the reality of hundreds of previous direct atmospheric measurements of CO2 above 400ppm. But that’s what your climate alarmist movement must do in order to promote their false narrative that CO2 is higher than it’s ever been before, and that CO2 is the primary cause of climate warming, when the empirical evidence shows that is not true. Sad.
Instead of clinging dishonestly to your single 60-year old article over the scientific literature, why don’t you take your misleading fluff, march into the Scripps Institute and refute their 60 years data and “false narrative”. 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA. Then come back and tell us what you learned.
The solar influx to the oceans is the likely cause of the corresponding atmospheric CO2 increase.
“…there is no known way that the gradual CO2 increase could have caused this giant El Nino-La Nina cycle.
Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural. ”
My god this is some classic conflationary crap. The conclusion is absurd and unrelated to the evidence postulated.
A travesty. Its about the furthest thing from science i have ever read ever.
If its not immediatly clear to readers how stupid this is , rewrite the guff without changing the meaning. Ie. The warming we have seen recently is entirely natural because CO2 levels havnt been shown to cause large el ninos. Hahahaha
Jeez fella, you need some schooling on conclusions that are allowable from evidence and why.
This thought process would be embarrassing to a 10 year old Australian school kid in grade 4.
And you got a doctorate in logic!!!
Dont take my word but .
Show your academic peers your rationale here and see if they got any issues with it. Show your family and friends . Go into a pub and show a drunkard. They all will tell ya.
Its almost Pythonesqe absurdity.
Do you have an actual scientific point to make? This looks like semi-solid bombast to me. Can you hypothesize how the steady CO2 buildup created the giant El Nino? Some sort of newly discovered oceanic heat capacitor perhaps?
The basic logic is simple. All of the warming is caused by the giant El Nino. El Ninos are natural. Therefore all of the warming is natural. Sorry if this is too subtle for you.
David,
First, as you should know, the UAH6 dataset was released with a trend anomaly of +0.114 degrees per decade by the group themselves. Sure, this is lower than RSS4 which is more like 0.2 degrees per decade but you are contradicting the UAH group themselves to say there is no warming. Then there are all the ground based datasets as well of course. Why aren’t you talking about them?
Here is RSS3/4 and UAH5/6
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/UAH-vs-RSS-1024×878.png
All showing warming.
Here is RSS4 and NASA (GIS)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Satellites-2016-1-1024×878.png
Again, ground based readings also record warming at about 1.9 degrees per decade.
So, stop cherry picking UAH6 when there are several other datasets and UAH6 just happens to be the lowest outlier. If you take an average across all the major datasets you get an anomaly well above 0.15 degrees per decade. Even if you insist on cherry picking, then don’t dream up your own cooling theory when the group themselves state that there is a cooling trend. You are completely making crap up without anything to back your assertions.
Second, as we have discussed before, El Niño cycles transfer energy back and forth. So you would need to show a net loss of energy in the oceans after the large El Niño in 1998 that you point to. But all the observations show ocean average temperature is also rising, it did NOT show a net loss of energy after that large El Niño cycle that you imply. So the energy of the whole system is increasing. Again, you can’t say “the oceans did it!” without showing that the oceans were cooler in 2000 than they were in 1996. In fact, of course, the oppposite is true. The oceans were also warmer in 2000 than 1996. Indeed the total heat content of the oceans shows a strong warming trend.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1029/2008GL037155#figure-viewer-grl25702-fig-0001
Taken from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037155/full
So your little hypothesis that the atmosphere was warmer after the 98 El Niño because the oceans cooled is a complete non starter.
I am fascinated by alarmist’s apparent inability to understand what I am saying. I never said there is no warming, rather that the warming there is, is all coincident with the giant El Nino cycle. Hence it is natural.
The reason I am not talking about the ground based statistical models is explained in the article and the link provided. Those temperature estimates are worthless.
Beyond that, RSS uses a climate model to adjust its estimates so I consider it questionable, which is why I use UAH.
Given that I use the entire UAH record there is no cherry picking. Put another way, if using all of the data is cherry picking, then all data analysis is cherry picking, which is absurd.
El Nino’s do not cool the ocean. That is not where the heat comes from. An El NIno is a temporary cessation of cold water upwelling along the west coast of South America. Given this lack of cold surface water, more heat goes into the air.
I see that Michael made a reply and then immediately deleted it, probably so no one could reply and point out his erroneous claims and false logic.
Since I went to the trouble of commenting on it, i’ll include it here:
“So in a constant energy system…”
The earth is never a constant energy system. It is hugely dynamic, constantly changing locally, regionally and globally.
That’s a fundamental error of climate alarmists who try to blame all climate change on humans and human CO2. They assume that without humans, the climate would be constant.
And Michael, the ground-based temperature record is a sham and does not represent any valid change over time.
That’s because it only covers a miniscule portion of the earth’s atmosphere compared to the satellite record which measures ~99% of the lower atmosphere.
That’s because the temperature stations are not consistent over the period of the record, so is an apples and oranges comparison over time.
That’s because the temperature record is not the actual measured temperatures, but adjusted numbers which are not made because of actual station metadata changes.
Here are more reasons the satellite temperature record is vastly superior to the land-based temperature records:
• “Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty.” – Carl Mears, responsible for the RSS temperature record http://remss.com/missions/amsu
• According to NASA, the satellite temperature measurements have been verified as being accurate to 0.03C: “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct andindependent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison between two identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
• “thermometers cannot measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby. … The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never meant to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data. … Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments every 8 seconds.” – Roy Spencer, responsible for the UAH temperature record, http://drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/
• Peer reviewed science says that satellites are better: “Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast global mean temperature trends estimated from surface temperature records can be biased by spatially and temporally non-random coverage changes.” – Santer(2015)
• The land based datasets are much inferior because:
1) they have very sparse coverage, http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/sc2006.gif
2) of a few thousand locations, http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/number-%20temperature-stations-ghcn-1701-2008.gif
3) historical temperature values in the NASA dataset change on a monthly basis, based on blanket-applied computerized algorithms, not on actual station-by-station documented changes in instrumentation or other factors. This essentially renders duplication of scientific conclusions meaningless, since a correct conclusion using the dataset a year ago may no longer be correct now, because the historical data has changed. This is a sham and corrupts science.
4) the measurements are not temporally stable over time as the stations in the datasets constantly change over time periods you are comparing apples and oranges
5) the measured temperatures are contaminated by Urban Heat Island Effect which exaggerates the warming. Urbanization has caused many station moves to surrounding cooler areas as cities have grown. This exaggerates warming trends as has been shown by peer reviewed science, Zhang(2014) ‘The effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend’. Figure 6 of this paper shows the exaggerated warming caused by station moves: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/zhang_et_al_homogenization_china_fig6.png
6) the actual measured data are not included, only numbers which have been corrupted by improper adjustments for UHI, as those adjustments are backwards. For example, NASA has measured a recent UHI effect in Providence, RI of 12C. The “adjustments” in the temperature record have cooled the century-ago temperatures by over 2C. This is backwards for UHI.
7) The land based measuring stations measure the temperature a few m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere at each of those stations, a total of ~10,000 m³, while the satellites measure ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Well I see my reposted comment at least. Go figure.
First, if you want to copy paste a giant bunch of text, you are find to just point me at the page. Scouts honour I will do my best to read it.
On the temp stats, I did not say any dataset was better, I just said that ground based measurements should be ignored. Given the GIS lines up with RSS most of the time, they can’t be that bad.
Anyway, back to the main point.
The climate and oceans are a dynamic system. I get it. But the numbers I am talking about are not regional – they are global. The temp data is global average temperature. The ocean date is total heat content of the entire ocean. There is no place to “hide” energy or to suddenly gain energy from. The total energy in the atmosphere plus the total energy in the ocean is the total energy of the atmosphere/ocean system. This is an implicit but unavoidable assumption of David’s argument.
So, unless you add or remove energy, if one warms the other must cool. But in reality, they both warm… so the energy of the whole system is not constant. It is increasing. How do YOU account for the additional energy in the global atmosphere/ocean system?
I include the key text from sources so that people who don’t want to click on links can see the key arguments. I also provide the links which shows what I say is supported by science.
“Given that the GIS lines up with RSS most of the time, they can’t be that bad.”
GISS is the most improperly adjusted dataset, as it starts with the improperly adjusted GHCN dataset, and then adds even more undocumented adjustments. And an analysis of the adjustments shows that they are made to line up with CO2 changes, and then they are used to claim that CO2 drives temperature changes. Total circular reasoning. Documented here: https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
“The ocean data is total heat content of the entire ocean”
Your whole OHC argument is irrelevant to your CO2-driven climate change meme because the only physical heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation.
“How do YOU account for the additional energy in the global atmosphere/ocean system?”
The additional energy in the system is due to the Sun, which is the only source of energy that transfers heat to the climate system. During the last several decades, the mean level of solar irradiance has been the highest in the previous 4 centuries: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
And in addition, peer reviewed science shows that during the late 20th century warming, the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m². That is ~10 times larger than the increase in CO2 forcing during that timeframe.
More clear evidence that natural climate forcing is still the primary cause of climate warming, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.
[“The ocean data is total heat content of the entire ocean”
Your whole OHC argument is irrelevant to your CO2-driven climate change meme because the only physical heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation.]
But I wasn’t trying to say anything about CO2. I was trying to falsify David’s assertion that the reason for the temp difference before and after the El Niño WAS the El Niño event. Read the article. He is out and out saying that the large El Niño explains why atmosphere temps were higher after than before in the UAH6 data.
[“How do YOU account for the additional energy in the global atmosphere/ocean system?”
