Home/Blog
Dick Lindzen suggested to me recently that this might be a good time to address the general question, “what causes the global-average warmth during El Nino?”
Some of you might say, “the sun, of course”. Yes, the sun’s energy is the ultimate source of energy for the climate system, but it really doesn’t explain why El Nino years are unusually warm…or why La Nina years are unusually cool.
The answer lies in the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, more specifically the vertical circulation of that ocean basin.
The short answer is that, during El Nino, there is an average decrease in the vertical overturning and mixing of cold, deep ocean waters with solar-heated warm surface waters. The result is that the surface waters become warmer than average, and deeper waters become colder than average. The opposite situation occurs during La Nina.
Importantly, the change shows up in global average ocean computations, based upon ocean temperature data (see our Fig. 3, here); this means that the changes centered in the Pacific are not offset by changes of the opposite sign occurring in other ocean basins.
The Details
Most of the depth of the world’s oceans is very cold, even in the tropics. Only the near-surface layers are warm, with the rest of the ocean depths being filled up over thousands of years by surface water chilled to low temperatures at high latitudes. (This leads to the interesting observation that the mass-weighted average temperature of the climate system is actually very cold).
This average state of warm surface (due to solar heating) and cold depths is continually being offset by vertical mixing processes (wind-driven wave-induced mixing, tidal flows over bottom topography, and other processes). When these processes slow down during El Nino, surface water (mainly the upper 100 meters) become warmer than normal. At the same time, the layers below 100 meters become colder than normal (100 m is the global-average depth of this demarcation).
In a sense, the deep ocean provides an air conditioner for the climate system, and during El Nino the air conditioner isn’t working as hard to cool the atmosphere. During La Nina, it’s working harder than normal, leading to global-average coolness.
Since the atmosphere responds to surface heating, anomalous warmth in the upper ocean layers gradually heats the atmosphere, mainly through increased precipitation heating in response to large rates of evaporation from the warm surface waters. This initially occurs in the tropics where the ocean circulation change is the strongest, but then spreads to higher latitudes as well. The warming is not uniform, of course, and a few regions can even experience below normal temperatures…but in the global average, there is warming.
The plot of 2015 temperature anomalies shown above reveals there are indeed other things happening (graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com, annotated by me). It should be mentioned that the map projection greatly exaggerates the actual size of the polar areas compared to the tropics.
Note that I have not mentioned Pacific westerly wind bursts, or propagating Kelvin waves, or reduced ocean upwelling, since these are just regional manifestations of the whole process…
In the “big picture”, the cause of El Nino warmth is still a reduction in the overall vertical mixing of warm surface waters with cold deep waters. (Reduced upwelling of cold deep water must, by mass continuity, be accompanied by decreased downwelling of warm surface water, which just means an overall reduction in vertical mixing in the ocean.)
Does El Nino Warm the Entire Climate System?
This is an interesting question that we addressed in our 2014 APJAS paper. The consensus opinion of El Nino and La Nina is that it is just a quasi-periodic oscillation of the climate system that has no long-term impact on global temperature trends.
But we demonstrated that as El Nino develops there is an increase in radiative energy input into the global-average climate system which precedes peak El Nino warmth by about 9 months. This is mostly likely due to a small decrease in low cloud cover associated with the changing atmospheric circulation patterns during El Nino (La Nina would have increased cloud cover).
Thus, if the climate system goes through a multi-decadal period of increased El Nino activity (and decreased La Nina activity), like what happened after the 1970s, there can be a multi-decadal natural warming trend that is entirely natural in origin as more solar energy is absorbed by the system. This complicates identification and quantification of the human greenhouse gas-forced portion of climate change, leading (in my opinion) to overestimates of the anthropogenic warming effect.
Now, everyone who studies the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) phenomenon comes to a somewhat different conceptual understanding, and I might be missing some important component that others are welcome to point out. But the above represents my view as a result of our analysis of global average ocean temperature fluctuations as a function of depth since the 1950s which was part of our 2014 APJAS paper, as well as our analysis in that paper of CERES satellite radiative budget changes associated with ENSO.
Again, my emphasis is on the global-average manifestation of ENSO, which then leads to an explanation of global average warmth associated with El Nino. Regional changes involving Kelvin waves, westerly wind bursts, etc., are not sufficient to explain the net warming effects of El Nino. That instead requires (in my view) a global-average decrease in the mixing of warm surface waters and cold deep waters, as I have outlined above.
Thanks Dr. Spencer.
There is obviously so much that remains to be understood with CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect being just one among many other possible causes of recent warming.
ENSO can in fact be viewed as a water cooling system of a thermal engine that works well during la nina and breaks down during el nino periods.
To all. Is there any hard data to support the claim that the depths of the oceans are warming also?
The conclusion being that future La Nias will cool less, and El Nios warm more. The earth has been in a warming trend for 200 years.
http://geothermal-global-warming.MyFreeSites.net
and the Geonuclear tab at FauxScienceSlayer site
some of what the Luke Little Warmists are missing….
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is an index that essentially tells us the state of ENSO over time. It goes either positive or negative as ENSO varies between El Nino and La Nina.
When one looks even further back in time than Roy has done in this article, we see the PDO index indicates more El Nino warming during the 1915-1945 period of early 20th century temperature increase.
The 20th century had two +PDO periods and only one full -PDO period. This alone could account for most (if not all) of the warming. If the PDO is truly a quasi-periodic cycle of ~60-65 years then we can expect two -PDO periods in the 21st century.
The AMO was also synchronized with the PDO during the 20th century in that its warming periods (from low to high) were concurrent to the +PDO periods. This may or may not be common as it is unknown whether the drivers of these phenomena are related.
Both of these cycles are now trending downward which means we should learn a lot more over the next decade or two.
yup.
The PDO balances the energy flows over the Pacific and Antarctica. The AMO balances the energy flows over the rest of the world including the North Pole.
So which is a bigger player PDO or AMO? I imagine PDO as the equatorial pacific is huge and receives so much solar input.
They are indexes and should be looked at like clocks, indicating changes in underlying processes.
But what drives the PDO?
A logical initial trigger for the switching on of the hot seawater in 2015 is the submarine volcanic eruption off Tonga since December 2014. This was at a time near the peak of the southern hemisphere summer. This should lead to significant circulation changes in the Pacific Ocean. Submarine volcanic activity is of course as far as we can tell natural.
The hot seawater may be responsible for the super cyclone which hit Vanuatu and a freak hurricane which hit Sydney early in 2015.
My advice for those interested in following up this lead to look at NOAA sea surface temperature maps in the Pacific Ocean since December 2014.
Wyss Yim, DSc
I’ve become increasingly curious about the effects of the volcanic fault zone under western Antarctica and wonder if the big melt last year would have contributed to the current El Nino.
Here’s an extension to the above thoughts.
Over the past 4000 years there have been ups and downs in temperature, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, of about 1000 years. One possible explanation for what is often called the millennial cycle is changes in the AMO and PDO over time.
These two ocean cycles have been claimed to have periods of about 70 and 65 years respectively. This means there are 13-14 different phase alignments with a 5 year offset. What this gives is 70*13.5 or about 950 years for a complete cycle to repeat. Interestingly this is almost exactly what has been seen in most recent the millennial cycle.
Since these two ocean cycles are not the only factors that influence climate we can’t assume the effects will always align perfectly. However, the correlation is quite interesting. The Medieval Warm Period peaked around 1050 according to the Greenland ice cores. This would mean the next cycle would peak at 2000.
One problem is when you look back further in time the period appears to get longer. The Roman Warm Period peaked around 50 AD and the Minoan Warm Period around 1250 AD. This leaves gaps of 1100 and 1200 years as you go back. One possible explanation is the AMO and PDO cycles are shorter now than in the past. This could be due to changes in the speed of the underlying ocean current sometimes called the MOC or THC.
This underlying current could also be the complete cause of millennial cycle through a change in speed independent of the AMO and PDO. One possibility is the speed of the current changes based on the average density of the water on the surface vs. the deep ocean. It could be a factor of changes that occurred during interglacial onset. A large melt-water pulse would clearly inject a mass of water in and around the Arctic/North Atlantic with less saline characteristics. As this water circulates globally it could lead to changes in the speed of the MOC. As Roy has pointed out, a big factor in the atmospheric temperature is how much energy is released from the oceans. When this current is faster we get more upwelling cold water cooling the atmosphere and when it slows down we get warmer surface waters staying put for a longer time which allows more evaporation and atmospheric warming.
I wonder how much work has gone into investigating these ideas?
IMHO the waters around Antarctica is the place to look for answers but these have complexities that will never be unraveled by the present generation of climateers who have CO2 on the brain and that only.
But it looks like the Minoan Warm Period peaked at -1250, the Roman at -100, and the Medieval at 1050. That’s 1150 years in between peaks.
Yes, I mentioned there is a discrepancy. One possibility is the entire cycle is getting shorter. It has been noticed that each cycle appears to be getting cooler. This could be a shortening of the warm phase of the cycle while the cool phase stays about the same length. This would lead to something close to what we have seen.
I’m not really trying to make any definitive statements. Just noting patterns that are interesting. Lots of room for study.
@Richard M…”I wonder how much work has gone into investigating these ideas?”
Tsonis, from the Tsonis et al 2007 study, lamented on that. His study suggested the ocean oscillations work with each other and against each other producing warming and cooling respectively. He suggested we stop worrying about AGW and investigate the oscillations first.
That’s unlikely to happen given the hysteria surrounding alarmist climate science.
It’s difficult to time the intervals when you’re thinking purely in arithmetical terms. Try playing around with hyperbolic geometry especially with reference to where the earth is in respect to its “wobble.” Yes this is very small as over the last 5 million years earth’s obliquity has only varied between 22 02′ 33″ and 24 30′ 16″. But it could account for the imprecision. We’ve seen already the considerable thermal lag in the climate system. Top of atmosphere insolation peaked about 50 years ago and it took decades to work through to surface temperatures, and we may not even have seen equilibrium yet. TSI varies by 7% from aphelion to perihelion every year and there is no detectable response in monthly global temperatures. So a thermal inertia of a century or more, as suggested by you Richard, makes lots of sense. Plus or minus a hundred years is close enough for me.
Think the Minoan Warm Period was BC not AD. So the gaps are 1300 & 1100. Just saying – it reinforces what you’re saying.
Joe d’Aleo covers this topic well:
In this paper he actually predicted the post 1998 stop of global warming.
“Global warming (the term used for warming from 1977 to 1998) is over”.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/pdo/pacific-decadal-oscillation.pdf
Another:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf
Sea-going oceanographers who have devoted much of their career to studying El Nino will disagree mightily with the notion that this, relatively localized, phenomenon can be explained by variations in vertical mixing alone.
Compared to horizontal turbulent mixing, the vertical component is quite weak and El Nino variability is much more complicated than that. Nor can the multidecadal variations seen in the PDO (which, BTW, leads the AMO by approx. a decade) be accounted for by El Nino/La Nina cycles. The requisite cross-spectral coherence is simply not there.
The bane of climate science has always been ambitious scientists speculating far out of the field of their expertise or beyond their grasp of available data.
Happy 2016 Doc!
I have been searching for a link between ENSO events and Albedo with no luck. Anybody?
I looked for that. There isn’t one.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/24/radiation-balance-variables-put-co2-in-the-back-seat-as-a-driver/#sthash.r9Afms1V.dpbs
I assume you mean besides the one I gave you…
(y)
Try something different but the same.
When sunlight comes in from directly above ocean waters (“normal” or near the sub-solar point) the visible light (most of the energy; short wave) will penetrate the ocean surface and be absorbed in the first hundred meters or so. From space, the ocean will appear black having absorbed the wave lengths that give us colors. So, this is a low “albedo” situation.
When there are many clouds over the Equatorial Zone the albedo is high. These bands of clouds move during the year and are greater (or less) during the ENSO progression.
Thus, the issue has been considered in great detail, maybe not presented in the manner or with the title you expect.
Bob Tisdale has included such material in his posts and links to many reports so look at his posts for how sunlight recharges the near-surface waters of the ocean during periods of low albedo fewer clouds.
Lets try and get the basics sorted out first
Good topic, good post, Roy. I hope this clears up some of the rank confusion over ENSO and the causes thereof. Unbelievable confusion in some individuals who really should know better.
Question: Why higher global cloud coverage during La Nina? Because I always assumed that condition would characterize El Nino, because of the higher humidity (warmer SST, higher evaporation, etc.)
It’s a matter of forcing versus feedback…there is a decrease in cloudiness that contributes to the warming in the early stages of El Nino, then feedbacks set in and cause an excess of cloudiness as El Nino fades. The opposite occurs during La Nina. WHY these things occur, I don’t know….but there are different atmospheric circulation regimes in El Nino than La Nina, and I don’t think we should expect they have exactly the same cloud cover.
Once initiated these things merely probably perpetuate themselves precisely because of the feedbacks. Exactly like a pendulum keeps oscillating once brought out of equilibrium position.
Spontaneous fluctuations in tropical cloudiness, always present, might initiate the phenomenon.
@Roy…”Its a matter of forcing versus feedback”
I have noticed on the graph on your site that a rebound seemed to occur following the 1998 El Nino. Circa 2002 the global average jumped about 0.2C following a post EN cooling dip and has remained there since.
I have read the same thing happened circa 1977 attributed to the Great Climate Shift. I am wondering if this is a form of climatic harmonic motion.
Roy
You have to start with the correct thermodynamics which you were not taught when you got your “A” in such. The “forcing” conjecture is false physics: you cannot add separate radiative fluxes and bung the total into Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. But that’s what all the energy diagrams do – they all show total net radiative flux into the surface of about 390W/m^2 which has a Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody temperature of 288K.
But there are two errors here …
(1) The 390W/m^2 includes 324W/m^2 of back radiation
(2) The 390W/m^2 is a mean of very variable flux which would not produce a mean temperature within 10 degrees of 288K.
Don’t you remember Roy? I told you years ago that the surface temperature is not determined primarily by radiation.
Why you think that posting the same lines over and over makes them more intelligible than the previous times escapes me.
If you have trouble understanding the physics, it is explained in detail in the papers linked from my website which has had over 14,850 hits in its first twelve months, which happens to end today.
14,850 hits is only about forty a day. Why such small traffic numbers?
Maybe because Dr. Spencer knows what he’s talking about, so readers come here for the straight skinny…
Excellent and informative article. Interesting conclusion about how ENSO affects long-term trends. It would be interesting to put this together with Dr. Nir Shaviv’s paper ( http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf ), which states that,
“Nominally, we can account for 40% of the 20th century
global warming by the sun alone while 60% should be
attributed to anthropogenic activity.”
None of the warming prior to 1950 can be attributed to AGW/CO2, and only the zealots try to do so.
I wouldn’t go that far, but in principle, yes, the pre-1950 warming is probably mostly natural.
CO2 increased from about 280 ppm to about 310 ppm from mid-19th century to 1950. The radiative forcing increase by this CO2 increase amounts to about 0.54 W/m^2 (Myhre et al., 1998, doi: 10.1029/98GL01908, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908/pdf. In comparison, solar radiative forcing increased by about 0.2 W/m^2 (TSI increase from about 1360.5 to 1361.3 W/m^2, http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM-TSI-Reconstruction1-1024×788.jpg, divided by 4) over the same time period. Thus, it is plausible that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere contributed to the warming from mid-19th century to 1950 more than twice as much as the increase in solar activity.
Jan, your “0.54 W/m^2” is calculated from the bogus Arrhenius equation, so your result is bogus.
Then, your “0.2 W/m^2 solar radiative forcing” is also bogus. When you “divide-by-4”, you average the energy, which cannot then be converted back to radiative flux. The solar radiative forcing increase was 1361.3 – 1360.5 = 0.8 W/m^2.
You don’t want to start out the New Year with bogus science.
What climate sensitivity factor did you use with your abacus, Jan? Or do you know about climate sensitivity?
@Jan….”CO2 increased from about 280 ppm to about 310 ppm from mid-19th century to 1950″.
Actually, the 280 ppmv figure happened a century before mid-19th century. It is tied by the IPCC to the pre-Industrial era which began mid-18th century.
It was the Little Ice Age that ended in 1850. That means the global average was about 1C cooler in 1750 and one would expect lest out-gassing from colder oceans.
I don’t trust the 280 ppmv figure since it was taken from Antarctic ice cores where nearby ice cores were revealing much higher concentrations.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
Kreutz reported CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1940s. He took over 60,000 readings and he had a degree in chemistry.
Actually, the solar radiative forcing change has to be also multiplied with 0.7, since Earth’s albedo is about 30%. Thus, the solar radiative forcing increase from mid-19th century to mid-20th century is even smaller, more like 0.14 W/m^2. Compared to the 0.54 W/m^2 due to CO2 increase.
Well, if you now want to correctly adjust for albedo, then the solar radiative forcing increase would be 0.8 * 0.7 = 0.56 W/m^2
Jan P your statement is consistent with what we know about the logarithmic effect of CO2 and I’d be interested to hear more. Please pay no attention to @geran who seems to be a Sky Dragon devotee that’s never heard of Stefan-Boltzman.
Wow Michael, the facts must have really touched a nerve.
No, it’s not plausible because you cannot produce any valid physics to support your case, JPP. There is valid physics supporting the alternative “heat creep” hypothesis here.
Jan,
it appears that a glitch had occurred and that the original comment is still in moderation. I am sorry to trouble you with two, rather than one, comments.
Jan,
it appears that my two comments are still in moderation, for some reason. Hopefully we will be able to continue this conversation.
JustAnotherPerson,
Too many links in your comment? It has happened to me before here. Don’t hold your breath that your comments are going to be ever released. I suppose, Roy doesn’t bother about these things.
@Michael van der Riet…”Please pay no attention to @geran who seems to be a Sky Dragon devotee thats never heard of Stefan-Boltzman”.
Stefan-Boltzman applies to radiation associated with blackbody radiation as would be found in stellar atmospheres. The situation with AGW related to a grey body like the Earth, where a cool surface is heating GHGs in an even cooler atmosphere, does not lend itself well to S-B.
S-B as applied to the Earth’s atmosphere is a gross generalization. For one, the IR flux from every nook and cranny on the surface/ocean emitters varies dramatically, and for another, GHG absorbers make up about 1% of the atmosphere with ACO2 representing 1/1000nds of 1% of the atmosphere based on a CO2 density of 390 ppmv.
Thirdly, according to atmospheric expert Richard Lindzen, the radiation theory is not a major driver wrt heat transfer from the surface. He claims convective currents in the atmosphere play a greater role than radiation.
You alarmists who sit around tweaking equations and thinking you are even in the ball park wrt to climate science are seriously kidding yourself. Not only that, you have made a serious error by associating laws governing radiation with laws governing heat.
IR is not heat…please repeat till that sinks in. Heat is governed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and IR by the 1st law. The 2nd law was developed because the 1st law would allow perpetual motion in certain cases and that is the trap alarmist scientists have fallen into by using the 1st law to sum heat transfers.
Heat cannot be summed as a simple heat transfer between a cooler and a warmer body. Also, IR radiated by such bodies is not radiating as an exchange of energy. IR is radiated isotropically and bodies in range of each radiator intercepts a fraction of the IR radiated. That does not mean, in any way, that IR radiated from a cooler body – especially a cooler body that gets it’s energy from a warmer surface – is absorbed by the warmer body as back-radiation.
In other words, before you apply S-B to such an interface involving heat transfer, you’d better be sure you are in the correct context. Laws cannot be applied arbitrarily, they must be in the context for which they were intended.