The additional energy in the system is due to the Sun, which is the only source of energy that transfers heat to the climate system. During the last several decades, the mean level of solar irradiance has been the highest in the previous 4 centuries:]
Ok, so first let’s note that you agree that there is more energy than before. That means that like me, you don’t buy David’s logic that the higher temps in the atmosphere after the 1998 El Niño were due to the energy being released by the ocean during and not fully reabsorbed afterwards. So that’s good. I am glad we agree because it was a daft argument and clearly not bourne out by the data.
So then we are onto the older and well rehearsed argument that “it was the sun, stupid”.
Ok, fine. I mean I don’t agree as you know, but I don’t care to argue about it here as that argument has nothing to do with David’s article, so we don’t need to go around the houses with that totally unrelated argument here. If I have not had that argument with you already I have had it with someone else at least once… Let’s face it. If every comments section under every article turns into a general debate about ALL facets of climate change science and scepticism then it does get tiresome.
“He is out and out saying that the large El Nino explains why atmosphere temps wer higher after than before in the UAH6 data.”
And David Wojick is correct, because El Ninos release stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere. This is a universally accepted fact. I don’t know why you deny it. Here is what Columbia Univ. Earth Institute says:
“That means that like me, you don’t buy David’s logic that the higher temps in the atmosphere after the 1998 El Nino were due to the energy being released by the ocean during and not fully reabsorbed afterwards.”
I do buy David’s logic, because as I just pointed out, El Ninos release stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
” “it was the sun, stupid”. Ok, fine. I mean I don’t agree as you know, but I don’t care to argue about it here as that argument has nothing to do with David’s article.”
You may disagree, but the empirical data shows that you are wrong.
And you are also wrong that it has nothing to do with David’s article. It is integral to David’s article, because David’s claim that there has been CO2 warming over the last 40 years raises the obvious question, well then what did cause the warming over the last 40 years. And David addressed that question in his article when he said: “Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural.”
So the the issue of solar radiation is entirely relevant, because empirical data shows that it is the natural climate factor that has driven the warming.
I suspect that you don’t want to address the solar radiation is that I have posted enough data that you know you can’t refute it. Maybe that’s not the reason, but regardless, the data does show that solar radiation is the primary cause of the warming, since peer reviewed science shows that the increase in solar forcing at the surface is ~10 times more than the increase in CO2 forcing was.
Look, you can’t have it both ways.
The point of this article is to explain away the increase in atmospheric temperature after 1998 by saying it was caused by the El Niño event in 1998. David does NOT say anything about solar irradiance.
I never said that El Niño events don’t release energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
I said that in an El Niño event you see a transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere and therefore total heat content of the ocean dips, and that is true and observed.
But after the whole 1998 El Niño cycle, the atmosphere remained warmer than before it (as accepted by David). His explanation is that the El Niño cycle CAUSED that rise ie that the atmosphere retained some of that heat. That is what the whole freaking hypothesis is in the article, and in David comments to me above. He says in the article “The simplest explanation is that the second aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Niño effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.“
That would require that the ocean energy would have to be lower after this El Niño than before it, according to conservation of energy.
But it isnt. The heat content of the ocean after the El Niño event is slightly higher. So David’s hypothesis cannot be true. There was a net increase in energy across the period.
You account for that increase due to solar irradiance. As I said, I don’t care to argue about that here but it at least is consistent with the time total energy increase that we observe.
But the point is that David’s whole hypothesis implicitly denies any increase in energy (aka warming) at all. Otherwise why all this focus on the El Niño event at all? If he accepts warming due to solar irradiance then why does he not just say THAT, rather than all this fixation on the El Niño event. Read the article again if you think I am making a straw man. I am not.
“Look you can’t have it both ways”
You are being totally illogical. How old are you?
“The point of this article is to explain away the increase in atmospheric temperature by saying it was caused by the El Nino event in 1998.”
Do you realize how what you said is a total logic FAIL?
Trying to explain away a temperature rise by saying what caused a temperature rise? Again, how old are you?
“David does NOT say anything about solar irradiance”
You are just handwaving. It’s irrelevant that David didn’t say anything about solar irradiance, because David DID say the warming was natural. I was on-topic because I was posting data which showed that increases solar radiation can explain what the natural cause is. It appears that you just want to deny that.
“and therefore total heat content of the ocean dips”
Not necessarily, since the heat transferred from the ocean comes from a very specific area in the equatorial Pacific. The data clearly shows that the OHC there DOES decrease. So the total OHC change after an El Nino proves nothing about the El Nino event because solar radiation can be increasing elsewhere in the global oceans.
You are the one contradicting yourself, because on one hand you said: “I was trying to falsify David’s assertion that the reason for the temp difference before and after the El Nino event was the El Nino event”
Now after I provide you a source that clearly says the El Nino events to cause an increase in global temps, you tell me: “I never said that El Nino events don’t release energy from the ocean to the atmosphere”.
You seem to be hopelessly confused, and are just arguing because you don’t want to accept the fact that the empirical data doesn’t show that CO2 has caused any significant warming.
The rest of your comment is moot because it is based on your flawed logic of total global OHC, which I have exposed is faulty.
“But the whole point is that David’s whole hypothesis implicitly denies any increase in energy (aka warming) at all.”
That is blatantly false, because David EXPLICITLY states: “Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural.”
It appears that you are just trolling.
Read the El Nino/La Nina reference that I linked you to: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/v2-tisdale-who-turned-on-the-heat-free-edition.pdf
Think before you post. It will save you further embarrassment.
Jeez, I am not confused. You are not getting my point or you just want to dissemble until I give up.
David does not think that any warming took place. His explanation for why the global average temperature after the El Niño was higher than before is as follows:
“The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere [from the ocean] that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”
So if that was true, and there is no warming going on, then the oceans have to lose heat as it’s now in the atmosphere causing the observed temperature increase. Regional effects in the Pacific do not effect the THC of the ocean.
But we do not see that. We see the energy content of the ocean higher afterwards than before. So both the atmosphere and the ocean are warmer.
So is there warming or isn’t there?
If there is, then why is David using the El Niño to explain the warmer atmospheric temperatures, as he does in the paragraph that I quoted?
I don’t know if it will help, but let’s try some arbitrary numbers.
Let’s say that in 1997 the atmosphere contains 1000 units of energy and the ocean contains 5000. The total energy of the system is 60
Then the El Niño happens. In 1998 the atmosphere now contains 1100 units and the ocean contains 4900. So far so good I hope.
Then afterwards, say in 2000, what we see is that the temp of the atmosphere goes nearly back to where it was but not quite, so it now contains 1020 units.
Then, in a no-warming scenario, then the ocean must contain 4980.
But in fact, when we measure the total energy content of the ocean, we find it contains 5020.
So now the total energy of the system is 6040. 40 units of energy more than before.
You say the extra 40 units comes from the sun. Fine. That means warming.
David says that there was no warming. He thinks that the atmosphere retained energy from the ocean making it warmer. That is his “simplest explanation”.
But that isn’t the explanation. There is a net warming of the system overall which he either doesn’t realise or doesn’t want to talk about.
“Jeez, I am not confused”
You are so confused, or ideologically blinded by your commitment to your climate cult religious beliefs, that you are totally detached from reality, denying what is written to you in black and white.
“David does not think that any warming took place”
Why do you continue to tell that blatant lie?
He clearly does, as his words that I quoted to you explicitly state: “Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural.”
Next you blather on with previoiusly debunked arguments about total OHC. You obviously didn’t study the El Nino/La Nina reference that I linked you to. You obviously ignored my previous multiple comments which debunked your total OHC argumentation.
No point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who tells blatant lies, denies that they said what they said, falsely accuse others of saying things that they didn’t say.
You are just trolling, and wasting people’s time.
The only value in replying to you is to expose your dishonesty and totally failed arguments.
This majority of this article is about the temperature difference before and after the 1998 El Niño that is observed in the UAH6 data.
“Yes there is some warming but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”
What you call blathering is me putting some numbers to explain why this paragraph simply does not work. Why not do your own quantitative exercise to see if you can make it work. All I am using is the atmosphere as one object (whose energy can be indicated by global average temperature) and whole ocean as another (using total ocean heat content as a direct measure of its energy content), and the El Niño driving energy transfer between them away from an equilibrium state.
You have not debunked my argument about OHC. You pointed to local cooling at the time of the event. That is irrelevant to my point which is based on total OHC and global average temperatures before and after the event.
What is weird is that you have given a more credible explanation for the rise in atmospheric temperatures in the UAH6 dataset (higher solar irradiance causing net warming) than David does, and yet you are still defending his hypothesis about this El Niño that clearly doesn’t work.
“The ocean data is total heat content of the entire ocean” Usually the papers that cite ocean heat content specify the depth in meters. The thermocline is about 1000 meters, so 700 meters would give a reasonable average.
The imbalance of global energy flux is so small and the uncertainties from our best instruments is so great that measurements cannot confirm what the modelers claim is occurring now let alone what their scenarios suggest for the future.
In 2012, Loeb et al estimated that based on ocean heat content the energy imbalance was about 0.5 Watt per square meter.
Loeb, et al. Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty, 2012.
Based on satellite measurements, Stephens et al. reported in 2012 that, “The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm –2 . This uncertainty is an order of magnitude [10 X] larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Fig. 2b). The uncertainty is also approximately an order of magnitude larger than the current estimates of the net surface energy imbalance of 0.6 ±0.4 Wm –2 inferred from the rise in OHC…”
Stephens et al. An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations 2012
I conclude that climate alarmism is like Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling.
Thank you Frederick. I agree with everything you posted, especially your last statement.
Another key statement from Stephens paper was: “Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.¹¹ “. Ref. 11 was to Hansen(2005) ‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications’, which said: “Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.”
So Stephens was saying that Hansen’s claim was suspect because of the large uncertainties that he found in his 2012 paper. This is consistent with your quotes from the paper.
Plus Hansen’s “10 years” OHC numbers were based on ship measurement which were in no way representative of the entire ocean with huge gaps in the Southern Hemisphere: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ecfe0f76fcb96f81e417e28b8bcf3b6a40b014ab23f3512503adc55565c6803e.png
The ARGO buoy coverage is much better, but still very sparse, with only 1 buoy about every 100,000km² of ocean.
And I would note that early on in the Argo era, the data showed ocean cooling from 2003-2005, Lyman et.al.,(2006)’Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean’: “We observe a net loss of 3.2(±1.1) x 10²² of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005.”
But that didn’t agree with the preconceived notion of ocean warming, so they began adjusting the ARGO data. This is documented in Willis(2007) ‘Correction to “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” ‘.
Well later global Surface Solar Radiation satellite data which has very good coverage (~99% of the Earth’s area), showed that during the 2002-2006 time period the amount of solar radiation reaching the oceans decreased by ~3W/m² in the SH, and about 1W/m² in the NH. Hatzzianastassiou et.al., (2011)’Recent regional surface solar radiation dimming and brightening patterns: inter-hemispherical asymmetry and a dimming in the Southern Hemisphere’: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b2933b97ba83a3d7a67571e60f96503210be4d91aa04c53f3523ab4f5b43ffbb.png
So confirmation bias likely led to incorrect adjustments that are now ongoing. A similar thing happened to sea level rise, where sea level wasn’t rising as “expected” so adjustments were added to all the ongoing data. This is documented by a world renowned oceanographer: http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.21stcenturysciencetech.com%2FArticles_2011%2FWinter-2010%2FMorner.pdf%3AkcsKnWxVdID_nXyyCjz584MgvPI&cuid=932754
Another key statement is from Levitus(2012) ‘World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000 m), 1955-2010’: “The World Ocean accounts for 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.”
This is a stark admission that 93% of global warming is natural, because as I told MichaelR, the only ocean-atmosphere heat transfer process that adds heat to the oceans is solar radiation. This is confirmed by Columbia Univ. Earth and Energy Lecture ‘Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling’ – http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html .
The whole CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 meme is a house of cards built on groupthink and confirmation bias, driven by the huge sums of money from government largesse to fund SimClimate games and other mostly worthless studies.
And that’s not conspiracy theory like the climate alarmists claim. It’s reality.
I have a couple of questions. You said
“Well later global Surface Solar Radiation satellite data which has very good coverage (~99% of the Earth’s area), showed that during the 2002-2006 time period the amount of solar radiation reaching the oceans decreased by ~3W/m² in the SH, and about 1W/m² in the NH. Hatzzianastassiou et.al., (2011)’Recent regional surface solar radiation dimming and brightening patterns: inter-hemispherical asymmetry and a dimming in the Southern Hemisphere’
How does that accord with increasing temperatures during that period, measured in the atmosphere and the ocean? I thought your hypothesis was that increased insulation was causing the warming but these papers are showing significantly lower insolation.
Second question. About the heating of the oceans meaning that all the warming must be nothing to do with GHGs. Well not necessarily. The page you mentioned about ocean/atmosphere interaction says this
“Conduction: When air is contact with the ocean is at a different temperature than that the sea surface; heat transfer by conduction takes place. On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. The heated air is more buoyant than the air above it, so it convects the ocean heat upward into the atmosphere. If the ocean were colder than the atmosphere (which of course happens) the air in contact with the ocean cools, becoming denser and hence more stable, more stratified. As such the conduction process does a poor job of carrying the atmosphere heat into the cool ocean. This occurs over the subtropical upwelling regions of the ocean. The transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere by conduction is more efficient when the ocean is warmer than the air it is in contact with. On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.”
So the ocean is losing heat to the atmosphere by (among other means) conduction. The rate of heat transfer by conduction is proportionate to the temperature difference between the two bodies. Now let’s say that the lower atmosphere is not cooling into space as it normally would due to GHG effects. That would hold the atmospheric temperatures higher than previously. That would lower the rate at which the oceans can lose heat to the atmosphere by conduction, so they would accumulate more energy and warm up. What’s wrong with that?
I freely admit that I have not looked for a paper that asserts this, but it’s feasible, no?
“So, unless you add or remove energy, if one warms the other must cool. But in reality, they both [atmosphere and ocean] warm…”
The key is the in the timing which depends on the masses involved and their specific heat. The specific heat of water is 4 times that of air. The ocean thermocline varies with latitude but is about 1000 meters deep. This top layer of the ocean warms and cools as it moves along in currents and oscillations over years and decades. The deeper layers of the ocean take several centuries to circumnavigate the globe gaining and losing energy in the process.
The global atmosphere turns over its energy in about one week.
Therein lies the difference.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation affects the climate of many regions in periodic fashion over periods as long as 60 years. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation does not behave in the same way but does affect the climate regimes of Asia-Pacific countries’. The graph shows 100 years of rainfall from 1901 onwards.
https://geoscienceenvironment.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/sea-rainfall-and-pdo.jpg
The heat capacity of the oceans is so great compared to the atmosphere that small variations in flux in and out of the oceans can have dramatic effects upon the atmosphere.
I am not talking about ocean surface temperatures. I am talking about total heat content. In an El Niño you see the total ocean heat content drop as the global average atmospheric temperature rises.
Then the THC of the ocean increases again as the El Niño subsides.
It’s conservation of energy. It’s irrelevant where in the ocean the energy is. The THC does not care.
So it’s is not possible to make the claim that “perhaps some heat was injected [by the ocean] into the atmosphere that remained” as the THC ocean was NOT correspondingly lower after the El Niño. It was higher.
Your facts about the circulation of the ocean is all very interesting, and of course, water has a huge specific heat content compared to air, but now of that matters here.
It’s just about conservation of energy. Currents, regions etc are all irrelevant when you consider global average temperature and total heat content of the ocean.
David can’t put forward a hypothesis that “perhaps some heat was injected [by the ocean] into the atmosphere that remained” when the ocean heat content was not correspondingly lower to balance the increased energy in the atmosphere.
David, this is very simple thing to understand. An El Niño cycle does indeed mean more warm water at the surface so the atmosphere gets warmer. But that heat has to come from somewhere. It’s simple conservation of energy. The El Niño mechanism just changes the rate of flow of heat from ocean to air and vice versa. So if there is no net energy added then the ocean must cool as the atmosphere warms. Otherwise, in a system of constant energy (which you assert by denying climate change) where is this extra energy in the atmosphere coming from to heat it?
You are specifically saying that in the 1998 El Niño the cycle did not “complete” ie some of the heat gained by the atmosphere from the El Niño did not return back to the ocean so there was a stable increase to the temperature in the atmosphere after the El Niño. So, in a constant energy system, that demands that the total heat content of the oceans was lower after this event than before it.
But the data shows the opposite. The THC of the oceans was higher very soon after the 1998 El Niño.
So warmer atmosphere AND warmer oceans. That means that the total energy of the system has increased. That means climate change.
And as for throwing out all ground based temperature records and the RSS data (which deniers used to love to wheel out until the group had to correct their mistakes), you are kidding me if you think that that is not cherry picking. But even if you do throw out all that data and rely on the solitary UAH6 dataset, your argument still fails a basic conservation of energy test.
(Reposted as disqus marked my comment as spam. I might be wrong, but I am not spamming!)
“Otherwise, in a system of constant energy (which you assert by denying climate change) where is this extra energy in the atmosphere coming from to heat it?”
This assumes that the energy that enters the oceans does so from the atmosphere. The energy that enters the oceans is solar short wave energy. Extremely little short wave energy is emitted or reflected. That is why the oceans have an albedo of about 0.05.
And virtually no long wave energy is emitted below the thermal part of the spectrum, above about 12 microns. That is very near the peak wave length for Earth as a black body, about 15 microns.
True, the atmosphere does have an impact on energy contained by the ocean: depending on wind speed the atmosphere tends to cool the oceans.
You are totally missing the point. David’s hypothesis is nothing to do with irradiance.
“Yes there is some warming [of the atmosphere] but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”
That hypothesis is falsified by the fact that the ocean is WARMER after this event. The total energy of the system (ocean plus atmosphere) after the 1998 El Nino is higher than before it. So warming has taken place.
You can put that down to higher irradiance if you like. I don’t care in this context. But the warming occurred. David’s hypothesis is wrong.
“That hypothesis is falsified by the fact that the ocean is WARMER after this event.”
Totally false. The heat that is transferred out of the ocean into the atmosphere from an El Nino comes from the equatorial Pacific where the anomalously hot surface water exists, not the entire global ocean. So the fact that global OHC hasn’t decreased is irrelevant, because solar radiation can be increasing elsewhere. The data clearly shows that the equatorial Pacific does cool after an El Nino event.
Here is an excellent resource that explains El Nino and La Nina events: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/v2-tisdale-who-turned-on-the-heat-free-edition.pdf
Please spend some time studying before you comment on things that you obviously don’t understand.
WOW!!! You wrote, (The El Niño mechanism just changes the rate of flow of heat from ocean to air and vice versa”)..
El Nino are only two WORDS that are used when the Pacific Ocean waters warm in the tropic zone a few degrees F and that changes the ocean currents where the climate and weather alter a great deal along the coasts of North and South America…. When that happened the Spanish termed it an El Nino year.