Trying to calculate heat transfer in the atmosphere using S-B is sheer folly. S-B is about infrared energy in that case and heat must obey the 2nd law, which stipulates that heat can only be transferred between a warmer and a cooler body ‘without compensation’. In most real situations that compensation is absent, ruling out heat being transferred from a cooler atmosphere back to a warmer surface that warmed the atmosphere.
Perhaps.
I shall try again another time. Thanks for the heads-up.
I will have to post a comment as JustAnotherPerson to view the moderation comments, so this is it.
Jan,
thanks for that paper. It is always good to read the scientific literature, in my opinion, rather than hurling ad hominems, or claims that are not supported even by one paper.
I will not attempt to dispute the findings of that paper or the solar reconstruction, but will note several things in reply to your comment.
The IPCC has, in my opinion, a rather good point to make on this topic (from AR4 WG1, https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html):
It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records.
Now, we must remember, though it is possible what you say is correct, there are solar amplification mechanisms that you may find in Dr. Shavivs paper. I would encourage you to read it.
In addition, there are internal oscillations like the PDO and the AMO, both of which increased during this time (1900-1950,
1/3
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from/to:1950/trend, http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:1950/trend).
Also, you have only cited one paper, as have I. It would be disingenuous to cite only one paper and make conclusive statements, which, fortunately, you have not done. You have, reasonably and rationally, simply proposed something. That is indeed refreshing.
However, your claim is not supported by the IPCC AR4 or AR5 (The AR4 concluded that A substantial fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability of the seven centuries prior to 1950 is very likely attributable to natural external forcing. The literature since the AR4, and the availability of more simulations of the last millennium with more complete forcing, including solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas influences, and generally also land use change and orbital forcing) and more sophisticated models, to a much larger extent coupled climate or coupled earth system models, some of them with interactive carbon cycle, strengthens these conclusions., Section 10.7.1.1) or these papers,(http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf,
2/3
You need to explain how a 20 ppm CO2 increase causes warming. But you can’t, not without assuming a climate sensitivity factor approaching 100. It’s pretty much a gimme that the warming circa 1920-40 was not AGW. Except with the zealots.
We know that the late 20th Century warming was due to changes in global cloud albedo plus, very likely, the reduction in SO2 emissions (more transparent atmosphere).
How much room for CO2 is left?
mpainter,
An increase from 280 to 310 ppm are 30 ppm, not 20 ppm, and this CO2-increase enhances radiative forcing by about 0.54 W/m^2. The effect on the radiation balance by the greenhouse gas CO2 is very well established in the scientific literature. If a change in the radiative forcing by 0.54 W/m^2 couldn’t cause any measurable change in climate, solar radiative forcing changes could cause climate change even less.
Utter rubbish. How would you get 100? The globally averaged surface temperature increase from mid-19th century to mid-20 century amounted to about 0.3 Kelvin. If all this increase had been caused by the CO2 increase alone it would imply a transient climate sensitivity of about 0.74 K/(W/m^2) to CO2.
So, now it’s suddenly only the warming 1920-40. Before, it had been “the warming prior to 1950”, which would be all the warming from pre-industrial to 1950. Nice try of a strawman argument, but I noticed.
Who is supposed to be “we” in this sentence? And based on what evidence?
Cloud albedo can’t be a primary cause for climate change, since clouds are not an external climate driver. They are themselves fully depend on the physical state of the Earth system. Thus, saying that a cloud albedo decrease caused global warming doesn’t really explain anything, physically. Also, even clouds within feedback loops can’t be reduced to their effect on the albedo, since clouds also exert a greenhouse effect. The net effect of clouds on radiation is less than than the shortwave effect by their albedo, and the cloud effects are much more complex. For instance, it also depends on the type or the altitude of the clouds, or the underlying surface albedo, the time of the day, the angle of the incident solar radiation.
And the radiative forcing increase by a decrease in reflecting sulfate aerosols (which from from the precursor gas SO2) is not large enough to explain the whole warming since the 1970s, although it contributed some to it. And then one also has to factor in how much the increase in these aerosols subtracted from global warming between about 1940 to 1970.
Jan. Wish i had been here earlier. Hopefully you return for other blogs. Its always great to learn from experts.
You say “Cloud albedo cant be a primary cause for climate change, since clouds are not an external climate driver.” Im curious if you could expand this certain statement given the Svensmark type link between clouds and solar activity via magnetic and cosmic ray variabilty. My own PhD research found strong solar periodicities in tree rings and annual lake sediments, but these sort of processes are excluded from IPCC models all together with at best a vague explanation.
@Jan P Perlitw…”..this CO2-increase enhances radiative forcing by about 0.54 W/m^2″.
Jan… a forcing is a term peculiar to the differential equations used in climate models. A forcing function is a function representing something like an impulse (or square wave) that is used to shock a response from a differential equation.
In electrical engineering a forcing function with rising edges like a square wave is used to force undesirable responses like oscillations and poles from a differential equation. You can validate your findings by building a circuit but you cannot do that with a climate model.
There are obviously no differential equations in the atmosphere and I am sure the 0.54 W/m^2 was pulled from a hat worn by a computer programmer.
I say that because Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS claimed that AC02 has a warming effect in the atmosphere between 9% and 25% depending on how dry the air may be. He pulled that out of a hat because there is absolutely no proof to back his claim. In fact, the past 18 years with no warming trend proves he is wrong.
Thank you for your measured response here Jan P. I visited your page Thought Fragments and although you do indeed come across as a rabid zealot there your personality on this thread is rational, intelligent and (dare I say it) skeptic.
Jan, you say “An increase from 280 to 310 ppm are 30 ppm, not 20 ppm”
Measurements from the Law Dome ice core put CO2 at about 300 ppm at 1920. Start your warming when you like.. you like 1910? Fine. But your claim that the warming started at 30 ppm is false.
Jan, before your GISS crooks (by crooks I mean James “boil the oceans” Hansen and Gavin “38% chance” Schmidt) fixed the data, the warming for that period was .4, not .3. So do your little calculations based on the truth, if you can. Regarding the crooked data, see Professor Friedrich Karl Ewert, who has documented that.
Your “strawman” is a strawman, I’m afraid.
As far as clouds are concerned, their net effect is cooling, not warming. It is only by reducing cloudiness does the earth warm, net, concering their effect. And how do you do that? Lots of ways. Svenmark has some interesting ideas there.
Jan, your pretense that you understand it all does not sell on this blog.
By the way, why did James Hansen wait 25 years before retracting his “boil the oceans” statement? He retracted it in 2013, I believe.
I see that you agree that decrease in SO2 has contributed to warming. Strange that you still refuse to admit that a reduction in cloud albedo also contributed to that late 20th Century warming. See John McLean, “Late 20th Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover”, 2014.
Michael van der Reit,
Now will you see Jan Perlwitz howl with indignation.
mpainter:
Here is a figure of the CO2-series derived from the Law Dome ice core:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
The pre-industrial average of CO2 since at least the year 1000 was about 280 ppm give or take a few single ppm. There is no scientific justification whatsoever to say that the effect of CO2 started only above 300 ppm, to arbitrarily omit the contribution of 2/3 of the CO2-increase between pre-industrial and 1950 to the radiative forcing change by CO2 between pre-industrial and 1950, and to neglect the effect of these 2/3 of the CO2 increase on the change in the climate between pre-industrial and mid-20th century.
I didn’t claim anywhere that the warming started at at CO2-mixing ratio of 30 ppm.
Smear against colleagues of mine, a snipe against my person, and innuendo as substitute for arguments with substance and evidence.
This is as much “documented” as the “proof” for alien abductions is “documented” on websites maintained by Ufologists.
Here is the evidence that mpainter had before been talking about the warming since pre-industrial times, not just about the period 1920-1940:
“None of the warming prior to 1950 can be attributed to AGW/CO2, and only the zealots try to do so.”
(Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205246
Yes, the net effect of all clouds is cooling, but it is smaller than their mere albedo effect in the shortwave range, since they also exert a greenhouse effect in the longwave range.
Ideas are not evidence. There is no empirical evidence that the effect of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) is more than a minor one among all the complex interactions in which clouds are involved. There is no empirical evidence for that GCR were a controlling factor for climate via clouds. Also the decrease in solar activity in recent decades and the according increase in GCR would imply increasing low cloud cover, not decreasing low cloud cover in recent decades. Thus, global cooling, not global warming in recent decades, if GCR were to be the controlling factor for climate change. The opposite of what has happened. You say that cloud cover had decreased, don’t you?
I only can reiterate what I said to you before. I do not comment on statements that have been allegedly made by someone, w/o the claim about the statement is at least backed up with an exact quote and proof of the original source. My experience with “skeptics” is that they often falsify statements by scientists, or do quote mining, which is also a form of falsification.
Also, why would you even bring this up, except for the reason to deflect from the topic in discussion by using a strawman? There is no relevance of what Hansen allegedly said about “boiling oceans” whatsoever for the arguments that I have brought here.
That the decrease in “global dimming” has contributed some to global warming after 1970 (up to about 2000, after 2000 reflecting aerosols have increased again) is generally acknowledged in climate science.
Wrong interpretation of what I have said. I have said clouds cannot be the primary cause of climate change. Cloud changes can’t drive climate change. I never said that clouds can’t be be part of feedbacks. If clouds decrease due to global warming caused by greenhouse gases, and this decrease in clouds amplifies global warming, then this would be a positive feedback.
McLean only considers the albedo effect by clouds, but neglects the greenhouse effect of clouds altogether, and overstates the cooling effect of clouds by doing so, and, in turn, the warming effect by decreasing cloud cover. Also, he uses the ISCCP data, without taking into account that the trend in clouds from the ISCCP data has probably a bias, leading to an overestimation of the cloud cover decrease. Other cloud data sets do not show such a strong decrease in cloud cover seen in the ISCCP data set.
Hansen is your pal. Ask him why he waited 25 years before retracting his “boil the oceans” statement, which he knew when he spoke it that was a lie. Then come tell us what he says. Hansen is a crook who has profited $ big time on his alarmism. You are his creature, Schmidt his understudy.
Ewert has documented the data cooking at GISS. It is indefensible, and I note you do not try to justify it yourself.
Jan, do imagine that you can duck? Or pretend that you don’t know “nuttin”?
Think again. It’s all over the internet:
Hansen retracts boil the oceans.
Jan Perlwitz: “James WHO?”
So many words, so little information
mpainters comment was: None of the warming prior to 1950 can be attributed to AGW/CO2, and only the zealots try to do so .
Replies are confusing necessity and sufficiency.
The cdiac human emissions chart clearly indicates that prior to ~ 1945 human CO2 emissions were relatively insignificant:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.jpg
You are drawing false conclusions from a figure that is not appropriate to illustrate the effect of CO2 on climate. Whether the CO2 increase from pre-industrial to 1950 in the atmosphere is significant or not is not determined by the absolute value of the changes in the CO2 emissions. Instead it is determined by the relative value of the increase in the CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere, since the effect on radiation by CO2 depends logarithmic on the CO2-mixing ratio in the atmosphere.
The effect of an increase by 30 ppm from pre-industrial 280 ppm CO2 to 310 ppm in 1950 on the radiation balance is quite significant. It is about 40% larger than the effect of an increase by 30 ppm from 400 ppm (about the current CO2 mixing ratio) to 430 ppm. It is almost three times as large as the solar radiative forcing change between the maximum of solar cycle 23 in the year 2000 and the minimum in 2008. And it is more than twice as large as the solar radiative forcing change between the Maunder minimum of solar activity and the average solar activity in the second half of the 20th century.
Jan does not, cannot admit to any possibility that climate varies naturally. It’s all CO2/AGW.
But in fact, it is CO2 on the brain. Remember, he is James “boil the ocean” Hansen’s acolyte.
Absurd non-sequitur from what I wrote.
But I notice that mpainter resorts now to mere nonsense replies like this in response to my comments, or to go fully ad hominem against me like further above. I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions from this.
I also invite the reader to choose. Show where you ever attributed 20th Century warming to anything but CO2.
I would like to point out that one comment before mpainter claimed that I would not “admit to any possibility that climate varies naturally. Its all CO2/AGW.”
So, mpainter had asserted in the previous comment I allegedly said that climate would never had varied before the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere by human activity. And the only change in climate that had ever occurred in pre-industrial times or even over the whole geological past of Earth was the one caused by increased anthropogenic CO2 over the last couple of centuries. It should be obvious that this is an absurd assertion, which is in contradiction to what is stated by mainstream climate science, like summarized in the IPCC report, or also in contradiction to what is said in scientific publication where I’m a co-author.
mpainter’s request now, in the context of this previous assertion, to show were I “ever attributed 20th Century warming to anything but CO2”, implicitly presumes a false dilemma, according to which global warming over the 20th century can’t have been (mostly) caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, or naturally caused climate variability was impossible. However, the two statements that most of the 20th warming was caused by increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases and natural climate variability was possible are logically not mutually exclusive statements.
Most of the overall warming in the 20th century was caused by increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, they don’t explain all the variability. If CO2 was sufficient to explain all the variability, global average temperature would just have gone up linearly from the 19th century. No one says, that it worked in this way. For instance, an increase in solar activity surely contributed to the warming in the first half of the 20th century, but not in the second half, and aerosol variability, e.g. by reflecting volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere, will add or subtract to the temperature anomaly, depending on whether they decrease or increase. There is also unforced natural variability in the system due to the non-linear dynamics between the various components of the Earth system or the internal non-linear dynamics of the atmosphere and the oceans (the hydro-dynamic equations are non-linear), where ENSO is a major mode of this dynamics.
Why would we make such an effort in our group to include in our climate simulations all types of climate drivers whose forcings could have an effect, if we thought CO2 was the only factor? Why do I myself do research on the effect of aerosols, especially the effect of soil dust aerosols (which are mostly natural) from deserts and semi-arid regions on climate, and try to improve their physical representation in our Earth system model, if I thought those were an irrelevant factor? Why do we apply general circulation models of the atmosphere and the oceans, if we thought unforced variability in the dynamics of these components was irrelevant so that a proper physical description of them wasn’t required?
Why do I even reply to the nonsensical claims by mpainter?
Jan Perlwitz, it is no false dilemma. You have, in the usual fashion of the AGW zealot, presented the cultist doctrine without any evidence in support. In fact, in light of genuine science, the AGW hypothesis/house-of-cards falls to the ground. One poke is all it takes.
Jan,
If you are indeed ‘leaving it to the reader’ then you must acknowledge defeat.
It seems well established that CO2 is only a minor contributor, if even that, of climate change. I am, unhappily, becoming more convinced that the interglacial we are lucky enough to live in, is coming to an end. The previous comments on this thread along with other information, leads me, an interested businessman, to believe we will see more snow and ice during the rest of this century, even if not immediately.
Why, please tell us, do those who believe in AGW so strongly, want more snow and ice?
Lewis Guignard
Crouse, NC
where it snows occasionally, but not every year, and that’s enough.
Beyond that,
Dr. Spencer, thank you and other writers hereon for your explanations about ENSO etc. It is a most curious phenomena.
mpainter:
I can call the assertion that the statements of mainstream climate science on anthropogenic global warming were without any evidence only as an assertion that is based on pure, and probably willful ignorance, considering that the 5th IPCC report has been published by now, where the state of knowledge in climate science and the empirical evidence for it has been compiled and synthesized, a report that is based on thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications from a body of research that has been accumulated over decades by now. Anyone who claims nowadays that no evidence had been presented for anthropogenic global warming simply doesn’t want to know the evidence, and he/she will still claim the same after climate scientists have produced thousands of more papers. No empirical evidence whatsoever that was presented in the scientific literature would have any effect on the fixed beliefs of such a person. If someone doesn’t want to get educated on the topic, there is nothing that can be done about it.
(In contrast, mpainter references a single paper for his fixed belief that tens of thousands of climate scientists were all AGW “cultists” and “zealots” who would perpetuate a hoax of anthropogenic global warming, whereas he was in possession of “the truth”, according to which global warming didn’t have anything to do with greenhouse gases, but was caused by cloud decrease. That paper makes questionable assumptions and it was published in a dubious journal of the Chinese publisher Scientific Research Publishing – SCIRP. SCIRP is characterized as “A Publishing Empire Built on Junk Science”, according to “Beall’s List of Predatory Open Access Publishers” – which doesn’t mean that every article published there was junk science, though).
lewis:
If I leave it to the reader to make up their own mind, why do I have to acknowledge “defeat”? There is no logic in your asserted conclusion.
Based on what? Because you say so? “Well established” in science would mean that there was strong evidence for the validity of a statement or set of statements, which is generally acknowledged within the scientific community of the field. How is your assertion a view that was “well established”?
Jan, you cite the IPCC report, but nowhere in the report is evidence provided that any of the 20th Century warming was due to CO2.
And thank you for this citation because this is the last refuge of the global warmers when pressed to give evidence that CO2 has caused warming. Invariably they refer to this report and then disappear. You will disappear, too.
The studies that directly address the causal link between climate drivers, including CO2, and climate response, and which provide the evidence for the causal link between increasing greenhouse gases and global warming are called attribution studies. The last IPCC-report (like previous ones) dedicates a whole chapter to these studies, which is named in the last report as “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional” (http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf)
Again, I cannot do anything about it, if someone decides to stay ignorant, when this person gets presented the scientific sources where the evidence is provided, and this person prefers instead to hold an opinion that is based on the argument from incredulity.
Any scientist who behaved in as scientific discourse like you do here, by sticking his/her finger in his/her ears and loudly singing “tralala, tralala, it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist”, when presented with scientific findings published by his/her colleagues, would not be taken seriously anymore. Scientists can’t do more than stating their case for an explanation of a phenomenon than publishing the case in the peer-reviewed literature. When they have done this, and other scientists don’t agree with the findings, then it is up to them to state their alternative case and provide the contrary evidence, while adhering to the same high scientific standards as the first ones.
Mainstream climate science has stated its case. If someone doesn’t agree with the findings that have been published and are generally acknowledged in the field as valid – I would go as far to say that AGW has even become a paradigm in climate science -, then the burden of providing the evidence that supposedly falsifies the case is on the ones now who don’t agree. The claim that a whole field of science was fundamentally wrong is quite an extraordinary assertion. Such an extraordinary assertion would require some extraordinary evidence to be acknowledged as true.
Right, Jan, voluminous scribbles from which you cite not one particle of evidence, not one jot, not one dot. Your is the standard smoke screen, diced tinfoil, etc.
Argument from incredulity and projection.
And still no evidence.
Jan,
Because I am just a reader, not a scientist, and find your arguments do not stand up to those you oppose.
So many words, so little information
Jan Perlwitz,
You hold forth about the vast expertise and diligence of the latest IPCC report while denigrating John McLean’s study of global cloudiness. This marks you as the AGW zealot, because instead of condemning the IPCC for neglecting the subject, you condemn McLean for his study. And why do you condemn McLean? Because the IPCC did not did not perform the study.
You stand there naked. And it is for this reason that Congress is now asking questions. The public wants honest science performed by honest scientists.
I consider this an important observation, so I will restate my point: Jan Perlwitz applauds and upholds the IPCC, which neglected the study that John McLean performed, and in his next breath, condemns the McLean study, and why?… because the IPCC did not perform it. In other words, the McLean study is not approved doctrine.
It is obvious that the study of climate has been set back by the present generation of climateers who use science simply to support radical objectives. Obviously, it is time for Congress to dig into this foetid pile of corruption.
I copy Perlwitz from above:
Jan P Perlwitz says:
January 2, 2016 at 7:21 AM
mpainter:
the cultist doctrine without any evidence in support.