El Nino is only words to explain a major change of weather due to warmer Pacific Ocean water in the Tropic zone.
I am not that one making giant claims for how an El Niño can permanently transfer heat into the atmosphere. The author of this article is. This is David’s hypothesis
“The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”
That means a net transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
The measures of atmospheric and ocean total energy I am using are global, not regional.
If you follow David’s hypothesis, that the El Niño is the only thing going on, and that there is no overall warming, then how is it possible that the atmosphere (taken as a whole) warms AND the ocean (taken as a whole) warms over the period 1997-2000 (the “before” and “after” periods as far as David is concerned)?
RealOldOne2 says there is warming but it’s due to solar irradiance. I don’t buy that. But either way, David’s hypothesis does not fly.
You should have caught the error and not repeated it.
I tis very misleading to say (“El Nino is causing effect is causing anything).
El Nino are two WORDS used to describe what happens when the Pacific Ocean waters’ warm up a few degrees F near the equator.
What is causing problems is global warming which causes the Pacific Ocean waters’ to warm a few degrees F near the equator and the ocean currents alter and cause weather conditions to change around the globe. It is global warming, NOT El Nino.
Yes, RSS uses SSTs to calibrate while UAH relies on onboard calibration and is thus an entirely independent dataset.
The only thing you make clear is that you are too committed to the dogma, and too stupid to examine the evidence.
Yeah yeah. What deniers laughingly call evidence is just stuff that falls out of their arse. Every single bit of it is just crap.
If you mob was in court with this shite, the beak would ream yas so bloody hard.
Its astonishing adults carry on with this infantile game.
You don’t even have a plausible theory of how your stupid belief could possibly be true.
“Its almost Pythonesqe absurdity.”
Only because DW wasn’t trying for comedic effect and doesn’t realize how depraved promulgating a pd for denialist position is
“The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.”
Yes indeedy. The simplest explaination is a compounding perpetual motion device that just began a couple decades ago for the first time in the universes history where energy just magically appears.
Given that the giant El Nino caused a lot of heat to suddenly appear in the atmosphere, as measure by the temperature spike, there is no reason why it should all suddenly go away. But if this somehow equals perpetual motion to you, then let’s hear how?
Soooo your idea is air temps went up a little bit cuz of transfer from the ocean. Resulting obviously in the ocean coolng , ( since extra energy in excess to norm is not being added to the system cuz global warming dosnt exist ) thus shrinking in volume and SLR to reverse. This is confirmed by observations is it? The sea is falling as the air temps rise.
Do you not get it? The entire system is gaining energy. And short of being a friggen perpetual motion machine, there is a reason for this. A reason NOT explained by saying ‘ ohhh heat moves around a bit within the system ‘.
Not exactly. The oceans could have been gaining energy which was released during the El Nino. The overall system total energy would not need to change.
Another area still not studied, partially due to the difficulty, is the amount of geo energy moving from the earth into the ocean bottoms through underwater vents and volcanoes. We know there are tens of thousands of underwater colcanoes and innumerable vets. As geologic activity is not constant the flux of this heat is also probably driving the erratic El Nino/La Nina cycles.
“9 Jul 07 – Researchers have counted 201,055 underwater cones, 10 times more than have been found before, and estimate that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 meters over the sea bed.
“The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth,” says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath.
Since the late 1960s, research vessels have been criss-crossing the oceans using sonar instruments to measure the depth of the ocean floor. They have generated 40 million kilometres of linear profiles showing the topography of the ocean bed between 60E° North –– the latitude of southern Alaska –– and 60E° South –– corresponding to the tip of Patagonia.
But until now, no one had been able to sift through them all. So, Hillier and a colleague designed a computer programme that was able to analyse the huge amount of data and identify volcano-like shapes in the sonar lines.
The programme found 201,055 volcanoes over 100m tall. Previously, satellite data had identified 14,164 volcanoes over 1500 m high.
Hillier then extrapolated the data to estimate how many volcanoes exist beyond the areas the research vessels sounded out.
Dont bother with the underwater volcano crap. Its bullplop.
Theres good reasons why its bullplop and im sure you could find those reasons.
And heres the thing. Even if there was a very recent massive surge in volcano activity, with accurate data from clear observations, that in no way invalidates any AGW science. Any alternative idea must firstly stand very robustly on its own two feet AND concurrently overturn the AGW physics and broader consilience.
Methinks thats a big ask for some paranoid conspiracist loons in yankland .
“The overall system total energy would not need to change.”
And so a heating atmosphere results in a lower sea level due to thermal contraction, in this wierd arse closed system idea.
Maybe you should put the closed system idea to deniers who say its the * drumroll * sun! Its gotta be the sun. Or seeing you a jonova fan, the fabulous force x postulated by her partner.
Id quite enjoy reading a 4 way broo haha between volcano loons, sun loons ( now theres a mixed terminology! ) and force x loons with closed system folk sniping from the sidelines.
Its actually quite odd one never sees deniers argue their pathetic cases against each other. Absolute claptrap goes without critique.
Why is that deniers? You see some rubbish at odds with your own pet Galilaen fantasy, but yous never ever speak up about it.
Thanks for you post. When you actually have data to support your spiel, instead of ad hom and verbiage,please post it.
This fellow is spot on. Geothermal heat emissions occur near the margins of tectonic plates, known to be small in area compared to the areas of the plates themselves.
Lots of borehole data confirm his claims.
Except you haven’t presented any links to data and the links I posted show volcanism is widespread.
Sad.
Reference included in reply to another comment.
For instance, there are no tectonic plate edges in the western Antarctica, yet, recent surveys found 90 volcanoes beneath the ice.
See link above.
Possibly you are thinking about the lack of subduction zones. Within the Antarctic Plate itself is the West Antarctic Rift System. The existence of this system indicates spreading similar to the rift system in East Africa and its relation to the East African Superswell. (Reference below.)
The Antarctic Plate is very large in comparison with the West Antarctic Rift System. All plates worldwide are much greater in area than their active volcanic zones. The same is true of both convergent and divergent plates, rift zones within plates, and mantle hotspots.
To make a theory of “Plutonic climatology” work, you would have to show that the extent of active vulcanism is much greater than what is currently known. In my opinion, the theory is not promising, but I follow the arguments as new facts are discovered.
A reference you might find interesting:
Fitzgerald Paul, Tectonics and landscape evolution of the Antarctic plate since the breakup of Gondwana, with an emphasis on the West Antarctic Rift System and the Transantarctic Mountains in Antarctica at the close of a millennium. Royal Society of New Zealand Bulletin 35: 2002
I regret that you thought my comment was ad hominem, something I did not intend.
If there is actual AGW physics, why has no one been able to state a theory of how measurable AGW from CO2 could be possible?
Lol!
Its all written up. Even for children.
See your friendly librarian.
So what you are saying is you are unable to state or quote any theory that explains how measurable warming of Earth’s surface could possibly result from changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Ha ha haa.. You believe an El Nino releases hear.
Please do explain how that is possible….. I am quite certain you don’t have a clue of what El Nino means… If you did you never would have said what you said.
“Ha ha haa. You believe an El Nino releases hear[t]. Please explain how that is possible.”
You are revealing your ignorance of the climate system.
Once again Old One… El Nino is just two words and have no power to do anything… Using the excuse a El Nino is a problem ignores the problem is global warming.
https://iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm
As an interesting side not, after the decrease in Arctic sea ice in the early 2000’s, a number of new, active volcanoes were found in the Arctic Ocean.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
The Western Antarctic glaciers were also claimed to be melting from your SUV idling in the driveway. Last year this was found…
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/antarctica-91-volcanoes-coincidentally-found-under-glaciers-warming-due-to-climate-change/
The heat capacity of the atmosphere is negligible, roughly equivalent to the heat capacity of the upper 10 meters of the world ocean. The lagged effect of the El Nino arises because the ocean surface waters retain the heat.
“For example, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the revolutionary special theory of relativity.”
Actually, and it is an important difference, the Michelson-Morley experiments had a NULL result. That is, they didn’t find what they were looking for. It did not have NEGATIVE results which would have tended to disprove the idea of aether.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/where-did-the-aether-go/
A case can be made from empirical data that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor n causing climate warming over the last 140 years.
The 1975 NAS ‘Understanding Climatic Change’ shows that temperature increase by ~0.7C from 1880-1940. Humans added ~150 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during that period.
From 1940-1970 humans added ~250 billions of CO2 to the atmosphere, which was ~2/3rds of all the human CO2 produced up to that point, and temperature decreased by about as much as it had increased in the previous 60 years, bringing temperature right back to where it was in 1880. Here’s the graph from the report which shows this: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402
Clear empirical evidence that CO2 is an insignificant cause of climate warming.
During the decade of the 1970s humans added ~170 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere and temperatures barely changed, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6f75719c966ea04effaa729fb965cb8b8faf9d873c04dbf9b96aad69df72147.png .
More empirical evidence that CO2 isn’t a significant driver of climate warming.
During the last two decades of the 20th century humans added ~460 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere and temperature increased by ~0.3C, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4e8cf76fe6a25f4828eb80126155ee411ecc1e78d33fac9e1e1e969ad37120e0.png . You can see that the increase over that period was in large part due to the large natural warming of the 1998 El Nino. And peer reviewed science shows that during those decades natural climate forcing (more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface) increased by ~10 times more than CO2 forcing increased.
So again the data doesn’t support that CO2 was the primary cause of that warming either.
And over the 21st century up to the point of the natural warming from the 2015-2016 El Nino, humans have added ~450 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which was ~1/3rd of all the human CO2 ever produced to that point, and temperatures didn’t increase at all: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f65a28b612b8527c696ccd11d1cec2eac3ce16f19484b9c3b911f7628cfe4ada.png . So no CO2 caused warming there.
And the warming since then is due to the natural warming of the 2015-2016 El Nino which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
So the empirical evidence does not support the contention that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming as the climate alarmists claim. Natural climate variability can explain it.
“A case can be made from empirical ….” says an anonymous Internet commentor posting original analysis on a climate science denialist blog post claiming, w original analysis, that there has been no warming for 40 years…..
“The Earth’s climate is changing. Temperatures are rising, snow and rainfall patterns are shifting, and more extreme climate events – like heavy rainstorms and record high temperatures – are already happening. Many of these observed changes are linked to the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, caused by human activities. ”
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
“The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6
WHAT WE KNOW
THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide
Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/
European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu
Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu
republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org
EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124
And the science condensed :
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}
• Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
• Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}
• It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}
• It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
SPM WG1 AR5
All those reports of how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are don’t change the fact that the temperature and CO2 data I provided show that the emperor has no clothes. You are just handwaving.
Then, as you’ve been asked for repeatedly, you should be able to show reams of papers , journal published, peer reviewed journal published papers that show the same results as your Internet comment original analysis.
You know, like how repeated papers show similar results on level of consensus, even when datasets and methodology is different.
Or like how the IPCC reports show that hundreds of papers coalesced around a central figure for temp, sensitivity, ice melt, glacier retreat, species and disease migration.
The data speaks for itself. You continue to avoid discussing the data. This has been your MO for the years that I have interacted with you.
Yes, it does.
And in the years, we’ve seen multiple major reports written by real scientists showing exact to opposite of what you purport.
ln the years, the consensus has risen to the high 90s.
The Paris Accord
And the One Planet Summit
And every state has updated energy policies.
Renewable energy has become part of utility corp portfolios
And just about everyone has realized that there is no debate among real scientists.
Consensus of opinions proves nothing in science. Empirical data does.
I’m sure you would have been a staunch defender of flat earth, of Piltdown Man, of Eugenics, of bleeding to cure disease too.
I’m still waiting for you to refute the empirical data that I presented. Repeating propaganda talking points of your climate alarmist religion proves nothing except that you are a true believer.
I don’t bother with arguing about some crank science analysis that doesn’t fit to the observations. Crank science that is only found on blogs. Crank science from anonymouse internet commentors. Crank science that sets out to disprove nearly 200 years of global research. Crank science that uses 3 woods for trees graphs in an effort to argue the entire field of science is wrong. Crank science that equivalent phrases Google source only to climate science denialism blogs and comment threads. Crank science that doesn’t follow the most basic, most well established fundementals of physics and chemistry.
“…data I presented which shows that anthropogenic CO2 has not caused any significant climate warming over the past 140 years.”
Don’t waste your time with Robert. He’s another idiot who thinks the science was settled 120 years ago. LOL
But it’s so much fun exposing the scientific illiteracy of the crank trolls and watching them thrash and flail as they obfuscate with nonsensical logically fallacious arguments.
Why is there no theory that explains how it could be physically possible for such stupid conclusions to be correct?
I read that over a bunch o’times… I tried, I really tried.
Do you mean science or ?
Real”s conclusion isn’t based on science analysis, but on misinterpreting , partly by cherrypicking, what the science says so it incorrectly fits to a conclusion Real liked. That’s a basic technique followed by blogs focused on disseminating climate science denialism talking points.
No, I mean there is no theory that explains how it is possible for CO2 in the atmosphere to be causing any noticeable temperature change.
I’m sorry, but the time spent explaining yet again that there is no science supporting your asinine claim is more environmentally productive picking up poo because of irresponsible dog owners.
Not to mention the rest of the world is working on solutions, while you’re reciting from the religious texts of the pd for denialist blogs.
The 12 #OnePlanet commitments
“12 commitments made, 12 commitments to be kept. Emmanuel Macron warned the One Planet Summit participants: “Think long and hard, if you make a commitment, we will hold you to it.” They thought long and hard… and decided to commit. These are more than commitments, they are actions. Here they are. Stepping up finance for adaptation and resilience to climate change” https://www.oneplanetsummit.fr/en/ https://www.oneplanetsummit.fr/en/the-12-oneplanet-commitments/
Spreading poo seems to be your only skill. Citing the commitments of others who are equally stupid doesn’t provide scientific support for the stupid idea that curtailing the production of CO2 is somehow useful.
You certainly have not offered anything that explains how CO2 in the atmosphere could possibly be noticeably affecting temperature or climate.
Admit it. You can not state or quote any way that atmospheric CO2 could ever possibly affect the temperatures of Earth’s troposphere or surface, can you?
Missing the point being made.
Thanks.
“… poo because of irresponsible dog owners.”
May i quicky say that people in wheelchairs are particularly affected by such dog owners and appreciate clean footpaths.
“A case can be made from empirical ….” says an anonymous Internet commentor posting original analysis on a climate science denialist blog post claiming, w original analysis, that there has been no warming for 40 years…..
C.R.A.A.P. TEST
Currency: the timeliness of the information
When was the information published or posted?
Has the information been revised or updated?
Is the information current or out-of date for your topic?
Are the links functional?
Relevance: the importance of the information for your needs
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
Who is the intended audience?
Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper?
Authority: the source of the information
Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
Are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations given?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address?
Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?
examples: .com (commercial), .edu (educational), .gov (U.S. government),
.org (nonprofit organization), or .net (network)
Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content, and
Where does the information come from?
Is the information supported by evidence?
Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion?
Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors?
Purpose: the reason the information exists
What is the purpose of the information? to inform? teach? sell? entertain? persuade?
Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda?
Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?
http://libguides.library.ncat.edu/content_mobile.php?pid=53820&sid=394505#box_394505
It is noted that you have provided no empirical evidence to refute the empirical temperature and CO2 data I presented which shows that anthropogenic CO2 has not caused any significant climate warming over the past 140 years.
Yes. You are correct.
I don’t bother with arguing about some crank science analysis that doesn’t fit to the observations. Crank science that is only found on blogs. Crank science from anonymouse internet commentors. Crank science that sets out to disprove nearly 200 years of global research. Crank science that uses 3 woods for trees graphs in an effort to argue the entire field of science is wrong. Crank science that equivalent phrases Google source only to climate science denialism blogs and comment threads. Crank science that doesn’t follow the most basic, most well established fundementals of physics and chemistry.
“…data I presented which shows that anthropogenic CO2 has not caused any significant climate warming over the past 140 years.”
True to your MO, you avoid discussing science (empirical data) because it shows you are wrong and you can’t refute it, so you handwave with derogatory and false “crank” & “denialism” name calling. Sad. But the jihadist zeal in which you attempt to defend your climate religion proves Dr. Lindzen correct:
There is nothing “crank” about posting a temperature graph from a NAS report, and plots of CO2 levels from Mauna Load datasets, and plots of satellite temperatures from the UAH dataset, and amounts of CO2 emissions from the Oak Ridge National Labs dataset.
The very data that I posted is what will cause people in the future to shake their heads in disbelief as they ponder how people could be be fooled into believing the histrionics and warnings of climate catastrophe and coming climate doom from climate alarmists like you:
Svante had a 120 years less data and only a pencil and his work has stood to the test of time. With thousands of papers providing more detail, verifying, repeating the results.
“..people in the future to shake their heads in disbelief…”
And your endless repetition on comment threads hasn’t been replicated, verified, ….
“Source: http://www.jpands…”
Let the world know which climate related journal published that
“…derogatory and false “crank” & “denialism…”
The evidence speaks for itself.
“”The evidence speaks for itself.”
Yes it does, and shows that once again you avoid discussing the science that I presented, and you just repeat your false climate talking points and evidence-free claims.
You are just denying science, denying reality and doing as Lindzen said, making a failed attempt to defend your climate alarmism religion with jihadist zeal. Sad.
I’m sure you are frustrated that I won’t respond to your beck and call. There is no need to.
I’ve pointed out why I am choosing not to enter a discussion on your terms. Try posting your claptrap at a science forum, or ask a local hs science instructor to read and respond to it. I think a reading of your science there wil result in a similar response.
To be honest, I was going to cite Pauli, but
is more applicable.
You refusal is your admission that you can’t refute any of the science that I have posted which shows that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.
Thanks.
And that is the perfect example of what I just, literally less than 3 minutes ago, told you.
At this point I’m wondering if you’re just pavlovly hitting respond.
Your admission that you have no intention of discussing science means all your comments have just been trolling.
Got it.
And, again…that is the perfect example of what I told you. Only this time it took you 3 hrs….
My history is open. Everyone is free to compare our comments and come to their own conclusion.
I’m no expert here, but it’s my understanding that measurements of the downward radiation at the surface of the earth have increased substantially at the same wavelengths as the absorption maxima of CO2 and methane. Doesn’t this support the idea that the warming effects of these GHGs have not maxed out, contrary to your claim?
The empirical data shows that the overall global DownWelling LongWave IR is actually decreasing: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lw-ned.png
“that the warming effects of these GHGs have not maxed out, contrary to your claim?”
My claim is that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming. CO2 is a trace ghg, only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is the strongest ghg, ~1% of the atmosphere. All other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere should increase DWIR, but the above data shows, the increase in atmospheric CO2 from ~370ppm to ~400ppm hasn’t caused DWIR to increase, which means, not surprisingly, that all other things have not remained equal.
The climate system is hugely complex, and it’s simplistic to believe that CO2 is the “thermostat” that controls global temperature as climate alarmists claim.