I can call the assertion that the statements of mainstream climate science on anthropogenic global warming were without any evidence only as an assertion that is based on pure, and probably willful ignorance, considering that the 5th IPCC report has been published by now, where the state of knowledge in climate science and the empirical evidence for it has been compiled and synthesized, a report that is based on thousands of peer-reviewed scientific publications from a body of research that has been accumulated over decades by now. Anyone who claims nowadays that no evidence had been presented for anthropogenic global warming simply doesnt want to know the evidence, and he/she will still claim the same after climate scientists have produced thousands of more papers. No empirical evidence whatsoever that was presented in the scientific literature would have any effect on the fixed beliefs of such a person. If someone doesnt want to get educated on the topic, there is nothing that can be done about it.
(In contrast, mpainter references a single paper for his fixed belief that tens of thousands of climate scientists were all AGW cultists and zealots who would perpetuate a hoax of anthropogenic global warming, whereas he was in possession of the truth, according to which global warming didnt have anything to do with greenhouse gases, but was caused by cloud decrease. That paper makes questionable assumptions and it was published in a dubious journal of the Chinese publisher Scientific Research Publishing SCIRP. SCIRP is characterized as A Publishing Empire Built on Junk Science, according to Bealls List of Predatory Open Access Publishers which doesnt mean that every article published there was junk science, though).
I would go even further: the reason the IPCC neglects studies on late 20th Century changes in cloudiness is because these utterly overturn the premise of AGW as a threat of any sort. Without such threats to broadcast, AGW is without substance, and the work of Jan Perlwitz & company has no basis, nor does the IPCC, nor can the whole, tottering edifice of climate alarmism any longer be propped up.
(Source: mpainter)
How utterly deluded mpainter’s ravings are should become clear, if one looks at the publication date of the McLean paper that allegedly was willfully neglected in the last IPCC report. The publication date is October 2014. The IPCC report was published in 2013. mpainter is accusing me of not condemning the IPCC for “neglecting” a study that was published in the future relative to the publication data of the IPCC report.
The IPCC report certainly didn’t mention all scientific papers published on climate topics. If someone thinks there are papers that should have been considered and included because of important findings in these papers relevant for the main conclusions in the IPCC report, but haven’t been included, then this is something about which one can talk. If such criticism comes with a well-reasoned argument.
The IPCC report is not something that can’t be criticized. It’s not a bible with canonical statements. It’s a scientific document, and science is under permanent revision. There are surely statements in the IPCC report that will be revised, based on new or better evidence.
Also, I do not “condemn” the McLean paper. I have criticized it for making questionable assumptions. Two main points of criticism are:
1.) McLean considers in his calculations only the albedo effect of clouds in the shortwave range, but neglects the effect of clouds in the longwave range. Latter is opposite to the albedo effect, and therefore the net effect is smaller than the albedo effect alone. By making this assumption, McLean significantly overstates the magnitude of the net effects of clouds changes on radiation.
2.) McLean uses the ISCCP data without taking into consideration that these data probably have a bias that overstates the cloud decrease in recent decades. Other cloud data sets don’t show such a strong decrease in clouds. McLean fails to correct for this likely bias in his calculations.
Curiously, both questionable assumptions act in favor of the stated conclusions of the paper.
I have stated this criticism on the McLean paper several times by now. mpainter has failed to provide any meaningful reply with substance to the criticism every time.
Jan Perlwitz,
I do not consider your comment using the words “probably” or “likely” to have much scientific import. My response? The dataset “probably” is valid and the study is not “likely” to be so faulty as to merit dismissal, howsoever much you wish to ignore it.
Jan Perlwitz, I do not regard the IPCC capable of making any report that overturns the whole AGW meme, for the reasons stated above. That was my point. I predict that the IPCC will ignore McLean, 2014, as they do any study that threatens the “consensus”, as the McLean study certainly does. Between reduced cloud albedo (increased insolation) and reduced aerosols (sulfate), there is nothing attributable to daemon CO2, Tsk, tsk.
Also, Jan, you show a great deal of confusion in your musings about the effects of clouds. You need to rethink what it means when global cloud coverage _decreases_. You seem to be attributing increased GHE via reduced cloudiness. If this is not what you mean, you need to clarify.
And, you continue to uphold the IPCC and condemn the McLean,2014 study as unworthy of serious consideration. Thanks for underscoring my point.
Your comment is evidence that scientific rigor and precise scientific methodology are not the relevant criteria for you to judge about the scientific validity of a study. All that matters for you is whether a study confirms your views or is in contradiction to your views.
McLean’s neglect of the longwave radiation effect of clouds (and his inclusion of other reflecting components such as aerosols in the shortwave effect of clouds, which is wrong too) leads to an overestimation of the net cloud radiative effect by about 300% (about 80 W/m^2 instead of about 20 W/m^2, for a reference for latter see the TOA CRE CERES data). That is a fundamental misestimation of the cloud radiative effect by McLean. McLeans “cloud forcing” is four times too large. This doesn’t even concern the second point with the probable bias in the ISCCP data. The first point alone renders the McLean-study invalid, IMHO.
What about you name examples for “neglected” studies in the last IPCC report, please, that would “threaten the ‘consensus'”. It should be easy for you to point those out, then, since you assert that was done.
Mere assertion, not backed up by actual numbers.
I do not know to what exactly that is supposed to refer of what I said. What is supposed to be my confusion about the effects of clouds? Why would I have to rethink what it meant when cloud cover decreases? What am I attributing where?
And still no evidence for AGW. Because there is none. Lots of vapourus argument, but no observations, no data, no evidence. But that suits you fine, right Jan?
Jan, read your
1) McLean considers in his calculations only the albedo effect of clouds in the shortwave range, but neglects the effect of clouds in the longwave range. Latter is opposite to the albedo effect, and therefore the net effect is smaller than the albedo effect alone. By making this assumption, McLean significantly overstates the magnitude of the net effects of clouds changes on radiation.
carefully. In fact, albedo and long wave effect will vary together; the less the cloudiness the same lessening of these two factors. If you dispute this, you must clarify your meaning. But by this you appear confused.
Your assertion is a falsehood. I have cited the scientific literature with the evidence. However, you are outright rejecting the evidence, using the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
I am not confused. Decreasing cloud cover decreases the albedo effect in the shortwave range, which has a warming effect. At the same time, decreasing cloud cover decreases the greenhouse effect (the backradiation) by clouds in the longwave range, which has a cooling effect. Thus, decreasing cloud cover has opposing effects in the shortwave and longwave range. The net effect of the cloud cover decrease on radiation is the combination of the shortwave and longwave effect. The net effect of cloud cover decrease is still some warming, but the magnitude is much smaller than by the albedo effect alone.
Even without the bias in the ISCCP data cloud cover trend, the cloud radiative effect in the McLean paper is too large by about a factor of four, because he is looking only at the albedo effect (and also because he wrongly includes the effect of reflecting aerosols in the cloud albedo effect).
Can you even measure the suns radiative output to that level of accuracy? The amazing thing to me is the disconect between the solar physics literature and the climate change community. It just appears to be false precision in communicating the ability to measure the sun’s output and there is a systemic exclusion of other factors like UV spectrum, which has behaved as a fundamentally different freq in physics than the longer electromagnetic spectrum (see Planck’s UV catastrophe), as well as disregarding the potential for magnetics and cosmic rays. All this is backed up by correlations between the sun and major climate proxies.
Jan, Perlwitz,the McLean study puts an increase in insolation, due to reduced cloud albedo, at 2.5W/sq m to 5W/sq m.
That is the pertinent metric. These are the figures you have to work with to refute the study.Your bald assertions about NASA datasets and their faultiness are not convincing, nor do your assertions about the study’s miscalculations carry any conviction.
I am waiting for a peer-reviewed paper that either confirms or fails to reproduce McLean, 2014. I’m sure you understand about peer-reviewed vs blogtalk.:-)
mpainter,
You have failed to provide any meaningful argument why the neglect of the longwave effect of clouds, and the inclusion of reflecting aerosols into the shortwave cloud effect, as done by McLean in his paper, are permissible, and not a gross violation of scientific rigor, which renders the results and conclusions of the McLean paper invalid.
Aaron S,
Care to provide any evidence for your assertions about what is supposedly done in climate science, or that something was neglected that was an important factor? Perhaps by providing some references?
Once again, Jan Perlwitz gets it backwards. We have to disprove his bald assertions, otherwise he is right and we are wrong.
Jan, you are the perfect example of AGW ineptitude. Thank you for engaging.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Pacific_sea_surface_temperature-published.pdf, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/543146/abs/) or the reference papers the IPCC uses to make statements like I quoted. I would also encourage you to read this article: http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/.
3/3
Roy,
Nice explanation, thanks.
A refutation of the Spencer-Braswell model on the role of ENSO for global ocean temperature changes has been published here:
Abraham J.P., Kumar S., Bickmore B.R., Fasullo J.T. (2014): Issues Related to the Use of One-dimensional Ocean-diffusion Models for Determining Climate Sensitivity. J Earth Sci Clim Change 5: 220. doi: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000220, http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/issues-related-to-the-use-of-one-dimensional-ocean-diffusion-models-for-determining-climate-sensitivity-2157-7617.1000220.pdf
The main points of the refutation are following:
“1. The model treats the entire Earth as ocean-covered
2. The model assigns an ocean process (El Nino cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon (although the impacts of El Nino have global atmospheric implications).
3. The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
4. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth
5. The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature.
6. The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers
7. The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity
8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer
9. The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.”
In short, simplifications and assumptions have been made in the model, which are not correct for the described physical system. When these shortcomings are corrected, the model can’t explain the observed temperature increase in the upper ocean anymore.
Jan, your comment addresses nothing in the post. Do you mean to say that ENSO has nothing to do with vertical ocean circulation?
mpainter,
Wrong. It addresses the third part of the post under the subtitle “Does El Nino Warm the Entire Climate System?”, which explicitly references the paper by Spencer and Braswell. It is the model in that paper on which Roy Spencer’s supposed explanation for the observed long-term warming trend is based.
Or what did you yourself and others address in the post, when you started to talk about the role of CO2 for global warming in response to the post?
Like I said, nothing in the post. You addressed a link.
Thus, according to mpainter, Roy Spencer’s statements in the last part of his post about the supposedly overestimated anthropogenic global warming, and Roy Spencer’s explanation that ENSO was largely responsible for the warming trend since the 1970s instead, weren’t based on the Spencer-and-Braswell paper, despite this paper being referenced by Roy Spencer multiple times to back up his statements. And when I post a comment in response to Roy Spencer’s explanation, which quotes and references another scientific paper that contains a rebuttal of the Spencer-and-Braswell paper, then I supposedly didn’t address the content of Roy Spencer’s post. According to mpainter.
I leave it to the audience to decide for themselves whether mpainter’s assertion about my comment is correct or bizarre nonsense.
Well, then you agree essentially with the post? That ENSO basically corresponds to the rate of meridional ocean overturning circulation; that it is this variability in vertical ocean circulation that is the basis of the warming/cooling of the ENSO cycle; that multi-decadel periods of ENSO cycles can influence the global temperature anomaly; and that vertical ocean circulation acts as a cooling system for the planet.
Well, you must agree, these points are indisputable.
We can conclude from Jan Perlwitz’s non response shows that he has no disagreement with the above post, which is interesting because Dr. Roy has mischievously added some commentary to the image of global temperature anomaly:
“Unmentionable cooling”
“Warmth that the polar bears now love”
It seems that polar bears thrive in the Holocene, Tsk, Tsk. How Ma Nature loves to torment the poor global warmers.
Who is supposed to be “we” in your comment?
I decide to what I respond and to what I don’t.
It is surely up to you to “conclude” whatever you want from my decision. It doesn’t mean that the conclusion is logically valid. It wouldn’t be the first time here that you commit the logical fallacy of drawing a conclusion that is a non-sequitur.
Ah, another JPP response without any objection to the post. We can guess at his unhappiness, seeing all those polar bears cavorting in the Arctic, thriving and not perishing from melted ice. Let us commiserate with him.
So many words, so little information
Bent elbows have a way of interfering with the assimilation of information. The AA could be of some assistance in straightening your poor, crooked arm.
the Abraham et al. paper points suggest they did not even read our paper.
Sad that it ever passed peer review…obviously the reviewers didn’t read our paper, either.
Details here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/our-initial-comments-on-the-abraham-et-al-critique-of-the-spencer-braswell-1d-model/
…but to summarize the main 9 points they claim refute our paper:
1. The model treats the entire Earth as ocean-covered.
Not true, and a red herring anyway. We model the observed change in ocean heat content since 1955, and it doesnt matter if the ocean covers 20% of the globe or 100%. They incorrectly state that ignoring the 30% land mass of the Earth will bias the sensitivity estimates. This is wrong. All energy fluxes are per sq. meter, and the calculations are independent of the area covered by the ocean. We are surprised the authors (and the reviewers) did not grasp this basic point.
2. The model assigns an ocean process (El Nino cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon
This is irrelevant. We modeled the OBSERVED change in global average ocean heat content, including the observed GLOBAL average expression of ENSO in the upper 200 m of the GLOBAL average ocean temperature.
3. The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
There are indeed different assumptions which can be made regarding how the surface temperature relates to the average temperature of the first layer, which is assumed to be 50 m thick. How these various assumptions change the final conclusion will require additional work on our part.
4. The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth.
This approximation should not substantially matter for the purpose the model is being used. We stopped at 2,000 m depth because the results did not substantially depend upon it going any deeper.
5. The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those used in the literature.
We are very surprised this is even an issue, since we took great pains to point out in our paper that the *effective* diffusivity values we used in the model are meant to represent *all* modes of vertical mixing, not just diffusivity per se. If the authors read our paper, they should know this. And why did the reviewers not catch this basic oversight? Did the reviewers even read our paper to see whether Abraham et al. were misrepresenting what it claimed? Again, the *effective* diffusivity is meant to represent all modes of vertical heat transport (this is also related to point #8, below). All the model requires is a way to distribute heat vertically, and a diffusion-type operator is one convenient method for doing that.
6. The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers, and
7. The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity.
The authors discuss ways in which the implementation of the diffusion operator can be more accurately expressed. This might well be the case (we need to study it more). But it should not impact the final conclusions because we adjust the assumed effective diffusivities to best match the observations of how the ocean warms and cools at various depths. If there was a bias in the numerical implementation of the diffusion operator (even off by a fact of 10), then the effective diffusivity values will simply adjust until the model matches the observations. The important thing is that, as the surface warms, the extra heat is mixed downward in a fashion which matches the observations. Arguing over the numerical implementation obscures this basic fact. Finally, a better implementation of diffusivity calculation still must then be run with a variety of effective diffusivities (and climate sensitivities) until a match with the observations has been obtained, which as far as we can tell the authors did not do. The same would apply to a 3D model simulationwhen one major change is implemented, other model changes are often necessary to get realistic results.
8. The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer.
Again, there is no advection in the global average ocean. The authors should know this, and so should the reviewers of their paper. Our *effective* diffusivity, as we state in the paper, is meant to represent all processes that cause vertical mixing of heat in the ocean, including formation of cold deep water at high latitudes. Why did neither the authors nor the reviewers of the paper not catch this basic oversight? Again, we wonder how closely anyone read our paper.
9. The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
Not true. As we said in our paper, processes like surface evaporation, convective heat transfer, latent heat release, while not explicitly included, are implicitly included because the atmosphere is assumed to be in convective equilibrium with the surface. Our use of 3.2 W/m2 change in OLR with a surface temperature change of 1 deg. C is the generally assumed global-average value for the effective radiating temperature of the surface-atmosphere system. This is the way in which a surface temperature change is realistically translated into a change in top-of-atmosphere OLR, without having to explicitly include latent heat transfer, atmospheric convection, temperature lapse rate, etc.
Final Comments
If our model is so far from reality, maybe Abraham et al. can tell us why the model works when we run it in the non-ENSO mode (mainly greenhouse gas, aerosol, and volcanic forcing) , yielding a climate sensitivity similar to many of the CMIP models (2.2 deg. C). If the model deficiencies are that great, shouldnt the model lead to a biased result for this simple case?…
Re 1:
The temperature response to forcing is sensitive to the heat capacity of the system. You are assuming a heat capacity for your model aqua planet that is the heat capacity of water, which amounts to about 4.19 J/(g K). In contrast, the heat capacity of land is about 1 J/(g K), i.e., only about a quarter of the one of water. Thus, the assumed heat capacity of your system is about 30% too high. And the simulated temperature response to forcing is biased low, accordingly. For that reason alone, the neglect of the 30% land fraction of Earth in your calculations matters indeed.
The energy fluxes being in per square meter doesn’t change that. You using this argument to counter the point made by Abraham et al. looks more like a deflection to me. As does the repeated bashing of the authors and the reviewers of the Abraham et al. paper.
Roy
You cannot add back radiation and solar radiation and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Yet every energy budget diagram implies that you can. If one electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K then 16 such radiators do NOT raise it to 700K.
Radiation reaching Earth’s surface is not the primary determinant of the mean temperature as I have told you many times, Roy.
The required thermal energy that raises the surface temperature most mornings is supplied by the “heat creep” process which I have explained here using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Jan, I think you just got BUSTED!
So many words, so little information.
So many trolls, so little science.
Roy
Your problem is that you cannot explain with radiation how the Earth’s surface temperature gets to what it is in the first place, never mind the rate of cooling. It does so in the same way that the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus receives solar energy that was originally absorbed in the upper atmosphere and made its way down to warmer regions by increasing entropy at every step and making it hotter than Erath down there. It is all explained, well … you know where:
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
Roy,
“In a sense, the deep ocean provides an air conditioner for the climate system, and during El Nino the air conditioner isnt working as hard to cool the atmosphere.”
That can’t be right. The deep ocean can not cool the atmosphere, other than transiently, unless the deep ocean has somewhere to send the heat.
Since the ocean surface is mostly much warmer than the depths, there must be a downward transfer of heat over most of the ocean. To keep the depths cold, the overturning circulation must produce a net transfer heat *upward* to the surface. That means that the cold upwelling water must be somewhat warmer than the cold downwelling water in areas of deep water formation. So a reduction in overturning circulation must reduce heat transfer up from the deep ocean and result in net heat transfer *downward* into the deep ocean. Yeah, it sounds counterintuitive.
The above is not inconsistent with the surface ocean being warmer than normal, it is only inconsistent with the surface remaining in that state indefinitely. A quantity being out-of-phase with its rate of change is normal in an inertial oscillating system.
So all that warm water at surface of the ocean must be warming both the atmosphere and the deep ocean. Obviously, that is not a situation that can last. But it won’t last very long.
Mike M,
Vertical ocean circulation is a coupled matter:
Water sinking at the higher latitudes = upwelling in tropics/subtropics (and elsewhere). What is it that you do not understand about this?
Or do you not understand that SST determines air temperatures?
Also, you seem unaware of the, factor of relative salinity in meridional ocean overturning circulation, of which process you evince a garbled concept.
mpainter,
“Water sinking at the higher latitudes = upwelling in tropics/subtropics (and elsewhere).”
As I said.
“SST determines air temperatures”
As I said.
“factor of relative salinity in meridional ocean overturning circulation”
Irrelevant to anything I said.
Seems you missed the point.
Well, I have diligently searched your comment and I do not see how you can support that claim “as I said”
Yes, I confess that your point seemed obscure. You claimed that meridional ocean overturning circulation cannot cool the atmosphere because ….? Because of the heat it contains? Please clarify.