I agree with Prof. Stott who says:
I read that, over time, the spectra corresponding to CO2 and CH4 for outgoing radiation and reflected radiation have decreased and increased, respectively. Doesn’t this support the idea that these gases are increasing in their effect on the surface, in step with their rising concentrations?
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
(NB I’m a relatively naive follower of this field, so I’m just asking a question, rather than claiming I have the answer.)
“increasing their effect on the surface”
It has very little effect on the surface for a couple reasons:
1) The only source of thermal energy transferred to the surface is from solar radiation, as shown by this earth energy budget diagram from peer reviewed science: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
2) That diagram shows that ~70% of the energy transferred away from the surface is via latent and sensible convective heat transfer.
3) The ~30% that is transferred away from the surface via radiation is absorbed by ghgs in the lower atmosphere and the energy is transferred to the surrounding N₂ & O₂ molecules before the ghg molecule can emit a photon, as discussed here: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
4) Once the energy is transferred to ghgs in the upper atmosphere where there are few surrounding N₂ & O₂ molecules to collide with, the energy is radiated out to colder outer space.
Since you’re a NB, you might not be aware that SkS is not a trustworthy website. It is a climate alarmism site which posts disinformation, such as the article you linked to.
It claims: “climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution”. That is false, because there are no peer reviewed papers which empirically quantify anthropogenic vs. natural warming.
It claims: “The increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy” The CERES graph that I posted in my previous comment shows that DWLWIR has decreased, not increased.
It makes the fundamental flaw of arguing based on the wrong view that energy transfer is just a radiative problem.
It makes the fundamental flaw of attempting to show anthropogenic vs. natural apportionment by using climate models. Climate models can’t accurately model natural climate change, so they are totally incapable of determining anthropogenic vs. natural warming.
That’s just a few of the errors in just the page you linked to.
I guess that’s the kind of shoddy science that you’d expect from a site run by a cartoonist:
And the dishonest practices of changing, deleting, and misrepresenting comments on the website are documented here: bit.ly/Pkj847 , bit.ly/RN6I4v , bit.ly/qnhi4m , bit.ly/AgQux8 , bit.ly/pahc21 , bit.ly/n9tpeK , bit.ly/WsptzJ , bit.ly/PlTBbQ , bit.ly/154jl4z , bit.ly/Qku4E8 , bit.ly/JAVQKZ , bit.ly/Kr7etP , bit.ly/1fjxZNz
The data from NOAA, NASA, UK Hadley, and others show a fairly steady uptrend in temperatures since the 1970s. The available data for 2017 show it will be just above or just below 2015.
Yes, individual big El Nino’s (say 1998 and 2016) can boost and La Nina’s (say 2000 and 2011) can reduce in a given year – also volcanic eruptions like El Chichon and Pinatubo can temporarily reduce.
But the long-term trend is up and continues.
So the answer to the question: yes, there’s a steady long-term warming from human CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in the last 40 years https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35b0f0c477e51cbf1c65a7ccdc767ac16afcadf3129ebab0a9b947d313b4c3f9.png
“So the answer to the answer to the question: yes, there’s been steady warming from human CO2 and other greenhouse gas emission in the last 40 years”
Setting aside the fact that your graph is not representative of a true global temperature because it is not the satellite record, and the fact that it is not even measured temperatures, it’s adjusted numbers), the fatal flaw in what you posted is that you gave zero empirical evidence that any warming is caused by human CO2.
The empirical evidence shows that it is caused by natural forcing, a predominance of El Ninos and more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. Peer reviewed science has shown that during the late 20th century warming, the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface has increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² which is ~10 times greater than than the increase in CO2 forcing.
As I noted, there are several ways that track the warming of the earth’s climate – and the surface temperature I provided is the one most used.
Since almost 93% of the added heat from AGW ends up in the oceans – the “700 pound gorilla” is that ocean heat content.
So recent data – Figure 6 from Cheng et al Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Science Advances vol3 e1601545 2017 which is open source. Note it has the amount of the heat increase at various depths and the yellow-gold line is the 93% of the calculated heat from added human greenhouse gases. So excellent match. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/419613f9cc7a6694fb2436b51bec74cd66abb99505a9195c7cbc1d1a7ed9d148.png
“Since almost 93% of the added heat from AGW ends up in the oceans -“
Wrong. That 93% is natural, not from AGW, because the only physical ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the oceans is solar radiation. All other processes remove heat from the ocean. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
You have just conceded that 90+% of the global warming since 1955 has been natural, not anthropogenic.
RealOldRavingLunatic – The oceans are part of the earth’s climate system and when there’s an imbalance like that caused by AGW, heat distributes throughout the climate system. The oceans are the heat sink – their mass is almost 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. The heat capacity of water is about 4 times that of air.
To try and summarize, rising greenhouse gas concentrations prevent some of the heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space. Over 90% of this excess heat ends up stored in the oceans.
It’s an enormous amount of heat that the oceans have taken up due to AGW – over 20 x 10^22 joules.
For references on the oceans taking up >90% of the AGW heat and thus raising their heat content, please see some of the following:
Abraham et al A Review of Ocean Global Temperature Observations Implications for Ocean Heat Content Estimates and Climate Change Rev Geophys 51:450–483 2013
Cheng et al Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Science Adv vol3 e1601545 2017
Church et al Revisiting earths sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008 Geophys Res Let vol38 L18601 2011
IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 section 5.2.2 Ocean Heat Content
IPCC AR5 Chapter 3 section 3.2 Changes in Ocean Temperature and Heat Content
Levitus et al World ocean heat content and thermosteric level change 0-2000 m 1955-2010 Geophys Res Let vol39 L10603 2012
Levitus et al Warming of the world ocean 1955-2003 Geophys Res Let vol32 L02604 2005
Lyman & Johnson Estimating Global Ocean Heat Content Changes in the Upper 1800 m since 1950 and the Influence of Climatology Choice J Climate 27:1945-1957 2014
Trenberth et al Earth’s Energy Imbalance J Climate 27:3129-3144 2014
von Schuckmann et al An imperative to monitor earth’s energy imbalance Nature Climate Change 6:138–144 2016
So there is a natural heat exchange not only from the planet to space, but within the parts of the earth’s climate system such as the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice. When AGW warms the climate system – yes, 90% of the heat ends up in the oceans. The increased heat observed is due to the increased greenhouse effect from human emissions.
“RealOldRavingLunatic”
No, I’m just calmly presenting science and empirical data.
It appears that once again you are getting very angry that I post science that you can’t refute. Your name calling doesn’t change the scientific fact that solar radiation is the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean. I gave you the Columbia Univ. reference which backs up what I posted. You ignored it.
And I would add that none of your references provide any science to refute this scientific fact. None of them provide any physical mechanism for ghgs in the atmosphere to transfer any significant amount of heat into the oceans. Only natural solar radiation does that.
“When AGW warms the climate system – yes, 90% of the heat ends up in the ocean.”
There is no empirical science showing anthropogenic causation of any significant warming of the climate system. There are claims of that, but no empirical evidence showing that those claims are in fact true.
And since you agree that 93% of the warming observed in the climate system is the increase in OHC, and the only physical mechanism that causes that is natural, solar radiation, that means that 90+% of the warming is natural.
None of your references refute that with any empirical science.
“when there’s an imbalance like that”
The uncertainties are so large that we really don’t know how large the imbalance is. Here is the supporting evidence of that:
• “We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!” – Kevin Trenberth, climategate mail#1255530325
• ” “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system … This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t,” said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.,” – https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19990204&id=FfIaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=30cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6743,299017&hl=en
The IPCC AR4 reference you cite does discuss OHC in section 5.2.2.1, but doesn’t discuss the air-sea fluxes that caused the increase in OHC. That is discussed in Section 5.2.4, where it says: “The global average changes in global ocean heat content discussed above are driven by changes in the air-sea net energy flux (see Section 5.2.2.1). At regional scales few estimates of heat flux changes have been possible. … At the global scale, the accuracy of the flux observations is insufficient to permit a direct assessment of the changes in heat flux. Air-sea heat fluxes are discussed in Section 3.5.6.”
In Section 3.5.6 is says: “Significant uncertainties remain in global fields of the net heat exchange, stemming from problems in obtaining accurate estimates of the heat flux components. … Recent evaluations of heat flux estimates from reanalysis and in situ observations indicate some improvements but there are still global biases of several tens of watts per square metre”
In your AR5 reference, Sections 3.2.3 & 3.2.4 quantify OHC, but do not discuss causation. Section 3.4 ‘Changes in Ocean Surface Fluxes’ draws the same conclusion that AR4 did: “Air-sea fluxes also influence temperature and humidity in the atmosphere and, therefore, the hydrological cycle and atmospheric circulation. AR4 concluded that, at the global scale, the accuracy of the observations is insufficient to permit a direct assessment of the changes in heat flux (AR4 Section 5.2.4). As described in Section 3.4.2, although substantial progress has been made since AR4, that conclusion still holds for this assessment.”
AR5 Section 3.4.2.2 ‘Surface Fluxes of Shortwave and Longwave Radiation’ says: “The surface shortwave flux has strong latitudinal dependence with typical annual mean values of 250 Wm⁻² in the tropics. The annual surface net longwave flux ranges from -30 to -70 Wm⁻².”
The shortwave flux is solar radiation and confirms what I have said and the Columbia Univ. lecture says that solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that adds heat to the ocean. The longwave net flux removes heat from the ocean.
The fact remains that the only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation, which is natural, not anthropogenic.
The science is refuting you, RealOldRavingLunatic; really nothing to do with me.