Concerning salinity, warmer, more saline water can subduct beneath colder water at the polar latitudes. This bears on your remark
“That means that the cold upwelling water must be somewhat warmer than the cold downwelling water in areas of deep water formation.”
My comment about salinity was to help your understanding. I’m sorry it didn’t.
yes, the surface cooling from increased mixing would only be transient…as in decades to centuries! The deep ocean heat sink is so vast that it would take hundreds of years to warm by only 1 deg. C in the presence of increased vertical mixing.
And the overturning is driven by convective sinking at high latitudes (convection doesn’t have to be warm buoyant water rising…it can also be cold dense water sinking). Your intuition about heat flow being from warm-to-cold, yes that occurs as long as there is *mechanical* mixing (it’s not buoyant mixing because warm water doesn’t sink), but that’s a smal part of the processes operating….
…Read about the basics of the thermohaline circulation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
Roy,
Buoyant mixing is local, warm water rises and cold water descends in the same area. You can not predict the direction of mean flow from the vertical temperature gradient. There can not be a net downward flow unless there is a surface current toward the downwelling region and a current at depth away from that region. The former is driven mainly by wind and the latter is due to differences in pressure. The pressure difference are due to differences in geopotential height of the sea surface and mean column density differences due to differences in temperature and salinity. It is like land and sea breezes, which are driven by horizontal pressure gradients, not “hot air rising”.
Turbulent mixing, which occurs to some extent everywhere in the ocean, transports heat from warm to cold. To keep the deep ocean cold, there must be a balancing heat transfer from cold to warm. That must be done by the MOC (meridional overturning circulation, which oceanographers seem to prefer to thermohaline circulation), or is there some other process of which I am unaware? And upwelling is part of the MOC, is it not?
Show turbulent mixing everywhere in the ocean, please & thank you.
I’m not sure what your point is, Mike. You seem to be implying there is at present no long-term constant transfer of heat from the warm surface to the deep ocean. Are you suggesting there is no vertical circulation that has this affect on the oceans?
“So all that warm water at surface of the ocean must be warming both the atmosphere and the deep ocean. Obviously, that is not a situation that can last.” The ocean heat capacity is absolutely huge compared to the atmosphere. All it has to do is last longer than the interglacial period.
willb01,
Right, I think there is no net long term transfer of heat into the deep ocean, beyond the small amount associated with anthropogenic warming of the troposphere. Otherwise the deep ocean would not be cold. That means that the vertical circulation must have the *opposite* effect to what you say. It transfers heat from the deep ocean to the surface.
willb01,
“The ocean heat capacity is absolutely huge compared to the atmosphere. All it has to do is last longer than the interglacial period.”
OK, let’s try some numbers. The anthropogenic perturbation to surface temperature is about 0.85 K, producing a heat flux of about 0.5 W/m^2 into the deep ocean (based on ARGO temperature measurements). So that is a heat transfer coefficient of about 0.6 W/m^2/K. Then a 15 K difference between surface and deep ocean would give a flux of 9 W/m^2. The heat capacity of the ocean is about 1000 W-yr/m^2/K, so 9 W/m^2 gives a temperature increase of 0.9 K/century. A rough number, but probably within a factor of two either way. The temperature difference would disappear in a few millennia, absent an mechanism for cooling the deep ocean.
Mike M
You have no evidence of “The anthropogenic perturbation to surface temperature is about 0.85 K “. Bald assertions do not pass on a skeptic blog. Try sks.
I recommend that you leave off these sort of computations. They make you look like a simpleton.
I also recommend that you avail yourself of the link that Dr. Spencer so thoughtfully provided you above, on thermohyline circulation. It would be a good start for your remedial education effort. With the right attitude, you can lift yourself out of your present condition.
Happy New Year.
Mike,
Even with no anthropogenic perturbation, there would still be a 15K difference between the surface waters and the ocean temperature at the depth of the abyssal plain. According to your calculation, the world ocean should have warmed to the surface temperature (~16C) 10,000 years ago. Clearly it did not.
willb01,
“the world ocean should have warmed to the surface temperature (~16C) 10,000 years ago. Clearly it did not.”
That is my point. So what cools the deep ocean if not the MOC?
On its own, the MOC can’t cool anything. It can only circulate water between the deep ocean and the surface. And because the surface is the warmer of the two, the result will be heat moving to the deep ocean (unless you want to dispute the 2nd law).
What has cooled the deep ocean is 95,000 years of glaciation that occurred prior to our current interglacial.
Yes, willb01, MOC does cool the atmosphere by circulating cold waters to the surface in the tropics/subtropics, as Roy explained in the post. The subsequent warming of the upwelling is by insolation. Roy explains it well enough.
willb01,
You wrote: “On its own, the MOC cant cool anything. It can only circulate water between the deep ocean and the surface. And because the surface is the warmer of the two, the result will be heat moving to the deep ocean (unless you want to dispute the 2nd law).”
Transferring heat from cold to hot does not violate the 2nd Law. Otherwise, the refrigerator in my kitchen would not function. All that is needed is an input of work. Maintaining the MOC requires an input of work, so it is quite capable of transferring heat from depth to the surface.
Why is the deep ocean cold? Any book on oceanography will tell you that it is because the deep water is formed in areas where the surface is cold. In other words, the MOC is responsible for keeping the deep ocean cold.
You wrote: “What has cooled the deep ocean is 95,000 years of glaciation that occurred prior to our current interglacial.”
But the deep ocean is colder than mean global temperatures, even at the depths of glaciation. And you apparently contradicted this statement when you wrote earlier:
“According to your calculation, the world ocean should have warmed to the surface temperature (~16C) 10,000 years ago.”
So it seems that you are saying that you reject my calculation because it disagrees with your preformed opinion. I reject that argument, for obvious reasons.
All estimates that I have seen for ocean mixing times are ballpark 1000 years. That includes the one I provided, climate models, and the estimates based on isotope ratios that led to discovery of the MOC.
mpainter, to be clear I completely agree that the MOC cools the atmosphere by circulating cold water to the surface. By “on its own” I meant to imply that cooling wouldn’t happen unless the water was first cooled by exposure to an external heat sink.
Mike,
Your refrigerator works by taking advantage of latent heat transfer resulting from phase changes in the circulating fluid. The MOC involves only liquid water with no phase changes. And circulation in a refrigerator occurs via mechanical forces, not via buoyancy forces. So I think your concept of the MOC transferring heat from cold to hot similar to a refrigerator is a non-starter.
I agree the MOC transfers very cold water from the surface to the very bottom of the ocean. But I disagree that the MOC is able to cool the whole world ocean to an average temperature of less than 4C when the average surface temperature is more than 10 degrees warmer than that. The best the MOC can do in this regard is slow (and possibly even arrest) the rate of warming.
“But the deep ocean is colder than mean global temperatures, …” The ocean bottom is also colder than the average ocean temperature. That’s because seawater is denser at temperatures below 4C and the coldest seawater therefore sinks to the bottom.
I don’t know what you mean by preformed opinion, but my explanation is based on my understanding of thermodynamics. I reject your calculation because your refrigerator analogy doesn’t work for me. If you’re willing to flesh it out in more detail, I’m willing to listen.
willb01,
I never said the MOC works like a refrigerator. I only cited that as one of many ways that work can be used to transfer heat, even against a gradient.
“And circulation in a refrigerator occurs via mechanical forces, not via buoyancy forces.”
And the MOC also occurs via mechanical forces (wind stress at the surface, pressure differences at depth) not buoyancy. The latter produces strong vertical transport, both up and down, in the regions of deep convective mixing. That mixing produces columns of cold, dense water. The pressure at the bottom of such a column is higher than elsewhere, so the water at the bottom spreads out to fill the deep ocean. (And yes, mpainter, salinity also plays a role, but it is less important than temperature).
“But I disagree that the MOC is able to cool the whole world ocean to an average temperature of less than 4C when the average surface temperature is more than 10 degrees warmer than that.”
So you are right, and all the oceanographers are wrong?
“Thats because seawater is denser at temperatures below 4C and the coldest seawater therefore sinks to the bottom.”
Completely wrong. Pure water has a maximum density at 4C; the density of seawater increases continuously as temperature decreases. All that salt makes a difference.
“I reject your calculation because your refrigerator analogy doesnt work for me.”
You rejected my calculation before anyone mentioned refrigerators, which are irrelevant to the calculation.
Mike,
“I never said the MOC works like a refrigerator. I only cited that as one of many ways that work can be used to transfer heat, even against a gradient.” Your refrigerator example is the only explanation you have given for MOC heat transfer against a gradient.
“So you are right, and all the oceanographers are wrong?” When do all the oceanographers say the oceans were warmer than 4C?
“Completely wrong.” ???
“You rejected my calculation before anyone mentioned refrigerators, which are irrelevant to the calculation.” You rejected my rejection of your calculation by bringing up refrigerators.
You’re half right Mike M. The warmed ocean surface does “warm” the colder regions especially in non-polar regions. Heat transfers may then exist along isotherms which surface in polar regions. But, even if there were no ocean currents, there would still be similar temperatures at all depths in the oceans. Variations in effective solar warming of the stratosphere and upper troposphere affect the temperature of the ocean surface due to the “heat creep” process explained here which nobody has proven to be incorrect physics. As we know from Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, the solar radiation is mostly too weak to raise the already-warmer temperatures in the lower troposphere and surface, with some exceptions on Earth, but none on Venus.
the simple fact that this question is legitimate proves that we don’t understand the climate…
Very interesting post, Dr. Spencer. Do you have any theories as to what causes the periodic slowdowns in the ocean’s vertical mixing processes?
Yeah, that’s the real question. What is the cause of the oscillation.
Hi Roy,
Richard Lindzens question is an excellent focus. And your post and the 35 responses to it illustrate the truth of a couple of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle quotes: It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment. And, The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.
You wrote: But we demonstrated that as El Nino develops there is an increase in radiative energy input into the global-average climate system which precedes peak El Nino warmth by about 9 months. This is mostly likely due to a small decrease in low cloud cover associated with the changing atmospheric circulation patterns during El Nino (La Nina would have increased cloud cover). I have not yet read your article in detail, but I accept your first statement here is basically correct. But its explanation, the second statement, I consider bogus.
Someone, I remember not whom, recently called my attention to a Columbia University News article of 1/10/2000 (www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/01/pleiades.html). In it I read: In a synthesis and review of existing data, the team looked for a correlation between high cloud cover over the central Andes in June, actual precipitation from October through February, and the subsequent potato harvest. What they found was a relationship between a brewing El Nino and the increased incidence of high, virtually transparent clouds over the Andes that dim the farmers view of the stars. Four to eight months later, the El Nino results in a hot, dry growing season that reduces the potato yield. Their method is elegant, surprisingly accurate and for them intuitive, [Ben] Orlove said. Its really a matter of big, bright Pleiades equals big rain equals big potato harvest, versus small, dim Pleiades equals small rain equals small potato harvest.
Comments: IMHO the waters around Antarctica is the place to look for answers but these have complexities that will never be unraveled by the present generation of climateers who have CO2 on the brain and that only. (mpainter) I have been searching for a link between ENSO events and Albedo with no luck. Anybody? (Ossqss) I looked for that. There isnt one. (Ed Caryl) I assume you mean besides the one I gave you (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.) Cloud albedo cant be a primary cause for climate change, since clouds are not an external climate driver. (Jan P. Perlwitz) As far as clouds are concerned, their net effect is cooling, not warming. It is only by reducing cloudiness does the earth warm, net, concerning their effect. (mpainter)
I fight the temptation to make a comment of my own. But I want to see how the players of blogsites, justify their lack of a good literature search for evidence before they form premature opinions (hypotheses, theories).
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause, if you had any science whatsoever, you would not be quoting Sherlock Holmes here.
Or maybe that is your idea of a “good literature search”.
Or maybe that your idea of a joke.
Hi mpainter,
Not that I expect it will matter to you, but some chemists respect Sir Arthur Conan Doyle for his knowledge of Chemistry, hence Science. I suspect it will not matter to you because I have yet to discover anyone on this blogsite write: Learn some chemistry.
Have a good day and year, Jerry
Who cites Sherlock Holmes in a science context? You only.
You cite :
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment.”
And how do you know when “you have all of the evidence”, and when you lack “all of the evidence.”
It is perfectly good science to theorize and test your theory with new observations, modifying your theory, if need be, in order to accommodate contrary data. “Biases the judgement” is claptrap.A good scientist avoids the pitfalls of bias, or is at least mindful of them. Where did Sherlock look for clues? Under the streetlamps, where the light was better? I’m surprised that Sherlock ever solved anything. But it was fiction, of course.
mpainter,
“Who cites Sherlock Holmes in a science context?” I, for one. In the context of science, the quote in question is particularly apt; I’m surprised that anyone with such a affection for (or, I should say, an affliction of) semantics does not understand this. In science, a theory is a model, developed from a hypothesis through supporting evidence. Limiting your research by setting out to “prove”, rather than examine, a hypothesis is inviting a tremendous waste of effort and, as the quote says, often “biases the judgment”; I have seen this repeatedly throughout my life. Of course, educated and reasoned bias is necessary to prevent “flailing”, but scientists and engineers, including the good ones, are human and, therefore, subject to allowing bias to cloud their thinking. Your posts based on conjecture, partial truths, and manipulation or outright rejection of any data that conflicts with your beliefs are an excellent example.
By the way, you never did answer the question I posed some time ago: Given that more than 90% of the glaciers on the Earth are receding, how is it possible that the mean sea level is not rising? Where did the water go?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden (look up “the Cottingley fairies hoax”) and wrote a (non-fiction) book, in 1921, entitled “The Coming of the Fairies.”
Love your blog.
I am interested about your “Warmth the polar bears love now” comment on the pic. I have always been skeptical of the polar bear’s endangered status: They did survive the medieval warming period after all. Is there new research I missed that shows they are on the rise?
Thanks,
-Dave
Roy (and Dick)
Whilst the above post reads “This average state of warm surface (due to solar heating)” it is important to understand that the “solar heating” is not achieved by way of direct solar radiation reaching the ocean surface and (mostly) passing through the first meter or so. Stefan-Boltzmann calculations readily confirm this.
Instead, the ocean surface receives the required thermal energy by means of the non-radiative “heat creep” process that I have been first in the world to explain based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The science of heat transfer lies totally within the realm of physics, and so only those with a sound knowledge and understanding of entropy and thermodynamics will understand what I have explained at http://climate-change-theory.com
In summary, the old 20th century Greenhouse Radiative Forcing conjecture cannot explain the required thermal energy transfers and the reason why a planet’s surface temperature rises each planetary morning. The process of entropy maximization is totally ignored and there is a false assumption that separate sources of radiation (the atmosphere and the Sun) have a compounding effect so that (they think) the sum of the fluxes can be used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. That is wrong, but it is indeed what those energy budget diagrams imply. If it were correct and one electric bar radiator could raise an object to 350K, then 16 such radiators would raise it to 700K. That doesn’t happen, so the greenhouse conjecture is totally and utterly debunked.
The correct 21st century “heat creep” hypothesis is, instead, based on the laws of physics and it explains the morning warming for planets like Earth and Venus, as well as the observed temperatures. You cannot prove it wrong. Nobody has in nearly two years, despite the AU $10,000 reward on offer for doing so.
Oh, I can certainly refute your “centrifuge” warming, but I won’t do it for less than $25,000, US.
This is the procedure:
Deposit $25,000 with Roy Spencer, who is to be the referee and make the award, based his independent judgement.
On second thought, make that $50,000, US.
Every vortex tube in the world redistributes molecular kinetic energy and creates a radial temperature gradient warming in the direction of the (outward) centrifugal force, just as every planetary troposphere exhibits a radial temperature gradient warming in the direction of the gravitational force.
In that your comment, mpainter, contains no discussion of entropy, thermodynamics or any physics whatsoever, I see no need to respond with any more detail. When you start displaying a correct understanding of such, then someone may listen.
Silent readers may care to watch the detailed (43 minute) video presentation here.
Aha! Just as I figured! You don’t have the money, you are a phoney.
You, mpainter, don’t have the required understanding of entropy maximization. This guy’s site may help you: http://entropylaw.com where you should also read the pages about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Regardless of the money, if you did have such understanding you would be like the thousands who have read what I have explained about “heat creep” and realized there is no argument against the physics I have presented.
As I said, when you start discussing the process of maximum entropy production then you might get somewhere with silent readers, of whom there are hundreds here, as I know from the hits my websites get.
All climate change is 100% natural and greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide cause the surface temperature to be cooler. Rain forests are not 50 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar altitude and latitude, but the fictitious, fiddled physics of AGW implies that about 20 degrees of warming is due to each 1% of water vapor. That false claim is the last nail in their coffin.
Not a penny less than $50,000 US, none of that upside down dollar sign stuff for me.
And no previews, D.C., just send the money to Roy Spencer, he’s the one to judge.
In response to mpainter, I have “invested” thousands of hours of unpaid time (at considerable opportunity cost) into investigating what physics can tell us about temperature data. Likewise the US $3,000 cash invested in publishing my book was never expected to be recovered in royalties, and wont be.
Regarding assets, our neighbours in the same street in a similar home were offered $1.85 million, and I have other real estate investments and businesses worth several million more. It would certainly “pay” me to learn if I were wrong, thus saving future investment of time and money exposing the hoax that is costing countless lives and causing measureless poverty.
DOug C
I need to read and consider your paper in more detail, but I have for many years been pressing Willis to explain how DWLWIR heats the oceans.
The absorption characteristics of such are that about 605 of all DWLWIR is absorbed in just 3 microns of the oceans. that is a hell of a lot of energy in a very small volume.
the problem here is that unless that energy can be sequestered to depth and thereby dissipated and diluted by volume at a speed/rate faster than the energy in the top few microns would drive evaporation, the oceans would have boiled off from the top down long ago, and would be in the atmosphere and not in the ocean basins.
Willis suggests that ocean overturning, the actions of the wind, waves swell does the mixing. I have suggested to him that these are slow mechanical processes and cannot effectively mix and sequester to depth, the energy at a rate fast enough to avoid copious evaporation. Willis has never addressed that issue and responded with the rate these processes take effect.
I have also suggested that ocean overturning is a diurnal phenomena and therefore not working for half the day, it is not a 24/7 operator. I have also suggested that the action of wind, waves swell is all but non existent in light conditions (eg. BF2 or below0 and there are large swathes of ocean with light condition sinc ehte average condition over the oceans is a little over BF4 9and less than BF5). Again Willis has never reverted on that problem.
I have also pointed to crater lakes which due to typography are shelter from wind and which have little wind, waves, swell for much of the time. And also to dew that can linger all day in winter in a shady hollow whereas dew on the sunny side of the hollow can be burnt off within an hour or so. Once again Willis has not reverted as to how the processes he claims to mix DWLWIR into the ocean works in these scenarios.
Again, I have raised the difference between the oceans and inland seas such as the Sea of Azov, Red Sea etc where very different conditions are experienced. And once more Willis has declined to address these issues just reverting to name calling. recently on WUWT when I once again raised these questions he called me a “jerkwagon”. That appears to be a style of his, when he no longer wishes to discuss the science he reverts to ad homs and name calling.
But serious consideration need to be given as to how DWLWIR interacts with the oceans and the differences between the ocean and land.
Further to my recent post, the reference to 605 was a typo and should have read 60%.
Also if DWLWIR is effectively mixed into the oceans, ie., it is sequestered to depth at sufficient speed, this begs the question as to why after some 4.5 billion years of Solar + DWLWIR, the oceans are so cold. it is only the surface that is warm, but if there was effective mixing of DWLWIR to depth, then one would expect the average temperature of the oceans to be far warmer.
Some really good points here, Richard V.
@Richard V.
All the “explanations ” for how CO2 heats the ocean follow the same path
1. The AGW crowd starts with the grandiose claim that SST shows no pause
2. This is followed by an acknowledgement that LWIR can’t penetrate the surface layer
3. Then the cold wind blows the heat down to depth
4. When the surface layer data shows this is nonsense
5. The argument then changes to CO2 “slows cooling”
The oceans are not 33C warmer because of any composition of atmospheric gas. Ocean temps range from 30C to just above freezing based on insolation. How an entire generation can accept the “greenhouse gas” explanation for surface temp in light of the properties of water will be quite an interesting study in science’s “appeal to authority”.
To your point, with the heat capacity of the ocean, what could man do to raise the ocean temperature 1C?
FTOP,
Right, “slows the cooling” is their last resort. That doesn’t happen, either, because oceans cool primarily by evaporation and DWLWIR merely transforms into accelerated evaporation.
So according to your “gravitational-thermal”, “heat creep”, “centrifuge warming” theory… (i’ll even try to explain it from your perspective)..the effect(s) of gravity maintains (with solar energy radiated from the Sun),a thermal pressure gradient which gets progressively hotter towards the centre of the planet.
The thermal effect of the gravity would affect all material of the planets, eh Doug,..so you explain to the “silent readers” how the bottom of the oceans, where the pressure induced by gravitation is greatest, has only a temperature of less than 4 deg C…whereas up near the surface it’s a lot warmer.
The oceans have all the attributes of an atmosphere ..so come on Duggie boy…explain this.
Ocean temperatures have been discussed and explained three years ago in my paper. In no single sentence anywhere in anything I have written have I implied that temperatures are maintained by pressure.
The oceans have isotherms from the surface in polar regions to the depths of the tropics. The mean surface temperature of the oceans is not due to solar radiation reaching the surface, as is easily confirmed with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Ocean temperatures are based on hydrostatic equilibrium considerations, not thermodynamic equilibrium, because the former dominate with considerable energy input in the tropics and output in polar regions. If the height of the troposphere were only about half what it is, the oceans would freeze.
$50,000 is the price, dc, just deposit that with Roy, and don’t try to trick me into refuting you before you make the deposit.
Your global warming centrifuge is fixing to twist off.
Silent readers are my “judges” not Roy, to whom I attempt to teach the relevant physics, and who only got an “A” in thermodynamics. He has no qualification in physics.
Over 1,000 silent readers visited my latest blog in its first month and no one has attempted to refute the physics explained therein and in the linked papers, videos and book. You make a fool of yourself mpainter, and you don’t even seem to realize that I am providing the required (and correct) “ammunition” to defeat the hoax. Furthermore, you can produce no valid physics to support the conjecture that water vapor warms the surface whilst at the same time reducing the temperature gradient – an impossible combination of events. Whatever you believe, mpainter, you are unable to produce valid physics in support.
You will never agree to my proposition, D.C., admit it. You are frightened to death to let people know that you ain’t got the boola, the $50,000. Well, talk is cheap, is it not?
Roy and others:
The empirical support for the gravito-thermal effect is now far more robust with modern experiments with centrifuge machines producing temperatures as cold as 1K – yes, just one degree above absolute zero.
Correct physics explains why it occurs and also the resulting heat transfers that are restoring maximum entropy. Planetary data also supports the heat creep hypothesis: otherwise you have no alternative explanation for planets where no significant solar radiation penetrates to the base of their tropospheres. I have been first in the world to explain the relevant heat transfer processes. Take it or leave it: your beliefs are your business; correct physics is mine.
Doug,
You owe me $5000 for loosing a bid. When may I get the five grands?
” Sorry losing”
To Nabil, mpainter and others:
The conditions for submissions are on my blog where all such submissions are to be made on the comment thread. You are welcome to copy your submission here or elsewhere, and if you do, just advise me on my blog and I will also copy my response in which I will pinpoint the expected errors in your thermodynamics. Submissions which do not address the entropy-maximization process (which is at the heart of the “heat creep” hypothesis) will be dismissed as being irrelevant.
Not one penny less than $50,000, d’ya hear? And confess, D.C., you don’t have that much. Talk is all you have.
PS: I’ve already offered Roy the AU $10,000 if he can pinpoint errors in my thermodynamics and produce a counter-study with similar methodology. (See this comment.)
Have you seen Roy put up any argument about entropy-maximization?
He could do a study in less than a day and write a post supposedly debunking the “heat creep” hypothesis by (somehow) showing it is not a process which maximizes entropy, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will tend to happen.
In two years nobody in the world has even attempted such a refutation, let alone been right in doing so.
Wow! A 30% over estimation in Spencer’s model. Re: Spencer/Braswell model!
To quote Jan P Perlwitz:
“Thus, the assumed heat capacity of your system is about 30% too high. And the simulated temperature response to forcing is biased low, accordingly. For that reason alone, the neglect of the 30% land fraction of Earth in your calculations matters indeed.”
Spencer-Braswell MODEL on the role of ENSO
It is a MODEL. A highly refuted theoretical MODEL on the climate sensitivity relative to CO2.
Ross, JPP cannot explain the mean surface temperature of the oceans with any valid Stefan-Boltzmann calculations (because it’s not primarily due to radiation) so why bother with JPP?
Yes, JPP can’t explain the mean surface temperature of the oceans based on a premise that he doesn’t even state. For that reason, why bother with JPP? According to “Doug*C”. You gotta love this “logic”.
Use any valid physics you wish JPP.
After all, JPP, I am able to explain and quantify temperatures in tropospheres, crusts, mantles and cores of planets and satellite moons throughout the Solar System with the “heat creep” hypothesis that is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereas you can’t. In two years nobody who has read and understood the hypothesis has even attempted to refute it, whilst some with a background in physics have acknowledged its validity.
No, you aren’t.
No, it isn’t.
No one really bothers about the unpublished junk science produced by a crank.
“whilst some with a background in physics have acknowledged its validity.”
Some other cranks confirm the crank.
JPP: The heat capacity of the ocean has nothing to do with its surface temperature. Even an isolated shallow lake (with far less total energy than an ocean) reaches similar temperatures at its surface as do nearby ocean surfaces. Nor does the heat capacity of the atmosphere affect surface temperatures. Only the (weighted mean) specific heat (cp) of the gases in a planet’s troposphere is a factor involved in the calculation of expected surface temperatures, not the heat capacity. You continue to display a lack of understanding of the relevant thermodynamics and entropy maximization.
The heat capacity of a body determines the rate by which a body will be warming (the transient climate sensitivity of Roy Spencer’s model aqua planet), when heat is added to the body. For the same amount of heat that is added, the rate of warming of a mass of ocean water will be smaller than the rate of warming of the same mass of land or atmosphere, because the specific heat capacity of latter two is much smaller than the one of water. You also can state is as the e-folding time for approaching a new equilibrium, when there is an initial perturbation of the energy flux – assuming equilibrium as starting point -, is much longer for water than the one of land or atmosphere.
I’m not the one here who is rejecting even the basics of thermodynamics.
“[with El Nino] there is an average decrease in the vertical overturning and mixing of cold, deep ocean waters with solar-heated warm surface waters.”
So what causes the decrease? Haven’t you just pushed the question back a step?
Also, if the El Nino/La Nina oscillation has no overall effecct on global warming, why did there seem to be a step function increase after the last large one in 1998?
Exactly.
This is what the satellite data suggests; a one off and isolated step change in temperature coincident upon the 1997/98 Super El Nino.
Of course, correlation is not necessarily causation, and it also begs the question, why has the step change in temperature remained for so long? why have temperatures not dissipated back down these past 17 or so years?
Not a one off, a three off. Since 1970:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/total.png
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/modern-global-warming-in-three-steps-the-fairly-short-version/
That first link should rather be this one:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/warming-steps.png
And as you can see, the “UAH v6 gl tlt anomaly” is in complete agreement with this distinct pattern:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/h3-vs-uah-vs-ceres.png
The lime-coloured curve here (HadCRUt3 gl with a downward adjustment of 0.064 degrees from Jan’98 on) is equal to the blue curve in the figure linked to in the above comment.
Good post! Thank you!
Roy and others
You need a better understanding of entropy maximization in order to understand what is really happening with atmospheric physics. I suggest you read the quotes in this comment (hopefully) to whet your appetite for learning about recent developments in the understanding of the Second Law.
Calls for work or Politics is not considered part of science and is a poor debating choice.
Jan P Perlwitz:
You say:
The effect on the radiation balance by the greenhouse gas CO2 is very well established in the scientific literature.
Really?
Science is about hypothesis testing; you are about to be given the opportunity of a lifetime; a lay down misere in two parts for you.
Can you show us an actual experiment in the literature that tests the greenhouse warming theory empirically and comes anywhere close to your claimed formula (+/-25%)?
Even simpler the $10,000 challenge is to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion.
This should be a knock-over for you; great start to the New Year.
My own unobtrusive observations are that CO2 seems to belong to a powerful union with work rights far beyond normal. It takes holidays, sick leave whenever it chooses, goes to sleep on the job sometimes for 800 years. Take a look at ice cores. Take a look at the 1945 to 77 period or the post 1998 period. Your formula is mulch at best.
Geologically back in time, tell us about the huge CO2 levels in the atmosphere and T plummeting to our level of today. Why did CO2 fall asleep for millions of years.
Perhaps you can describe what will happen with the following experiment. Two identical open top polystyrene boxes. A 240W light/energy source above the box (for light and infrared radiation). The base material absorbs radiation. A temp sensor a few cms above the base. Sensor is shielded from the direct energy source by a suitable barrier. Both experiments are identical apart from the gases.
When the T has reached equilibrium simultaneously fill one box with CO2 and the other with Argon.
Perhaps you can describe what will likely happen during the next 15 minutes ie… what is the likely T profile over time and compare the two T’s (lamp source stays switched on) including Max T.
Happy New Year.
Forgot to add:
Dr Spencer great post and thank you for your unstinting efforts over the years.
May say, many no doubt look forward to the Dec T results – not that it alone is important in the overall context but an El Ninio curiosity nevertheless! 🙂
Happy New Year to all.
JPP’s “radiation balance” is not what determines the surface temperature of Earth, Venus or any similar planet with a significant atmosphere. Neither the solar radiation reaching the surface nor the back radiation can explain the observed mean surface temperature – not by a long shot. Despite several requests, JPP cannot produce valid physics which quantitatively explains the surface temperature of Earth, let alone that of Venus. The latter, if it were determined by radiation, would require a mean input of over 20,000W/m^2, and that’s at least seven times the solar flux at TOA. So JPP needs to explain how the energy is apparently multiplied seven-fold by the Venus atmosphere.
James Hansen was seriously wrong, and others followed blindly into Bluff World.
TonyM:
Assuming you mean the base material absorbs all the radiation (absorptivity = 1.00) and is originally cooler than the effective temperature of the light, then there would be no measurable difference because the carbon dioxide could not be warmed above the surface temperature by either incident radiation or that emitted by the surface. However, your experiment does not emulate the atmosphere because the height of the box is nowhere near sufficient to be able to measure the effect of gravity in forming a temperature gradient. It is this effect (acting over the whole height of a planet’s troposphere) which determines the surface temperature and allows us to explain how the required thermal energy gets into the surface, that being mostly by natural convective heat transfer (including diffusion) that is maximizing entropy as explained here.
So I don’t recommend your use of such an irrelevant thought experiment. The only lab experiments which are relevant are those with centrifugal force wherein significant temperature differences can be demonstrated (such as in a vortex tube) because forces can be generated that are orders of magnitude greater then the force of gravity.
PS: If the hot light source is close to the top of the box, then, because the distance to the top layers of CO2 is far less than the distance to the base, and the radiation comes from a point source, the CO2 at the top could be warmed above the base temperature. Diffusion would then warm lower layers. So the AGW crowd might then assume CO2 was causing warming whereas argon would not. So, once again I suggest you be careful with such thought experiments that I doubt you have actually performed because gas would escape through the top of the box and normal air molecules would also enter the box in a short space of time.
Doug*
I shall remember that when I next stand near such a heat source; heat creep takes time and depth. We have a whole atmosphere above us but I doubt if I will wait for it to play its warming part in the middle of winter to satisfy my needs.
You are perfectly right the experiment needs to be defined more precisely but the object is to make a comparison between CO2 and Argon, which can’t have bond quantum states. Make whatever adjustments you deem necessary to fit in with that including having the lamp at a sufficient height to avoid your issue.
The experiment starts at ambient T as are the gases. There will indeed be warming; pretty pointless having heat lamps if they don’t have a warming effect.
Make the box a 40cm cube if you wish. In any case the longwave radiation from the surface is extinguished within 10m (ie the CO2 component) in our atmosphere so a 40cm height of pure gas is sufficient for my purposes.
You can certainly try the two gases in your vortex tube.
My I just suggest that any model should have no side walls and a leaky roof
LOL we do have such a real model (the atmosphere) and no one has been able to make much sense of it in terms of actual empirical tests of CO2 effect.
Better to try and contain the gases to make a comparison.
Have often taunted, on open forum, a climatologist to spend the night in her bikini under a huge plastic (IR transparent) canopy of CO2 in the middle of Australia around about August.
That should suffice to keep her nice and warm. We will throw thermometers around the place to make it nice and scientific. Never took me up on it.
Which is in the middle of the desert. Very dry conditions. Right?
What elevation about sea level?
And in the cold season.
It’s probably quite cold in the middle of the night then.
That you apparently believe this would somehow contradict anthropogenic global warming is only evidence that your knowledge about what the science says, which you ridicule, is rather limited.
The vortex tube will create a temperature gradient with either argon or carbon dioxide.
tonyM:
What is my “claimed formula”? What does this “formula” say? What is supposed to be your argument, when you are talking about “800 years”, or the “1945 to 77 period” or “the post 1998 period” with respect to this “formula”? Your whole comment doesn’t make any real sense to me. (I’m suspecting a bunch of the common “skeptic” strawman arguments behind it, but I’m not going to bother to respond on such a basis.)
Jan P Perlwitz says:
“What is my claimed formula”? What does this “formula” say?”
and inter alia
“(Im suspecting a bunch of the common “skeptic” strawman arguments behind it, but Im not going to bother to respond on such a basis.) ”
This is so typical of behaviour that wants to confound, obfuscate and avoid the issues posed by my questions.
On your “claimed formula” you cited Myhre et al., 1998 (above…. January 1, 2016 at 12:23 PM ) when you stated that the 30ppm CO2 increase to 1950 resulted in a forcing increase of about 0.54W/m2. If that methodology is not your belief then state it clearly and state your position on how you arrived at that forcing.
Myhre et al. state the CO2 forcing is 15% below the IPCC value. I gave you further leeway of 25% but you still obfuscate. I am quite happy to give you further leeway but judging by your comments it seems likely you will again respond in a similar manner.
Recall that you are the one to claim:
“The effect on the radiation balance by the greenhouse gas CO2 is very well established in the scientific literature. ”
Recall that all I did was to ask that you make good on you claim in scientific terms:
“Can you show us an actual experiment in the literature that tests the greenhouse warming theory empirically and comes anywhere close to your claimed formula (+/-25%)? ”
So show us that this “effect on the radiation balance” is indeed very well established in scientific terms. To most people it is a straight forward request.
I will cover your other points separately.
tonyM:
Judging about the form of my reply after the way you had replied to my comment before? Filled with argument by innuendo, trying to ridicule my views, a condescending tone. You are a bit hypocritical here, aren’t you?
If you indeed mean the formula by Myhre et al. (dF=5.35*ln(CO2(1)/CO2(0)), then your other statements in your previous comment, with which you apparently wanted to assert a contradiction between observed surface temperature variability and what is calculated by the formula don’t make any sense to me.
The formula by Myhre et al. is not one to calculate the surface temperature from the CO2 mixing ratio. The purpose of the formula is to have an approximation for the radiative forcing change at the top of the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, which is induced by CO2 change. Without such an approximation one would always have to exercise the full radiative transfer calculations in any situation when one wants to have just an approximate, quick answer. It was derived from calculations with three radiative transfer models, a line-by-line model, a narrow-band model, and a broad-band model. These models are very well tested against radiation measurements. Testing these models against measurements is how the validity of these models for doing radiative transfer calculations has been established.
I don’t see any reasonable doubt of the validity of the formula by Myhre et al. to approximately calculate the TOA radiative forcing by CO2. Should I?
And since the Myhre et al.-formula is an approximation for the TOA radiative forcing change, I don’t see based on what reasoning it is claimed that the surface temperature variability between 1945-77 or after 1998, or whatever else was named as an example by you was supposedly in contradiction to this formula.
Sorry, no. I don’t recall this. I recall a much longer comment by you.
The formula by Myhre et al. is, well, a formula. It is not a theory. And the theory of climate (not of greenhouse warming) is not a formula. So what exactly are you asking here?
I don’t know how a laboratory experiment would have to look like to test the Myhre et al.-formula. One would need to reconstruct the whole atmosphere in the laboratory?
The validity of whole scientific theories is usually not established by just a single experiment. A request that it must be done in this way would be absurd.
In simpler words you can’t show us an actual experiment in the literature that tests the greenhouse warming theory empirically that comes anywhere close to your claimed formula (+/-25%)?
You try to circumvent this by saying you are talking about TOA forcing. Nonetheless, TOA forcing is supposed to relate to the surface so I fail to see your point. I did say I was happy to give you more leeway; how much do you want? But there still is no such experiment!
You then take one big giant step to claim a climate theory even ignoring that one of its topical components has no empirical foundation. What climate theory are you talking about? I am not aware of one that has worked. We certainly would not be having an argument if there was one that did work.
If there is one that works then surely it would be the simplest thing in the world to show the deviations due to CO2 etc. Show me this theory that works!
Let’s now free it up a bit as a laboratory experiment is quite confining when talking of the atmosphere (that does not mean that basic experiments under controlled conditions should not take place ie…what effect does a CO2 change have on some basic measures etc). An experiment can also be the prediction and outcome of your climate theory + the change in CO2/GHGs in the atmosphere.
These predictions have been made and have all failed certainly in terms of avg T. Look at Hansen’s so called “exact physics” forcing and all the model runs. Forgive me, but a monkey throwing darts at a board should have been more accurate.
The part which is most telling is that all these predictions have failed on one side: the hot side which is pretty clear evidence of preconceived ideas so please spare me the idea that we have a workable climate theory.
I most certainly agree with you on one key point viz validity of whole scientific theories is usually not established by just a single experiment. Yep…it requires repeated experiments! I have only asked for one.
tonyM:
The proposition that the validity of a whole scientific theory must be tested with a single experiment is absurd and by itself unscientific. When has is ever worked like this anywhere in science?
Also, I ask you again to provide a clear argument, instead of resorting to innuendo, why the observed surface temperature variability between 1945 and 1977 or after 1998 was in contradiction to the approximation by Myhre et al for the TOA radiative forcing by CO2.
Argument from ignorance.
Read the IPCC report. Much of it is laid out there.
What is the source for your information that it allegedly “all failed certainly in terms of avg. T”? Any scientific reference? Show me the scientific evidence for your assertion.
Jan P Perlwitz
Why do you persist in going around in circles? It must be comedy festival time and you are writing a script to win a competition. Why else would you repeat yourself on something I agreed to and end up simply confirming that you have nothing to offer.
Here was my previous response.
“I most certainly agree with you on one key point viz validity of whole scientific theories is usually not established by just a single experiment. Yep…it requires repeated experiments! I have only asked for one.”