Here’s an older NOAA page (2010) on the subject https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/new-evidence-warming-ocean
The opening paragraph
There is a link embedded in the 90 percent phrase – leading to a NOAA figure. Again, everyone knows the oceans are the heat sink and they continue to improve the measurements (a set of Deep Argo instruments has been deployed in the South Atlantic to begin the study of the Antarctic deep water flow) https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/where-is-global-warming.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8439c3941b59440043a0c01099a3f4b7521ec8b1b123adcd0d544a7644aa56e3.jpg
“The science is refuting you, RealOldRavingLunatic”
No, the science is refuting you and your fellow climate alarmists James. Nothing in that NOAA webpage provides any empirical evidence that humans or CO2 in the atmosphere has caused the “93.4%” of heat that has been stored in the ocean. Neither that webpage nor anyone else has offered any physical mechanism that shows how human emitted ghgs can transfer heat from the atmosphere into the oceans. As I’ve shown and as you have not been able to refute, the only physical mechanism that can do that is solar radiation, and that is natural.
Your choice, RealOldRavingLunatic – science says
1. there are heat flows in the earth’s climate system and that the primary reservoir for the heat is the oceans (remember, in the last deglaciation leading to the Holocene, as the world warmed, the oceans warmed)
2. there’s currently an energy imbalance due. Heat in the earth’s climate system is rising due to human greenhouse gas emissions. So again, the earth is warming and the oceans are warming as the major heat sink (yes, more solar heat is being retained in the earth’s climate system – the solar origin of the energy is natural, but the added retention of some of that energy is man-made)
“there’s currently an energy imbalance due to rising human greenhouse emissions”
There is no empirical science that shows that any energy imbalance (if any) is caused by human ghg emissions. Science and the empirical data shows that it is due to solar radiation transferring more heat into the oceans, as you admit.
“yes, more solar heat is being retained in the earth’s climate system – origin is natural, but the added retention is man-made”
I’m glad you finally admit that the Sun is the cause of the additional energy in the oceans.
But there is no evidence that shows the retention is man-made. That’s just another of your evidence-free claims.
In fact the empirical evidence shows that downward longwave flux from the atmosphere (which is allegedly “trapping” more heat” is decreasing, not increasing as your climate alarmist religion says it should. Here’s the data: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lw-ned.png
That shows that ghgs have not provided any more resistance to heat leaving the earth’s surface.
And the empirical evidence supports that in fact. The energy leaving the surface has increased, not decreased as your climate alarmism religion says it should. Here’s the data: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/lw-opp.png
So once again, real science, empirical data, shows that you and your climate alarmist religion are making false claims.
The reality is that the Sun is still the primary driver of the climate system, and the climate system is just responding naturally to the changes in solar radiation.
The sun originates the energy, RealOldRavingLunatic, but the cause of the increase in the ocean heat content, as well as the increased surface temps and glacial ice melt, is the increase in the greenhouse effect trapping (retaining) more heat energy on earth. It’s called AGW.
And the Baseline Surface Radiation Network shows that the downwelling longwave IR from the greenhouse effect is indeed gradually increasing as CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels rise.
And the overall balance at the top of the atmosphere should be TSI (solar incoming) – RSW (total reflected albedo) – OLR (outgoing emitted longwave IR).
Suggest you may want to consult several papers:
1. Loeb et al Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty Nature Geoscience 5:110-113 2012. Basically , the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect and the rising heat content of the oceans match relatively well.
2. Loeb et al CERES top-of-atmosphere Earth radiation budget climate data record – accounting for in-orbit changes in instrument calibration Remote Sensing vol8 182 2016. They have moved on to Edition 4 to address a number of issues such as instrument drift. In Figure 7, they have the downwelling IR from 3 satellite systems – but the slope is downward. In this specific case, they are addressing issues with a slight daylight overlap in the shortwave and longwave spectra. So the top panel is daylight – and bottom panel daylight minus nighttime. So you need to check the source of the your figure and see what gives.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf3005aedc06205ee7d0b7f0fcd48ce38a74a7eff4a2eec1f765ca980de0f1ff.png
3. Finally, the recently published Loeb et al Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition 4.0 Data Product J Climate doi 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1 2017 It’s not open source yet – but you should be able to use your local university library. Some details there on the CERES database and its evoluiton, as well as consistency with a TOA imbalance approaching 0.7 Watts/m^2
“RealOldRavingLunatic”
Your childish temper tantrum name calling just discredits you and exposes that you are angry because you can’t refute the science that I have presented which proves you wrong.
“but the cause of the increase in ocean heat content, as well as the increase surface temps and glacial ice melt is the increase in greenhouse effect trapping (retaining) on earth. It’s called AGW”
And your claimed AGW is not supported by empirical evidence. • None of the papers you cited and no other peer reviewed papers empirically show anthropogenic causation of the alleged TOA imbalance. If you disagree cite one.
• None of the papers you cited and no other peer reviewed papers empirically show anthropogenic causation of the surface temperature increases. If you disagree cite one.
• None of the papers you cited and no other peer reviewed papers show anthropogenic causation of glacier melting. Glacier melting began before human ghg emissions were significant: https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif
i just stick with the facts, including your mental status, RealOldRavingLunatic.
Taking into account that mountain glaciers are widely distributed, some papers on global surveys that I’d suggest for a start: Leclercq & Oerlemans Global and hemispheric temperature reconstruction from glacier length fluctuations Climate Dyn 38:1065–1079 2012; Gardner et al A reconciled estimate of glacier contributions to sea level rise 2003 to 2009 Science 34:852–857 2013; Leclercq et al A data set of worldwide glacier length fluctuations Cryosphere 8:659-672 2014 (good map of the surveyed glaciers in Figure 2 and summary data in Figure 1 – note the general onset in the 20th century; and finally Roe et al Centennial glacier retreat as categorical evidence for regional climate change Nature Geoscience 10:95-99 2017.
A more recent summary figure from the World Glacier Monitoring Service report. – note the acceleration since mid-20th century (deeper red)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63c960e52405186c7ef07874e63b0b7f61fa4893d2fe96542c94e874cffd8a73.jpg
Then, of course, there’s the timeline for Greenland’s ice mass loss. An effort at a longer time line Box & Colgan Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reconstruction Part 3 Marine Ice Loss and Total Mass Balance (1840–2010) J Climate 26:6990-7002 2013
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/08da0acedd8560f88db9850fd95f6b4d5b26d8fadc3245499002d04571936493.png
and a more recent review – see their Figure 11 Kahn et al Greenland ice sheet mass balance – review Rep Prog Phys vol78 046801 2015 Starts at 1990 and has a number of studies summarized
“RealOldRavingLunatic”
Still throwing your name calling tantrum. Sad.
So you’ve given up attempting to defend you debunked AGW heat “retention” claim so you move on to some new handwaving obfuscation.
Sorry, but none of those glacier graphs or reports provide any empirical evidence of melting caused by humans. So your citing papers and posting graphs that just show natural melting is not evidence to support your false human-caused warming meme.
“mountain glaciers are widely distributed”
Yes, and other glaciers around the world began melting way before human emissions were significant, showing that the cause of glacier melting is natural, not anthropogenic. Here’s one from France, whose greatest length was in ~1650, and began significantly melting ~1850 at the end of the Little Ice Age: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e4e5b6fffd4fca407b81809305f5c454827199d2838423aff56e31f0d3bcb4ad.png
And since there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of climate warming, glacier melting is just evidence of natural climate change.
Consistency of pattern with global temperature (surface and ocean).
Consistency of pattern with other factors such as the Greenland ice cap.
And use a global pattern like I did, not a single glacier. Here’s another from one of other papers I suggested you review. The Mer de Glace is included and is about halfway down in green. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49f393114f971e56c68f2a03412201e9bac064291c27f81d5467c96bb56a4ad3.png
All that confirms what I said that glacier melting began when global temps warmed up naturally at the end of the LIA.
And since the naturally warming has continued and temps haven’t gone back to the cold temps of the LIA, the glaciers continue to melt.
No evidence there to support anthropogenic global warming.
First, some perspective on the so-called Little Ice Age.
There were no continental glaciers; the temperature dip from the paleoclimate data says was about 1.5° C below today. Then a bump up of about 0.5° C from 1740 to 1850 – with the EXCEPTION of around 1815-1820 with the volcanic eruptions and the so-called Dalton minimum. Then, after 1850 our current 1° C AGW rise.
Second, the glacial retreat does not go back to 1740 – it’s a 20th century issue and is accelerating. Again, take note, depending on the precise circumstances of the glacier – altitude is a key factor, and the very local climate is a factor – so the Hindu Kush glaciers seem to be among those with little change.
So the evidence is coincident with AGW – and those areas where AGW should be raising the temperature most – those glaciers tend to be losing the most mass. So good – but not conclusive. One part of the overall puzzle.
Of course, if you move to Greenland’s ice cap and the ocean heat content or surface temperature or atmospheric (lower troposphere) temperatures – well, all those are stronger individual cases – and again, all those pieces including the land glaciers come together and fit – pointing to AGW.
Your own climate alarmism religion only claims that human-warming began in the late 20th century. Global temps cooled from 1940 to 1979, Your own graph shows that most of the glacier melting occurred before the late 1970s when the late 20th century warming began.
And the increased solar radiation reaching the surface and the predominance of El Ninos which was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, caused continued glacier melting.
So glacier melting is only evidence of natural climate warming, not anthropogenic-caused warming.
“Then, after1850 our current 1° C AGW rise”
That’s a false, evidence-free claim. As my comments have shown, the empirical evidence shows that the warming since 1850 is overwhelmingly natural. There isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows it is not natural, or empirically shows that it is anthropogenic.