You repeat your statement that “..validity of whole scientific theories is usually not established by just a single experiment…”
I will in turn repeat my previous response that, in a nutshell, you can’t even give me one such experiment let alone a multitude.
What will you do now? Repeat your statement again? … et cetera ad nauseam.
Your comedy is certainly of the repetitive kind. I have declared that I do not know of a climate theory that works. I have asked you to show me your claimed climate theory that works. Apart from essentially saying I am ignorant, which you incorrectly assert as an argumentum ad ignorantium, I am prepared to be enlightened by your claimed climate theory, which if true, would end the discussion (from my viewpoint).
My comment were statements of fact, conditional statement of personal behaviour or requests and do not constitute an argument due to lack of evidence.
The IPCC is not a scientific body nor was it set up as such; go look at its charter. The IPCC reports are not a climate theory that works; show me that it does work. Their T predictions have failed.
In particular we are talking about GHG’s (and addition due to man) and despite all this comedy you cannot refer me to an actual experiment in the literature that tests the greenhouse warming theory empirically.
As a comedy finale you attempt the reversal of onus of proof despite my repeated asking you to back up your claims that this climate theory of yours works. Science is all about falsifiable hypotheses and testing. Take that away and there is no science! A collection of ideas and beliefs do not constitute science. Neither do creative accounting methods nor unvalidated models.
You seem to use the term theory in a common language usage rather than scientific sense. Stick to the accepted version of the scientific method and what is a scientific theory. Then you won’t need to labour with these issues when you are asked to back up your supposed climate theory by creating comedy sketches.
tonyM:
Which I interpret that you are just talking about the same experiment being repeated over an over.
The proposition is nonsense that all scientific theories must be tested with laboratory experiments.
How could it be possibly done to show in a blog comment that a whole theory “works”? That can only be shown in the scientific literature. You request the impossible from me. And then you fault me to not have done the impossible.
The IPCC report is scientific literature (a review of the status of science based on thousands of peer-reviewed publications from the field). There are many scientific peer-review papers that test the predictions of climate theory (e.g., the predicted increase in the backradiation by increasing greenhouse gases – already cited by me in the thread here -, or the predictions of climate model simulations by comparing them to observed variables). You refute to read the scientific literature. And then you take your lack of knowledge of the scientific literature as argument that the content of this literature didn’t exist. One could this also describe as argument from personal incredulity. You claim that the evidence didn’t exist in the literature, based on your personal disbelieve in it. Which is a variation of the argument from ignorance.
Is this contagious? Many “skeptics” seem to be infected by this.
You are just repeating your previous assertion. Your assertions about facts is stated by you as a positive. It implies that you have the information that backs up the assertion. The burden to provide the evidence for your assertion is on you. I repeat my question and request from before. What is the source for your information that the predictions have failed? Any scientific reference? Show me the scientific evidence for your assertion. Please.
The proposition that all theories must be tested by the mean of “experiments” is ludicrous. All theories must be tested. But this doesn’t mean it must always be experiments in a laboratory. There are other ways of empirical testing, like by predicting the behavior of measurable variables in nature and the mean of statistical tests.
My request is not a “reversal of proof”. You made an assertion about facts. The burden of proof for your assertions is on you. Like the burden of proof is on me for my assertions.
I already have cited literature in the thread here where a prediction made by climate science related to global warming has been successfully tested with empirical data. It’s not a laboratory experiment, though, that you demanded to be shown.
Well said Tony.
Any “force” of this magnitude should be measurable in a classical science experiment with CO2 concentration the independent variable and temp the dependent.
Heating liquids and/od a solid from above, with varying levels of CO2 concentrations for a gaseous layer in between should show measurable differences in the resultant temperature of the base material.
How you alter the concentration of the gas is irrelevant. CO2 impact on temperature should be obvious, measurable, and chart along some clear function.
Where is this proof? The only “experiment” was the faked one by Bill Nye, which is consistent with the rest of AGW warming.
FTOP:
The increase in the CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere has been measured. the change in the radiation fluxes by CO2 has been measured. The temperature increase in the atmosphere and the oceans has been measured. Tell me, what has not been measured, what you think, should be measured?
The experiment that you are requesting has been done, and it is still ongoing. The laboratory is Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, land, cryosphere.
What kind of “proof” are you requesting? Something like mathematical proof? Something that establishes absolute truth and 100% certainty?
There is no such thing like absolute truth and 100% certainty in science. There is only evidence, which is gathered and accumulated. And the more evidence is in agreement with a theory the stronger the explanatory power of the theory. The belief that the validity of a theory is established in science by a single experiment seems to be based on a strong misunderstanding of how science usually works. The scientific process is most of the time more like putting a puzzle together that consists of many individual pieces. It’s the whole of the evidence from all the puzzle pieces together that establishes the validity of a theory.
He means evidence, Jan, and you have none to give. Nor does the IPCC. AGW RIP.
What would you ever accept as evidence for it, whatever it was? There is certainly nothing that you would ever accept as such, since it would be in contradiction to your personal preconceived belief that AGW was a hoax. You always would just assert that the evidence didn’t exist. It’s always argument from incredulity.
No evidence yet. Not a shred.
mpainter,
I know the game that the likes of you are playing. Whatever scientific reference that provides evidence I cited here, you always would just dismiss it, by simply claiming “it’s not evidence” without any specific argument against it.
So, tell me instead, what would you accept as evidence, based on what reasoning?
This is a science blog. You claim to be a scientist. We ask “please cite the evidence” We did not ask for references or links or 1,000 page reports. I will pull you out of your burrow, Perlwitz.
How else is evidence supposed to be cited than by citing the peer-reviewed scientific literature where the evidence is presented? There is no other way. Your demanding that evidence was presented without citing the literature is absurd and nonsensical.
I repeat my question: What would you accept as valid evidence, based on what reasoning?
Besides, I notice your hypocrisy, considering how often you have been asked here to back up your assertions with evidence to which you haven’t responded. It’s obvious that you think the same standards that you request from others didn’t apply to you.
No evidence yet.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205401
It is clear to me that mpainter doesn’t argue here in good faith and that he/she isn’t willing to engage in any meaningful exchange by providing any arguments that have actual substance. Which is also sufficiently demonstrated by his/her outright rejection of any scientific literature as a basis for such an exchange.
Enough.
Still no evidence.
Jan:
I feel your pain.
Painter is the classic “skeptic” that gives “skeptics” a bad name.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with him/her.
I always note the quote of Mr Twain and heed the tale of Lewis Carroll.
Best to just make the point, hope someone here sees the merit and move on … in truth there is little to see here.
They even flatly deny what there host knows and posts here re the GHE.
It is mostly just an echo-chamber for the converted to cheer each other anyway … and they love the odd slave to be tossed in the arena to be attacked by the dogs.
It’s just that painter is particularly abhorrent.
I make a point of never discussing empirical science. If they deny it then that’s their problem. The people that matter have sense and know that science has not been down a blind alley this last ~150 years.
Evidence for you to shout down painter? – then be my guest…..
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
That is real world observation of increasing CO2 back-radiated LIWR via spectroscopy.
Now remember I don’t come back to read your reply. It is predictable any likely nasty.
See you on another thread.
Jan, there is NO evidence of AGW. You have been hoaxed!
Toneb,
Your moment of pain arrived when I measured your science. So now you quote Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll. Not even Jan Perlwitz wants that kind of help.
Your link to the berkcal press release is noted. I have read the study. The author displays a ten year Keeling curve and calls it global warming. During the study period the temperature trend at the site was flat.
Solid, incontrovertible data show that there has been a reduction in sulfate aerosols since the late seventies and no one disputes that this factor has meant a more transparent atmosphere, hence contributing to the late warming trend. Likewise, the McLean study shows a reduction in global cloudiness during the last quarter of the 20th Century. These facts are irrefutable and they well account for the late warming of the earth.
And that is what is called evidence. It is hard, clean, solid, irrefutable. And ignored by the global warmers who yet cannot offer a particle of evidence to support their AGW posturing. Thus Jan Perlwitz, Toneb & company.
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 2, 2016 at 8:49 AM:
Perlwitz, the AGW idea starts and ends with a simple conjecture:
More CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the global surface of the Earth to warm. How? By reducing the average radiant heat flux given off by the surface, forcing it to warm in order to retain its heat balance. This is the famous “radiative forcing” as pertaining specifically to Earth’s surface. It is supposed to change proportionally to the “ToA forcing”.
Well, then, this is something that should be possible to detect and measure, wouldn’t you think so?
And is it detected? Measured?
No. It isn’t:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/how-agw-isnt-happening-in-the-real-earth-system/
No. This is basically you being Al Gore and saying “It’s complicated.” It is in fact pretty simple, Perlwitz:
You posit a cause-and-effect relationship in nature and then claim that this relationship is somehow responsible for the observed behaviour of some physical variable.
What is it, then, that you need to test and verify for this hypothesis to even be allowed to get the chance of gaining any merit?
Do you need to verify to yourself that the variable behaving in a certain way actually does behave that way? No. You have already observed it behaving that way. That’s why you felt the need to explain the behaviour in the first place.
Do you need to verify to yourself the existence of the ‘thing’ or ‘mechanism’ that you posit as your ’cause’? No. If it didn’t exist, then you would have no basis on which to establish your hypothesized cause-and-effect relationship to begin with.
Translating this into the AGW hypothesis, here’s what’s been done:
# One claims that more atmospheric CO2 causes ‘global warming’.
# Based on this claim, one brings together two separate observations: 1) a rise in atmospheric CO2, and 2) a general rise in global surface temps.
# From this, one summarily concludes that 2) is caused by 1).
So what’s unscientific about this?
It’s COMPLETELY CIRCULAR! One is simply begging the question, assuming the premise to be correct without testing it. Your premise confirms your conclusion, just as your conclusion confirms your premise. And round and round we go …
So what is the premise here? The thing to be tested? The premise is of course the original conjecture: More atmospheric CO2 causes ‘global warming’?
Well, you cannot move beyond this point before this has been empirically shown to be the case. You need to be able to observe this cause-and-effect relationship in the real Earth system. If not, you do not know whether your basic premise is right or wrong. And you can’t move on. Your hypothesis falls to the ground. It doesn’t matter how plausible it sounds theoretically. Or how well you argue for it. If you cannot observe it in nature, then your cause-and-effect relationship isn’t happening, it’s not operating.
It’s actually very much like homeopathy. You can claim it’s working all you want. It doesn’t make it science. It never will. Why? Because your claimed effect isn’t observed. It’s not empirically, physically detected. So it’s all down to faith …
And faith isn’t science, Perlwitz.
Kristian:
Your description is not quite correct. Radiative forcing by a climate driver is defined for the top of the atmosphere (TOA), or at the tropopause, not at the surface. It is the perturbation in the radiation flux by a climate driver at TOA/tropopause before the system fully adjusts to the radiative perturbation. Fast components like tropospheric temperature, water vapor, or clouds can be allowed to adjust. In this case, we call it effective radiative forcing. In the literature, surface radiation changes are also called “surface radiative forcing”, but this is not the primary definition of radiative forcing.
This is a counterfactual assertion, since the increase in the backradiation by anthropogenic greenhouse gases at the surface has been measured. Here are scientific references:
Philipona, R., B. Duerr,C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing – measured at Earths surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/pdf
Feldman, D.R., W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn1, E. J. Mlawer, and T. R. Shippert (2015), Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature, 519, 339–343, doi:10.1038/nature14240, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
is blog opinion, but not science. It totally fails any scientific standards. The text doesn’t even cite a single scientific reference representing the science, which is alleged to be refuted there.
And neither the all-sky net longwave radiation change, nor the all-sky longwave downward flux change are measures of the backradiation by greenhouse gases. The all-sky data also include the radiation flux changes by cloud changes. Also,the CERES data for the surface fluxes are not measured. Instead, they are computed from the TOA fluxes and other input data using a radiative transfer model for which assumptions are made. That is, the CERES data displayed on your webpage do not show what you claim they show.
1. Strawman argument based on claiming that I said something that I didn’t say.
2. Claiming/suggesting that a statement was wrong because Al Gore allegedly used it as argument is yet another logical fallacy anyway.
My actual argument was that a request, according to which a single experiment must be presented to establish absolute truth of AGW was an absurd request, and the proposition that, if such an experiment didn’t exist, AGW was not real, is an absurd proposition. When does this ever happen in science that the validity of a scientific theory or of a consequence from a scientific theory is demonstrated in such a way? (AGW by itself is not a scientific theory. Theory of climate, i.e., the set of statements representing the understanding how the climate system works, is rather one. AGW is a consequence from this understanding. It’s better comparable to the calculation of the trajectory of an asteroid. The calculation of the asteroid trajectory itself is not a theory. It’s a consequence from a theory. It’s something that can be derived from the general theory of relativity). The scientific process doesn’t work like this. The validity of a scientific theory is usually established by a multitude of evidence, which is accumulated over time. And absolute truth can never be reached.
You are asserting here that the causal relationship was claimed to be true by mainstream climate science, because of a merely observed correlation between CO2 increase and global temperature increase, which then is taken as “proof” for the posited causal relationship.
Only, your assertion that this was done is a mere figment of your imagination.
I challenge you to cite the scientific literature here, where this argumentative chain that you allege has been used.
Well, I dare to say, if this were to be true no scientific hypothesis/theory could ever be successfully tested anywhere, in any field of science. If the same standard that is demanded by you here applies everywhere. Cause-and-effect relationships are never observed, because these relationships are statements of scientific theories. Only physical variables can be observed/measured, whose behavior are predicted by hypotheses/theories in science, using statements about cause-effect relationships between different measurable physical variables, as part of the hypothesis/theory. If the measured behavior is in agreement with the predicted behavior, then this is interpreted as a corroboration of the cause-effect relationship that is stated by the hypothesis/theory. There is no empirical evidence by itself in nature that can be measured/observed, without an existing theoretical framework. What is measured only becomes empirical evidence by its interpretation within an existing theoretical framework. Always. Everywhere in science.
Correct. This is why your beliefs, like the belief in the absence of AGW, that you state in your opinion blog or in your comments here, are not science. Because they have not been established by applying any scientific methodology or by adhering to any scientific standards.
Jan, still no evidence for AGW?
For an example of evidence, see the data presented by John McLean, 2014: Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover. Hope that helps your understanding of what is evidence…and what is not.
So many words, so little information. Poilitics are down the hall, this is Science
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 3, 2016 at 12:06 AM:
I’m not seeking the “primary [IPCC] definition” of ‘radiative forcing’, Perlwitz. You’re being a nitpick for the sole purpose of trying to make it look as if you’re somehow schooling me on this subject.
There can be no warming of the surface of the Earth simply from some imbalance aloft at the ToA. The ToA imbalance somehow has to translate down through the atmospheric column into an imbalance also at the surface itself, changing concomitantly and proportionally with the ToA imbalance. More DWLWIR is what is supposed to create this surface imbalance. Do you disagree with this?
From Feldman et al. 2015:
“Surface forcing represents a complementary, underutilized resource with which to quantify the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on downwelling longwave radiation. This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases. The former is less than, but proportional to, the latter owing to tropospheric adjustments of sensible and latent heat, and is a useful metric for localized aspects of climate response. We focus here on clear-sky flux changes because models predict most of the CO2 surface forcing to occur under clear-sky conditions.”
No, it’s a factual assertion, and I linked to a blog post presenting data confirming just that. Heard of CERES?
According to CERES, since 2000, there is no increase in the average DWLWIR to the global surface; there’s a decrease. According to CERES, since 2000, there is no decrease in radiant heat loss from the global surface; there is a strong increase. According to CERES, since 2000, there is no decrease in OLR at the ToA relative to tropospheric temps; rather, the former exactly tracks the latter, clearly simply a direct radiative effect.
Philipona and Feldman haven’t observed global, total, all-sky increases in DWLWIR, Perlwitz. Philipona has looked at 8 stations in the Alps from 1980 (1995) to 2002 and uses statistical tricks to isolate a signal of a model-predicted strengthening of the hypothetical rGHE, when it’s all too evident from his own discussion and data that the general rise in temperature, humidity and cloud cover in reality explains the entire increase. Feldman looked at 2 ARM-stations, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, focused purely on the CO2 wavelength bands, plus on cloud-free conditions only.
And none of the two studies could find any observations supporting the notion that any of the increase in the estimated DWLWIR was a CAUSE of the temperature rise at these sites. The causation is always the other way around: higher temps, more DWLWIR. If clouds and humidity don’t somehow counteract it …
The rGHE and AGW are supposed to be ‘GLOBAL AVERAGE’ phenomena, Perlwitz. Everything must be included. Full years. Full global coverage. Total radiation flux, not just parts of it.
If the total, global, annual mean of DWLWIR doesn’t change in the model-predicted way, then the models are wrong, not reality.
We don’t have any total, global, annual mean data describing the behaviour of this variable before March 2000, Perlwitz. CERES is it.
And we are still waiting for the observation of the cause-and-effect relationship +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc gl. Because that’s what we need. Everything else is circular. You just assume that an observed increase in DWLWIR is a cause of warming, when in fact it is observed to be merely an effect. As long as you keep assuming this without having actually observed it, then you will keep fooling yourself into thinking that you see the opposite of what the data tells you, you will automatically reverse the causation inside your head and shout “Look! Evidence!”
CERES, Perlwitz. Heard of them? The data is freely available on the internet. (And in my post I link directly to it.) Same with the UAH tlt data. I’m only presenting data collected by others. I’m not making it up. Check it out for yourself 🙂
Don’t you even know what the AGW hypothesis says? It appears you don’t.
Exactly. In order to see whether the “greenhouse effect” has strengthened or not, you need to look at the TOTAL. The total includes water vapour and clouds, Perlwitz. It’s called “the real world”. Live with it.
Of course it does. It shows exactly what the CERES team says it shows. If you don’t like the data, take it with them, not with me. It shows what it shows. Sorry if that’s inconvenient to your ‘Cause’.
Or do you have any better globally comprehensive and spatio-temporally consistent data for total DWLWIR over the last 15 years …?
Stop whining and look at what the actual data is telling you. And then start thinking. Maybe this issue isn’t as straightforward as you believe to be …
*Sigh*
Hence my previous reply to you. You apparently haven’t understood at all what I was trying to tell you.
If you read it again, you will see exactly what is the problem with the AGW (and rGHE) proposition. And you will find out exactly what it is that you need to test and verify in order for it to have any chance of gaining any kind of scientific merit or validity.
As it stands now, it isn’t even a scientific hypothesis. It’s mere conjecture. Speculation.
Ponder this, Perlwitz:
1. How is the “Greenhouse Effect” defined? What is it supposed to do? Is it a local effect? Is it a nocturnal effect only? Is it defined by its effect on extremes? Is it a CO2 effect only?
2. How do you test empirically whether your basic premise – “More CO2 in the atmosphere causes net ‘global warming’ at the surface by strengthening the “Greenhouse Effect”” – is correct or not?
3. What is your mechanism for CO2 warming and how is it supposed to manifest itself in the real Earth system?
4. What data do we have enabling us to test this? What are we looking for?
5. Finally, what does this data tell us?
Perlwitz, you’re really trying your best here to hold off the sense of cognitive dissonance lurking somewhere deep in your limbic brain. There is simply no other way to interpret this weird ‘deny-everything’ kind of response of yours. But, hey, that’s how it is to be a dogmatist, I guess.
Look, it’s very simple. If you haven’t first verified empirically in the real Earth system your basic premise, that more CO2 in the atmosphere will in fact lead to a net warming of the global surface of our planet, then you cannot take any sign of warming and claim that as a piece of evidence for your hypothesis that mankind is responsible for the main share of ‘global warming’ over the last 50, 100 or 150 years, simply because CO2 has gone up as well over the same period.
You cannot take for granted that any observed warming is caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2 before you have first shown empirically that more atmospheric CO2 will in fact make the global surface warmer. And you will have to show it by observations from the real Earth system, not from your models.
So how do you do this? How do you go about? Do you look at global temps and at atmospheric CO2 concentrations and say “Hey, there’s your evidence! The latter is the driver (the cause) of the former!”?
No. Of course not. But what else is being done? By “Climate Science^TM.” How and when did they verify empirically that a rise in atmospheric CO2 can and will in fact induce a rise in surface temperatures?
You very much appear not to comprehend at all what a ‘circular argument’ is, Perlwitz. The AGW claim is one. In fact, it’s a prime example.
You’re not really the master of creative thought, are you, Perlwitz?
It’s pretty easy to establish causal relationships through observation.
Take the Sun and solar input. When the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining down on the surface, the surface starts warming. This happens every day, every year, all over the world. It’s a consistent, tight lead-lag pattern.
And that’s all you need. We have empirically verified that the Sun warms the surface.
Do we see this kind of pattern with CO2 and temps? Yes. Only not with CO2 as the lead. CO2 always lags, the temp always leads. We see this in the annual cycle globally and regionally. The same kind of consistent, tight lead-lag pattern. But CO2 isn’t the ’cause’ in this relationship. It’s the ‘effect’.
Do we see the opposite anywhere, the same kind of lockstep pattern only with CO2 as the lead and the temp lagging?
Nope.
And that’s just how it is, Perlwitz. Theory, meet Reality.
Collecting and then looking at data and noting what it says is probably the most standard scientific method for gaining knowledge of the Earth system there is. I am not arguing from faith, I’m arguing from data and empirical observations from the real Earth system, Perlwitz.
Your claim, however, that more CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the global surface of the Earth, is a statement of faith, not of scientific knowledge.
Could you paraphrase that for me, I lost track at about word 2000
Kristian:
You obviously would need a lot of schooling on the subject. However, you are right. I’m not going to school you. I’m not going to attempt to correct all the misrepresentation, distorted perception, lack of understanding of the science in your comment, where you also just are repeating the same assertions from before.
You have failed to present the evidence that the scientific literature on global warming uses the circular reasoning that you are asserting, despite being asked for it.
Show me your scientific publications that have passed peer review, where you successfully (in your opinion) refute anthropogenic global warming, instead just your blog-post junk science. Then we may talk again.
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 3, 2016 at 11:11 AM:
Hahaha! You have nothing, Perlwitz, and you know it. That’s why you cowardly resort to ad hominem. That’s why you’re careful not to address directly anything I say, any argument I make, but rather prefer to throw general accusations of not “understanding the science” in my direction. It doesn’t work. You people are so predictable. You are a sorry lot. Dogmatically blind, ideologically driven. The true deniers of science and the scientific method.
I have shown you the global data, Perlwitz. It says what it says. I have also explained to you exactly why the AGW proposition is a ‘circular argument’ and nothing more. I have told you exactly what it is that you need to test and to verify by empirical observation from the real Earth system in order for it to become rather a ‘linear argument’.
You need to show that your basic premise is in fact true, that more CO2 in the atmosphere really does enhance the rGHE and thus really does warm the global surface of our planet. Not just claim it does because theoretically it should, and “Look, it has become warmer and CO2 has gone up, so you do the math,” wink, wink …
Ah, yes, the classic warmist strategy of reversing the burden of proof.
Look, there is nothing to refute, Perlwitz. Because nothing is shown. The “anthropogenic” in global warming is a mere conjecture. You being unable to grasp this simple fact is really not my problem.
If you claim that global warming since say the 50s is caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2, then it is up to you to show it, to back it up with empirical observations from the real Earth system. It is not my job to show that your unsubstantiated claim is false.
So how would you go about showing by empirical observation from the real Earth system that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is in fact the cause of global warming since the 50s?
Kristian:
The burden to refute anthropogenic global warming is on you. Why is it on you? Because mainstream climate science has stated its case in the scientific literature (also compiled, summarized, and assessed in five IPCC reports by now). Scientists can’t do more than stating their case by publishing the findings of their research in the literature. If someone doesn’t agree with what the scientific literature states on a case, the burden is on those who disagree to refute what is stated in the scientific literature. And a refutation can only be achieved by adhering to the same high scientific standards.
But this is just recursion to previous comments in this thread. I’ve already commented on this before:
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205361
and here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205394
Show me your scientific publications, instead of your blog-post junk science, and we may talk again.
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 3, 2016 at 1:18 PM:
You don’t give up, do you, Perlwitz? You have absolutely nothing of substance, but just keep on spouting your anti-scientific drivel.
No, the burden of proof is not on me. Sorry. I’m not the one claiming that ‘climate change’ is no longer natural (like it’s been for the previous 4.5 billion years), that it is now rather somehow “our fault”. You are. So the onus is on you. Simple as that.
And then you clearly don’t read what I write. Here it is again:
“If you claim that global warming since say the 50s is caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2, then it is up to you to show it, to back it up with empirical observations from the real Earth system. It is not my job to show that your unsubstantiated claim is false.
So how would you go about showing by empirical observation from the real Earth system that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is in fact the cause of global warming since the 50s?”
Plus:
“How and when did they [“Climate Science^TM”] verify empirically that a rise in atmospheric CO2 can and will in fact induce a rise in surface temperatures?”
And also:
“1. How is the Greenhouse Effect defined? What is it supposed to do? Is it a local effect? Is it a nocturnal effect only? Is it defined by its effect on extremes? Is it a CO2 effect only?
2. How do you test empirically whether your basic premise More CO2 in the atmosphere causes net global warming at the surface by strengthening the Greenhouse Effect is correct or not?
3. What is your mechanism for CO2 warming and how is it supposed to manifest itself in the real Earth system?
4. What data do we have enabling us to test this? What are we looking for?
5. Finally, what does this data tell us?”
– – – Please do answer – – –
What utter nonsense! These comments are not replies to anything I’ve written. And have nothing to do with our discussion here in this part of the thread. I don’t care about your political discussions with mpainter.
I’ve shown you the DATA, Perlwitz. That’s all you need. Nullius in verba. In science you don’t listen to people, you listen to data. You know, data from the Earth system, on physical parameters like radiation, heat fluxes and temperature. All opposing directly the notion of a strengthening rGHE. That’s SCIENCE. If you can’t cope with that, then that’s not my problem. You’re the science denier.
Also, I’ve asked you to tell me exactly when and how the Climate Establishment managed to verify empirically from real Earth system observations that a rise in atmospheric CO2 can, will and does in fact induce a net rise in average surface temperatures?
You refuse to even make so much as an attempt at addressing this point, the fundamental premise of the rGHE and AGW propositions, the one that NEEDS to be correct in order for the rest of the claims made to have any scientific value whatsoever.
Kristian:
ROTFL. In contrast to whom?
You have absolutely nothing of substance, but just keep on spouting your anti-scientific drivel.
Your repeated claim that scientific literature on anthropogenic global warming didn’t exist is mere argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.
Show me your peer-reviewed papers, where you refute the published scientific literature on anthropogenic global warming, instead of showing your blog-post junk science, and we may talk again. The burden to bring the evidence against the case for anthropogenic global warming, which is made in the published scientific literature is on you, while adhering to the same high scientific standards of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Kristian:
ROTFL. In contrast to whom?
Your repeated claim that scientific literature on anthropogenic global warming didn’t exist is mere argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.
Show me your peer-reviewed papers, where you refute the published scientific literature on anthropogenic global warming, instead of showing your blog-post junk science, and we may talk again. The burden to bring the evidence against the case for anthropogenic global warming, which is made in the published scientific literature is on you, while adhering to the same high scientific standards of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Kristian,
Good series of comments. If you did not know it before, you know now that Jan Perlwitz is the type of scientist who has no qualms about standing science on its head for the sake of the cause.
Not that Kristian or mpainter would understand why all-sky longwave CERES data at the surface are the wrong data to evaluate the backradiation by greenhouse gases.
But they exactly “know” that the overwhelming majority of those scientists who work on publish in the field were wrong, while they were in possession of “the truth” which had been “proven” by blog-“science” in the Internet.
Jan, what evidence can present for AGW? So far you have presented none, despite being asked about eight times.
You have explicitly stated that you don’t accept any scientific references for evidence for anthropogenic global warming. However, evidence for scientific propositions can only come from science. There is nothing else that could be evidence for these propositions. You are asking the impossible from me, which just shows your dishonesty here. You principally won’t accept anything as evidence ever, using the argument from incredulity.
Jan, watch.
mpainter says:
January 2, 2016 at 11:38 PM
Solid, incontrovertible data show that there has been a reduction in sulfate aerosols since the late seventies and no one disputes that this factor has meant a more transparent atmosphere, hence contributing to the late warming trend. Likewise, the McLean study shows a reduction in global cloudiness during the last quarter of the 20th Century. These facts are irrefutable and they well account for the late warming of the earth.
And that is what is called evidence. It is hard, clean, solid, irrefutable. And ignored by the global warmers who yet cannot offer a particle of evidence to support their AGW posturing. Thus Jan Perlwitz, Toneb & company.
###
And nothing left to CO2, and that is why you have no evidence to show.
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 3, 2016 at 8:21 PM:
Perlwitz, here’s what you don’t get:
We do not accept ‘evidence’ in the form of self-proclaimed “experts” simply asserting that there is an enhanced rGHE and it makes the world warmer. That’s the only kind of ‘evidence’ you have provided.
We would, however, accept evidence in the form of CONSISTENT EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION FROM THE REAL EARTH SYSTEM UNEQUIVOCALLY SHOWING THAT A RISE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CAUSES THE GLOBAL SURFACE OF OUR PLANET TO WARM.
Got it?
Can you present such real evidence? Or can’t you? That’s the question.
Stop evading! It makes you come off more and more as a drooling dogmatic fool!
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 3, 2016 at 6:31 PM:
To see whether the hypothesized “radiative greenhouse effect” has strengthened or not, it is the perfect data, Perlwitz. I know you don’t like the data presented, because it ruins your ideological alarmism at a fundamental level.
There are three ways to look at this issue:
1. Is the global atmosphere providing more and more energy to the global surface of the Earth in the form of DWLWIR?
No. It is providing less and less energy. According to the only available source of global data we have, CERES.
2. Is the radiant heat flux given off by the global surface of our planet decreasing (or held constant while the surface warms)?
No. It is strongly increasing. So the global surface of our planet cools more and more efficiently by IR emission. According to the only available source of global data we have, CERES.
3. Is the OLR at the ToA (Earth’s radiant heat flux to space) decreasing (or held constant while the troposphere warms)?
No. It is flat, just as tropospheric temps, tracking them perfectly! According to the only source of global data we have, CERES. And according to RSS v3.3 and UAH v6.
You will simply have to live with this data, Perlwitz. I know they are highly inconvenient to your ‘Cause’, but that’s just how it is 🙂
No, proven by freely available DATA, Perlwitz. From the real Earth system.
Kristian is shouting:
AS someone else has already pointed out somewhere else. The year 2015, a new record year of the globally averaged surface temperature anomaly has been a very difficult year for denial of anthropogenic global warming. After the year 2014 had already been a difficult year for AGW denial. The year 2016 will very likely become another very difficult year for AGW denial, because it likely will become another very warm year, if not another record year, due to the combination of the continuing background warming trend and El Nino.
The demand by Kristian, though, that the empirical evidence must be “unequivocally” before the reality of AGW is accepted is a demand for certainty. Which is again a variation of the logical fallacy argument from ignorance. There is no such thing as certainty in science. Absolute truth can never be reached.
And yes, the backradiation by greenhouse gases is increasing, as the empirical data as published in the scientific literature show. This increase in the backradiation by greenhouse gases can also be seen in the CERES data, if one locks at the right data. Which would be the subset of the CERES data for the clear-sky longwave downwelling radiation. With the caveat that the change is likely not statistically significant yet. 15 years of data are still too short for this. 15 years are generally short for studying climate change. There is an actual scientific reason why climate is defined as the statistical state of the system over 30 years or longer. On short periods such as 15 years, unforced natural variability is still very strong.
mpainter:
Your assertion about the change in aerosols and clouds and that they allegedly outweighted CO2 (and what about the other anthropogenic greenhouse gases?) are worthless without you providing actual numbers. Mere assertions are not evidence.
For clouds, you additionally must show how much of the cloud change is independent on the increase in greenhouse gases, i.e., not a response of clouds to the increase in greenhouse gases.
The McLean paper overstates the cloud radiative effect by a factor of about four.
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 4, 2016 at 2:12 AM:
It appears I need to shout in order to get through your loud, stubborn “Lalalalalalala! Can’t hear you!” chants 😉
*Sigh* We try it one more time to see if it starts sinking in. How can anyone possibly be this slow!?
No, Perlwitz, we can NOT use clear-sky DWLWIR to see whether the “Greenhouse Effect” has been ‘strengthened’ or not. Because the “Greenhouse Effect” includes clouds. Clouds are supposed to be part of the “Greenhouse Effect”.
It is completely irrelevant what happens within each different part of the spectrum. Only what happens to the TOTAL spectrum, the TOTAL flux, matters. If the global atmosphere sends down LESS energy per unit time IN TOTAL to the global surface of the Earth, then it’s completely irrelevant whether some small part of the spectrum might have increased. It just goes to show that whatever CO2 does, the system as a whole couldn’t care less and completely overrides it. Then the “Greenhouse Effect”, as defined by the atmospheric DWLWIR to the global surface, has weakened, not strengthened.
Being as dogmatically blinkered as you are, Perlwitz, you will probably never understand this trivial fact, a fact even a school kid would comprehend. But that’s not our problem. It’s just the way reality works. Live with it …
More importantly, though, even if we were to observe an increase in global DWLWIR to the surface, that wouldn’t mean that this increase is therefore the cause of any surface warming. It would simply be an effect of warming (surface > air). And that’s your problem. It is not enough for you to show that DWLWIR has increased. You have to show how this has in fact caused a net warming of the surface: +CO2_atm -> +DWLWIR_gl -> +T_sfc gl.
When, where and how was this causal link empirically verified by consistent observation from the real Earth system, Perlwitz?
Still refusing to answer? You look more and more like a fool 🙂
Kristian:
Clouds are part of the response to the forcing by greenhouse gases, and as such part of the system of feedbacks in the climate system. But the cloud radiative effect is not part of the forcing by greenhouse gases. Let’s remind the reader that Kristian’s original assertion was that the forcing by greenhouse gases can’t be measured:
“More CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the global surface of the Earth to warm. How? By reducing the average radiant heat flux given off by the surface, forcing it to warm in order to retain its heat balance. This is the famous radiative forcing as pertaining specifically to Earths surface. It is supposed to change proportionally to the ToA forcing.
Well, then, this is something that should be possible to detect and measure, wouldnt you think so?
And is it detected? Measured?
No. It isnt:”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205409
Kristian obviously doesn’t understand the difference between forcing, response, and feedback.
If one want to test with measurements whether the forcing component in the spectrum, the one by anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased, about which Kristian wrongly asserted (see quote) that it couldn’t be measured, then one must look at the long-wave range of the spectrum without the cloud effect on radiation (and also without the water vapor effect on radiation). That is what Philipona et al. and Feldman et al. have done in their studies. For the CERES data, the all-sky downwelling radiation is in agreement with these studies, although it still includes the radiation that comes from water vapor, the change of which is also a response.
Additionally, one also has to include in all such investigation that there is unforced natural variability in all these measured variables, which can mask the long-term background trends. Unforced variability is still substantial on 15 years. No one in climate science predicts that the anthropogenic changes must be visible by a linear increase of the measured variables from one year to the next. Kristian totally ignores the possibility that unforced variability can temporarily mask the human induced changes in the climate system, and that one may need multiple decades to separate the signal from noise. Like he doesn’t seem to know things like statistical uncertainty, since he never puts any of his claimed conclusions in a context of it.
You see, Kristian, Jan Perlwitz is incapable of addressing the shortcomings in his science. That is how the faithful maintain their belief: they reflexively deflect any doubt. Hence Jan Perlwitz, who is absolutely incapable of understanding what is meant by evidence in regard to AGW. For him, it is enough that others write papers and that get peer reviewed and published. That is his evidence. Otherwise, he cannot comprehend someone who keeps demanding evidence of AGW. He has none to present, but the AGW imp at the controls does not permit him to grasp that truth.
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM:
Please quote my words stating (or even implying) that “scientific literature on anthropogenic global warming didn’t exist”.
I have said or implied no such thing, Perlwitz. By claiming I have, you’re either a deliberately mendacious twit, just plain dim-witted, or you haven’t even bothered reading what I write and rather just assumed that’s what I’ve been saying.
Which one is it …?
I have continuously pointed out that the literature (of course it exists; that’s the whole problem) is brimming with all kinds of assertions and assumptions, but contains exactly ZERO empirical observations from the real Earth system showing that more atmospheric CO2 causes the global surface to warm.
The final arbiter of science is not someone’s opinion, Perlwitz, no matter how distinguished. It’s empirical observations from the real Earth system.
How hard is this to get into your head!?
mpainter says, January 4, 2016 at 9:29 AM:
You’re absolutely right, mpainter. Well stated.
This guy is truly a lost case. He is simply utterly impervious to what is being said, to the data being presented, and to what is being asked of him. It all bounces off. Full-blown denier mode. It’s a well-known behavioural pattern among fanatics, though, religious or ideological. He’s just incapable of taking in contrary ideas and facts. His dogmatically conditioned mind won’t allow him to, rather employing to near perfection the fourth method of (cognitive) dissonance reduction especially reserved for those most pigheaded ones: “Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs.”
A highly pertinent quote from the esteemed Dr. Leon Festinger regarding this very phenomenon:
That’s our friend Jan Perlwitz right there, wouldn’t you agree? 🙂
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 4, 2016 at 7:54 AM:
Yes, Perlwitz, the CRE is not part of the postulated ‘forcing’ by greenhouse gases, because clouds are made of liquid and solid matter, not of gas. Duh! They are, however, still meant to contribute to the overall “Greenhouse Effect”, about 25% of it, according to Schmidt et al. 2010. You do know this, don’t you, Perlwitz? It’s pretty common knowledge.
And so that’s all that matters. Has the “Greenhouse Effect”, as defined by the estimated atmospheric DWLWIR to the global surface, strengthened? No, it has weakened. According to CERES.
Seriously? You quote me directly and you still can’t read what the quote says!? How thick is it possible for a grown-up person (because I assume you are; am I wrong?) to be?
Let’s go through it line by line, shall we? Just as an educational exercise:
“More CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the global surface of the Earth to warm.”
Yes, this is the basic premise of the AGW proposition. Notice how it specifically asserts that all you need to get net surface warming is to put more CO2 in the atmosphere.
“How? By reducing the average radiant heat flux given off by the surface, forcing it to warm in order to retain its heat balance.”
The “average radiant heat flux given off by the surface” here is not the CO2-specific flux, Perlwitz. It’s the TOTAL flux. Because putting more CO2 in the atmosphere won’t be able to warm the surface of the Earth unless the TOTAL radiant heat flux from the surface is reduced. It’s no good reducing just a small piece of it. The TOTAL needs to go down. That’s what disrupts the ‘heat balance’ the surface wants to retain. Get it?