“and is accelerating”
No empirical evidence of that, and wouldn’t matter if it was, since the empirical evidence shows that natural warming caused it.
“So the evidence is coincident with AGW”
Wrong, since most of the melting happened prior to human CO2 becoming significant.
“Greenland …”
The Greenland temperature record doesn’t support your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 narrative: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Once again, you fail to provide any empirical evidence to support your climate alarmist religion.
Warmer is good. Cold kills. Even the originators of your CO2 climate alarmist religion recognized that:
And one of his later followers, Guy Callendar also believed that warming would be a good thing.
So Callendar was no climate alarmist, although he did promote the wrong-headed CO2 climate warming hypothesis. A valid hypothesis will make accurate predictions. In the same paper, Callendar confidently predicted that his CO2 hypothesis would be confirmed in the coming two decades:
Humans added the most CO2 than ever before in the next 20 years. But the empirical data of global temperatures over the next 20 years after Callendar’s 1938 paper showed a linear decrease in temperature of ~0.3C over the next 20 years: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402 & http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1938/to:1958/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1938/to:1958/trend . So we see that Callendar’s hypothesis FAILED the real world test. In fact, global temperatures decreased over the next 40 years after Calander’s prediction, even though humans added over 2 times the total amount of human CO2 between 1938-1978 than had been added before 1938: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88dbdb5a68831dd1d6b7a202603ac5f702db4fffe2b5b9cf009dbe3a1ac18c69.png
And the comments on Callendar’s paper shared the some of the same criticisms as today’s critics of the CO2 hypothesis have. Sir George Simpson said:
This correct Callendar’s incorrect statement: “If the whole surface of the earth is considered as a unit upon which a certain amount of heat falls each day, it is obvious that the mean temperature will depend on the rate that this heat can escape by radiation, because no other type of heat exchange is possible.” This same error is made by today’s proponents of the failed CO2 hypothesis.
Simpson also stated: “Lastly he thought that the rise in CO2 content and temperature during the last 50 years, must be taken rather as a coincidence.”
The 4 decades of real world temperature data showed that Simpson’s statement was correct, since humans added twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere in those 4 decades as had been added prior to 1938, and global temperature DECREASED, not increased.
Just as today, real scientists pointed out the flaws in the failed CO2 hypothesis.
z
Oh my, RealOldRavingLunatic, you’ve posted the Easterbrook stuff about the Greenland GISP2 core. Believe this was his original post at WattsUp https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
So think a second, a single site starting at 9000 feet up on the center of the Greenland ice sheet is supposed to represent the temperature record for the entire globe Then, here is the figure from Cuffey & Clow Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition J Geophys Res 102:26,383-26,396 1997
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/713e419a6119032bf820baf41221a04da020f2830f7898660fff1e5fcb8b759b.png
So it’s a small part of the left side that Easterbrook is plotting – but here’s the link to the actual data from Alley ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt The key here is the word “present”- the convention for paleoclimate science is that the year 1950 is the “present” or zero point on any time axis. So the first point at 95.14 years is then about 1855, which is just at the very start of the AGW warming curve upSo add another 1.2° C to the y-axis for the 20th century temperature increase.
Sorry you swallowed that hook, line and sinker.
“Oh my, RealOldRavingLunatic”
I see that the facts, data and science that I presented and which you can’t refute has triggered your name calling tantrum again. Sad.
“you’ve posted the Easterbrook stuff about the Greenland GISP2 core.”
You are denying reality and just making stuff up again. The Greenland temperature graph I posted clearly states “Data: R.B. Alley …”.
“a single site starting at 9000 feet up on the center of the Greenland ice sheet is supposed to represent the temperature record for the entire globe”
You are fabricating a strawman. I never made that claim. I posted the Greenland temperature graph to refute your false claim “if you move to Greenland’s ice cap … those pieces including the land glaciers point and fit – pointing to AGW”.
“So add another 1.2° C to the y-axis for the 20th century temperature increase”
Here is the longest continuous temperature record in Greenland: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1678b1e3f0c8a7526d9d1ef2648ef752e255b9636d7671258a1ef230348ca87.png
It shows natural warming from the earliest measured temperature in 1866 to 1940. Not even the IPCC claims that warming was anthropogenic. Then during the period the IPCC claims human-caused warming, the temperature record shows a cooling trend to take temps back to the levels of the 1800s. Your claim of AGW-driven warming is evidence-free propaganda of your climate alarmist religion.
You once again failed to refute anything I posted, and you distract from my original comment showing that there has been no significant CO2-induced warming. Sad.
What you posted from Easterbrook (remember, I provided the What’sUp link) was nonsense.
Now – to insert some science – Milankovitch cycles – when did the truly high Arctic (80 N and above) receive its greatest insolation? Answer, between 8000 and 11000 years BP. So regionally, this time period is likely to be the warmest recently for this region of earth. But again, for climate, you need to understand the ENTIRE global to get that global average.
Meanwhile, continue the temperature graph on from about 1990 thru 2017 – that’s when the greatest increase in overall Arctic temps have occurred – would be interesting to see what this site has done.
“What you posted from Easterbrook”
Why do you continue to lie? The graph that I posted was not from Easterbrook. The link you provided does NOT contain the graph that I posted. You are fabricating lies. Sad.
Once again, you are lying and dodging by posting propaganda talking points from your climate cult religion.
You’ve posted nothing that refutes the temperature and CO2 data that I have posted which shows that CO2 has not caused any climate warming.
Well Real Old One you just wasted a great amount of time and energy trying to prove your false point that human emitted GHGs didn’t cause the mountain glaciers to melt like the are now.. You are wrong ROOne.
Here’s why? You wrote, > (“Glacier melting began before human ghg emissions were significant:”)… You are correct with that one comments.
The mountain glaciers melt some in spring summer and early fall every year and then recover in the cold weather and snowfall.
The mountain glaciers and polar ice had begun to melt when the atmospheric CO2 level rose above the300ppm level but also recovered a great deal annually until the CO2 level rose above the 340ppm level.
Since the CO2 level rose above the 370ppm the ice melt around the globe is at the tipping point where it will ALL melt unless something major happens to reverse it.
Comment posted before finished. Reload.
“Recent studies show the world’s ocean is heating up as it absorbs most of the extra heat being added to the climate system from the build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.”
With due respect to the organisation that wrote this, i reckon its very sloppily phrased and is not strictly an accurate reflection on what is happening.
The ocean is not really absorbing extra heat so much as holding on to it more than usual. The root cause is still greater than usual amounts of GHGs, in particular CO2.
It’s accurate in terms of basic heat transfer and capacity.
You may want to check some of the figures in the above comments. The Cheng et al 2017 figure shows the increase in heat content of the oceans (the blue sections) and then they take the increased GHG heat and multiply it by 93% – that’s the 93% TOA (top of atmosphere) yellow line. The formal statement in the Nov 2017 US Climate Assessment was
Again, im not overly comfortable with the phrasing in that formal statement. Its dosnt represent whats going on at the cool skin. Even if the formal statement is nessessarily brief, it should still be accurate.
Im absolutely on the side of good science and thetefore support the AGW thesis, like i reckon you do.
I would preferred the phrasing to be something like ” The oceans, due to anthropogenic forcings, have retained energy normally lost and that retention represents the vast majority ( 93%) of energy gained in the total system.”
Or something like that anyhow.
My english aint that smick.
They ( the oceans ) havnt really absorbed extra heat as stated.
The issue is they aint losing energy at the same rate that its coming in.
This makes the recent temporary losses of energy to atmosphere in the recent El Nino even more incredible!
Its all terribly bloody sensitive and gives me the heebeejeebees as to what El Ninos in say 50 years time could be like. A great big spike on top of an already terrifyingly fast trend.
I would like to thank you for being on the side of science and i feel a little bad that im quibbling. But with the way these deniers carry on, accuracy and truth is important to maintain.
One can readily see how they misinterpret just about everything already! I swear its like a cognitive disease or disorder they have. If they wernt such selfish, arrogant , rude, up themselves pricks all the time id nearly feel sorry for them.
Like someone with oldtimers disease maybe.
If you are on the side of good science, why can’t you state a theory that explains how it could be physically possible for CO2 in our atmosphere to have caused measurable warming?
The only thing CO2 heats is the other non-GHG molecules in the air. Only about 1 time in a billion does an IR excited CO2 molecule actually re-radiate a photon. CO2 serves 2 functions in the atmosphere: 1) to redistribute heat to the non-GHG N2, O2 etc molecules; and 2) to radiate IR to outer space at altitude, thus COOLING the earth.
David, the upwelling longwave IR from the surface heat emission and the downwelling longwave IR from the greenhouse effect are recorded at a number of ground stations. Here’s some older data from the Desert Rock Nevada site (NOAA) in the winter with lower insolation and lower temps and in the summer with higher insolation and higher temps – these are monthly averages:
January 2014
Desert Rock ……. upwelling….. 358.66 W/m^2
Desert Rock ……. downwelling 268.10 W/m^2
July 2014
Desert Rock ……. upwelling….. 516.57 W/m^2
Desert Rock ……. downwelling 383.45 W/m^2
So the quantity of energy in the downwelling greenhouse energy is significant.
You can consult the overall energy balances for the global averages like this figure from Martin Wild – it provides the calculations from several groups and shows that they are gradually converging as more and more data is gathered from satellites and ground stations – figure legend is included so you can identify papers by their color code
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e58edf39bbd49237c50d43bc4de66d737e8a10f6a6341c4388f8c0a417fbcb4d.png