“This is the famous radiative forcing as pertaining specifically to Earths surface. It is supposed to change proportionally to the ToA forcing.”
Yes, the TOTAL ‘forcing’, Perlwitz, an increase in which would entail the enhanced “Greenhouse Effect” as hypothesized. The enhanced rGHE is not about a change in CO2-specific radiation (less out, more back down). It’s about a change in the TOTAL radiation flux. If the TOTAL doesn’t change or if it changes the wrong way, then there is no enhanced rGHE, Perlwitz. Simple as that. It doesn’t matter what CO2 does in its little corner of the world. Only the TOTAL matters.
The idea behind the basic premise of the AGW proposition (stated above) is, that while the CO2 portion of the DWLWIR spectrum intensifies, all other parts of it stay constant, unchanged. That’s the prerequisite “All Else Being Equal” clause. The other parts would only change in response (i.e. as feedbacks) to the original intensification in the CO2 segment.
Well, a feedback can never REVERSE a trend of an original ‘forcing’, can it? It can only ever raise it (positive) or lower it (negative).
So if some physical mechanism does make the trend go the opposite way of your assumed ‘forcing’, then it naturally follows that the physical mechanism in question is NOT a feedback to your ‘forcing’. It’s an independent variable.
“Well, then, this is something that should be possible to detect and measure, wouldnt you think so?
And is it detected? Measured?
No. It isn’t:”
Again, I’m only talking about the TOTAL flux. All the time. I have never suggested anything else. Because nothing else matters. In order for an atmospheric increase in CO2 to be able to induce net warming at the global surface of the Earth, it will have to effectuate an increase in the TOTAL DWLWIR flux, not just its own tiny little part of it. And so, if it doesn’t, it cannot create warming. Because the TOTAL flux hasn’t grown.
How can you still not comprehend this?
– – –
Perlwitz, you’re still avoiding this question:
Exactly when, where and how did the Climate Establishment manage to verify empirically from real Earth system observations that a rise in atmospheric CO2 can, will and does in fact induce a net rise in average surface temperatures? Where do we see this causal relationship in the Earth system: +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc gl? Where? Where is the observational data to be found?
You apparently know this claim to be true, so you must have this data available somewhere. So, where is it? Present it and kill “denialism” once and for all.
Kristian:
This is utter rubbish and not a correct description of my person and of my approach. Instead, I’m very open to well-reasoned arguments. And I’m very open to any information, even if it is in contradiction to my views. Such information would ultimately also have to be presented in peer-reviewed scientific publications, though, where the ones who present such information are mandated to adhere to the same high standards of science, like everyone else who works and publishes as a scientist. You, however, haven’t presented anything scientific. Blog-post junk by someone who is suffering of Dunning Kruger isn’t science.
I have asked you several times to provide the scientific publications where you are presenting your views. You haven’t, because you don’t have anything to offer.
Kristian:
The increase in the radiative effect of the greenhouse gas water vapor isn’t part of the forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, either, even though it is also a gas and not made of matter of other phase states. The increasing radiative effect of water vapor with increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases is a response, not a forcing, and it is part of a positive feedback between temperature and water vapor.
As I said, Kristian doesn’t understand the difference between forcing, response, and feedback. A forcing is a primary cause, the response is an effect.
Kristian uses the terms “greenhouse effect” and “forcing” as synonyms, which is not how it is done in climate science. The total greenhouse effect by all components includes a component of the radiation balance that is primary cause (=forcing) and another component that is a response to the forcing (=effect). By using the terms wrongly, Kristian creates confusion, because he himself is confused and doesn’t really know what the terms used by the scientists mean.
So, let’s say the total downward longwave radiation flux has decreased over the last 15 years somewhat. So what? What is supposed to follow from this? It doesn’t refute anthropogenic global warming.
Here we have another example of the logical fallacy “argument from ignorance” that is presented by Kristian. He claims that from absence of evidence follows evidence of absence, which is wrong.
For instance, there is the possibility that the data set isn’t just long enough and that the signal caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is simply masked by noise due to unforced natural variability.
Also, if one wants to study the total energy change at the surface due to forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases then the all-sky downward radiation flux is the wrong data again. Or better, it’s only part of the needed data. Because anthropogenic greenhouse gases do not only cause a response in the downward longwave radiation flux, they cause responses in all energy fluxes. In the longwave upward flux, in the fluxes in the shortwave range, in the latent heat flux, in the sensible heat flux. If one really wants to study the total (needed e.g. for ocean surface temperature change), then one must look at the changes in the total energy flux, not just at some fluxes and neglecting all the others.
Nowhere, for the reason that causal relationships can never be observed in nature, anywhere. Kristian request the objectively impossible. Causal relationships are always theoretical propositions. They are never observables. That is so in every field of science. And data by themselves are never empirical evidence. Data only become empirical evidence by interpretation within a given theoretical framework.
mpainter said the following, on January 4, 2016 at 9:29 AM:
Later on, Perlwitz tries to counter my reply to mpainter by stating, on January 4, 2016 at 3:13 PM:
To this I would only say: Q.E.D. 🙂
Jan P Perlwitz says, January 4, 2016 at 4:11 PM:
According to the AGW proposition, yes. Not according to reality. In reality, more WV in the troposphere is the result of a NEGATIVE feedback to SURFACE warming (increased evaporation) and a (the main) CAUSE of subsequent TROPOSPHERIC warming. It isn’t a positve feedback to anything. Other than to purely hypothetical AGW.
But Perlwitz of course doesn’t understand the simple chain of events described above. The way we can follow all warming (and cooling) events in the actual global climate system. Because for him, theory trumps reality any day.
He thinks the main CAUSE of tropospheric warming, surface evaporation > in-column condensation, somehow comes as a positive FEEDBACK to preceding tropospheric warming! It’s the all too familiar warmist fallacy of turning the cause>effect relationship on its head. (Same with DWLWIR and increasing temps.)
Let’s try it again, Perlwitz, even though this is getting tedious:
If the CO2-specific DWLWIR is increasing, but the TOTAL DWLWIR is
decreasing, is the “Greenhouse Effect” strengthening or
weakening? And if it’s weakening, how is the increase in the CO2-
specific DWLWIR supposed to induce a net warming of the global
surface?
You see, no matter how you twist and turn to try to wiggle your way out of this with smoke and mirrors, you can never escape the fact that it is only the TOTAL DWLWIR ‘flux’ that matters, it is always the TOTAL rGHE that has to change positively, not just one small part of it. There couldn’t be any net warming without the TOTAL increasing, could it? So, naturally, we have to look at the TOTAL to see if CO2 somehow manages to enhance the TOTAL. Which apparently it doesn’t …
Apparently I know it way better than you. Clouds evidently reversing the DWLWIR trend from positive to negative are claimed to be a mere response (a feedback) to original ‘GHG forcing’. Well, it obviously isn’t in this case. A feedback never reverses a ‘forcing’ trend. Theory, meet reality.
Not only are you conflating cause and effect in a single cause>effect relationship. You also confuse different, fully independent cause>effect relationships. Because to you there is only one ultimate cause, and all the others are but the effects of this one cause. Again, this is simplistic theory, not reality.
Hahaha! Look at this guy wiggling and squirming! He so knows he’s been cornered.
Er, yes it does, Perlwitz. That’s exactly what it does. It follows from this that the atmosphere is providing less and less radiant energy to the surface, not more and more. It also follows that the atmosphere thereby allows the surface to cool more and more efficiently by the emission of radiant heat (net LW), not less and less. In other words, the atmospheric radiative insulation on the surface is WEAKENING, not strengthening.
Again, it is not my job to try and falsify your claim, it is your job to try and falsify your claim’s null hypothesis. If there is an absence of empirical evidence from the real Earth system that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the global surface to warm, then the null hypothesis (“More CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT cause the global surface to warm”) can not be said to have been falsified, and thus, as it stands, your claim has yet to gain any scientific merit. It remains a claim. A simple conjecture.
You say there is still a possibility of this and of that. But that’s completely irrelevant, Perlwitz. In science we believe something to be real only after we have actually OBSERVED it or its physical effect on something else, not when we haven’t observed it or its physical effect on something else, but nonetheless claim that even so there’s still a possibility it could be real, only ‘hidden from view’ somehow. This very much brings to mind Bobby Henderson’s words about his “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”:
“We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people dont understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
IOW, we’re back to the pseudo-science, Perlwitz. To the homeopathy. You are allowed to insist it has an effect, even if not being able to detect it by any physical means. But you are not allowed, then, to call it science.
That’s what you promote, Perlwitz. Pseudo-science. Homeopathy. Intelligent design. You can say a lot of different things about ID, but you can not call it science.
Likewise, the AGW proposition has all the hallmarks of pseudo-science. Most significantly, it is unfalsifiable. If, over a period of 15 years, total global DWLWIR to the surface of the Earth goes down, if the average radiant heat flux given off by the global surface at the same time goes robustly up, and if the OLR at the ToA tracks tropospheric temperatures to near perfection (both completely flat) within that same time frame, all while the absolute atmospheric concentration of CO2 goes up by 8.4% (and WV went up too), if this doesn’t falsify or at least deals a near-fatal blow to the AGW proposition, then nothing will. There’s always a “possibility” …
Perlwitz:
Where is the evidence through empirical observations from the real Earth system showing that a rise in atmospheric CO2 does in fact cause the mean surface temperature to increase? +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc gl. When, where and how were these observations made?
Hahaha! More squirming! It is this simple, Perlwitz:
If the average global radiant heat flux (net LW) from Earth’s surface has increased in intensity, that means the Earth’s global surface is getting better and better at IR cooling. According to CERES, this flux increased by about 1.5 W/m^2 from 2000 to 2015. That’s quite remarkable.
What we can tell from this, is that no matter what happened to the surface temperature or to the amount of energy stored up at or below the surface, it was not a result of a strengthening “Greenhouse Effect (rGHE)”. Because the rGHE is then clearly weakening.
It is at THIS point, after we have established that the radiative cooling rate of the global surface of our planet is NOT slowed down, it is rather speeding up, that we need to start looking for causative agents elsewhere, in the OTHER fluxes affecting the surface energy budget.
*Sigh* Still not reading what I’m writing, it seems. Just upthread I explained to you how we can easily establish a causal link between solar input and surface warming from standard empirical observation in the real Earth system. I am not asking for more regarding CO2, Perlwitz. Don’t worry. If you can provide the real Earth system observations clearly, unequivocally and consistently establishing that +CO2_atm -> +T_sfc causal link, I will accept them as evidence. And I’m sure mpainter will too 🙂
So here’s your big chance at becoming a warmist hero!
Or are you already admitting there are no such observations around and there are none to be made? (“Nowhere, (…)”)
If so, you yourself just effectively buried entirely the AGW proposition. And you buried it through pure scientific insight and logic!
Good on you, Perlwitz!
I agree, Leon Festinger puts his finger on the crux of the problem. But that is the norm and Jan is no different from the others, except he is willing to engage and keeps it civil, mostly. But AGW is worthy of study as a sociological phenomena, for those who follow the tradition of Eric Hoffer as in his book “The True Believer”.
FWIW, I thoroughly enjoy my exchanges with Jan Perlwitz.
If one reviews the satellite data, there is evidence to suggest that El Nino DOES Warm the Entire Climate System.
If one reviews the entire data set as from launch in 1979, the temperatures showed no statistical significant warming (over and above instrument error bounds) between 1979 and the run up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98 (the trend was slightly positive, but not statistically so), and following the Super El Nino of 1997/98 to date there has been no statistically significant warming (over and above instrument error bounds). the trend has been slightly negative but not statistically so.
The data set does not support a straight line linear trend, but rather it suggests that there has been a one off and isolated step change in temperatures of around 0.27degC coincident with the Super El Nino of 1997/98.
Does that mean that Super El Ninos can drive warming of the climate System, who knows. there is a lack of data, but what sparse data exists is consistent with the proposition that Super El Ninos (as opposed to more moderate ones0 can have an impact at least on a multidecadel time period. Whether on a centennial or longer basis they may be neutral is a different matter, and one again that cannot be answered due to the sparsity of data.
There is much to be learned about the natural processes involved and precisely what natural variation is, its constituent components and the upper and lower bounds of each constituent forcing.
Until we understand natural variation, we will never be able to eek out the Climate response to CO2 if any at all.
Richard – you can start to understand natural ~1,000 year and superimposed 60 year cycles with the help of research already done. See
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60571419/Nicola-Scafetta-ICCC6-PPT and http://climate-change-theory.com
Although Scafetta could not explain 20% of the warming (he thought only 80% was natural) we now know that the extra 20% or so is just fiddled data ignoring the urban crawl effect. So it’s all 100% natural and there is valid physics which proves that CO2 cannot warm the surface.
So relax – the current hiatus is due to the net effect of a rising ~1,000 year cycle and a falling 60 year cycle. It will end around 2028, but 500 year long-term cooling is due to start before 2100 and mean temperatures will not rise by more than about half a degree between 2028 and 2058.
Probably true. I too lean to a underestimated 60 year cycle in their models. Fits the observed data in UAH rather well as a half cycle.
Spencer, you say:
Yeah, but this isn’t what’s happening. The Earth system soaks up solar energy during and after La Nias, not during and after El Nios. On the contrary, it rids itself of excess heat during and after El Nios:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-olr.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/asr-vs-tlt.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/olr-vs-tlt.png
As you can see, at other times, there is general balance …
Since 1970 there has been a preponderance of (significant) La Nias, not of (significant, that is, “solitary”) El Nios:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/nino-seq-2.png
Everyone seems to be confused by the striking visual impact of the tall Nio peaks over the last 45 years, but they come as a result simply of the vast amounts of heat being accumulated during the extended periods of La Nia conditions. Note how the El Nios tend to be very strong, but short-lived, like giant, hot stars burning off their fuel in no time, while the La Nia events are less pronounced in their sheer, absolute strength, but at the same time are much more persistent and thus drawn out; one El Nio year is typically surrounded by 3-5 La Nia years. There is no symmetry in that. And so the Earth system will warm over time …
Er, WordPress ate all my Spanish Nino/Nina n’s, it seems :p
Bear with me.
It may not have been WordPress that did it.
El Nio
La Nia
………
🙂
Amazing.
Neena elbow knee know no no.
It’s the spelling connector
Ah, so that’s your level of education then?
Richard, do you ever peruse your comments after you have sobered up? Assuming that you do sober up.
That prompts the response Oscar Wilde is supposed to have made about being drunk.
Quote from Roy Spencer:
“Most of the depth of the worlds oceans is very cold, even in the tropics. Only the near-surface layers are warm, with the rest of the ocean depths being filled up over thousands of years by surface water chilled to low temperatures at high latitudes. (This leads to the interesting observation that the mass-weighted average temperature of the climate system is actually very cold).”
———————————————–
The above comment from Roy raises the question, ‘What actually is the average temperature of all the water in all of the oceans?’ I imagine this in itselft would be very difficult to calculate, as well as the average temperature of the entire atmosphere.
Doing a search on the internet I get the impression that the average temperature of all the sea water in all of the oceans is in the range of 38 to 39 degrees Fahrenheit, not much above the freezing point of fresh water. That’s surprisingly cold.
I can’t find any information on the average temperature of the enitire atmosphere, which includes the Troposphere, Stratosphere, Mesosphere, Thermosphere and Exosphere.
I’m assuming it would be impossible to calculate an accurate, average temperature because the variations within such a large area are so numerous and continuously changing from second to second, and minute to minute.. Is this correct?
An outline approximation should certainly be available, accuracy may not be easy to achieve
Surely it’s not just difficult to get an accurate, average temperature of such a large and variable environment as the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, but actually impossible with current techniques.
I imagine it would even be difficult to get an accurate average temperature of the interior of my own house, say within 1/10th of a degree.
Let’s say I place 4 thermometers, evenly spaced, within the interior of my house, and get an average reading. I then quickly place 8 thermometers, evenly spaced within the same house, without changing any of the conditions, such as opening a window or turning on a stove or air-conditioner.
I might find that the average temperature from the 8 thermometers has quickly dropped by a whole degree. Why? Because one of the additional thermometers, evenly spaced, just happened to be located right next to the exterior of the kitchen fridge.
The handling of the Urban Heat Island effect has attracted a lot of criticism because it is claimed the exaggerated readings have not been properly adjusted.
Are there not millions of ‘Natural Heat Islands’ and ‘Natural Cool Islands’ around the globe? How is it possible to get an accurate average temperature with such relatively few weather stations and satellites; and particularly, how is it possible to get sufficiently accurate, average temperatures from the past, for comparison purposes, using ‘proxies’ such as tree rings and ice core samples?
There must be a lot of uncertainty, surely!
You can quite quickly derive an answer, the accuracy is the question.
Accuracy should be the name of the game, from a scientific perspective. However, the issue has become political for lots of other reasons.
As long as we end up with efficient, solar generated electricity of limitless supply, and efficient, cheap, electric cars, I don’t mind.
I agree that efficiency is the real target. Energy reduction will likely outpace energy consumption. That is my hope.
mpainter, richard verney, Jan P Perlwitz, tonyM,
Please don’t feed the troll. I know it is hard to resist, but it is the only way to shut him up. And nothing any of us say will have the slightest impact on his invincible ignorance.
Replies to this comment will only increase the chance that it will inadvertently feed the troll.
I always stop at the monkey house at the zoo and toss a handful of peanuts through the bars.
Which side of the bars were you?
What is your name?
I was at the Aquarium
Hi Roy, mpainter, and others,
I have drawn an 2000 article (www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/01/pleiades.html) to your attention. Roy, it contains observational evidence that contradicts what you had posted. Yet, you have made no comment relative to the article. Mpainter, you criticized me for quoting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle because you considered he has not a scientist. A proverb is a proverb regardless of who stated it. You had already illustrated the truth of (It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment.) when you wrote: IMHO the waters around Antarctica is the place to look for answers but these have complexities that will never be unraveled by the present generation of climateers who have CO2 on the brain and that only. I agree with the waters around Antarctica is the place to look for answers but I do not agree that there necessarily are any complexities involved. You made this statement and then I cannot not find you did anything with it as you rushed off to make critical comments about what others had written.
Cold air masses create katabatic winds as they cascade down the slopes of the approximate 10,000 ft high plateau of the Antarctic Continent. To do this these cold air masses must be denser than the surrounding environmental atmosphere. What commonly is ignored at this point is that the earth is rapidly spinning about its axis and that there is a centrifugal effect which continues (forces) the motion of these denser than average surface air masses toward lower latitudes. But as they move along the ocean surface toward lower latitudes these masses collide with warmer, moister, surface layers and lift these warmer atmospheric masses instead of pushing them toward lower latitudes. We know that when these warmer air masses are lifted they are adiabatically cooled and condensation of the water vapor begins. And all this is well known except for the action of the centrifugal effect and that the atmospheric circulation which we have begun to describe is being driven by atmospheric heat engines operating locally at various locations about the earths surface.
We know, I believe, that the cold air masses which cascade down the slopes of the Antarctic Continent must have been somewhere lifted to altitudes higher than the top of its plateau. Of course, we know that the highest (strongest) vertical convection commonly occurs at the low latitudes of the tropics. And we know that the atmosphere has been divided into various layers by its varying temperature gradients. However, not much attention has been paid to the fact the atmosphere has also been divided into two layers, the homosphere and the heterosphere, whose boundary is at about 80 km altitude. This general lack of attention is verified by the fact that my word checker considers that I have possibly misspelled these two words.
Mpainter and others, you might conclude what I have begun to consider as being complex. But by taking what we really know with some certainty, step by step, we can create a simple picture of what is in general, involved in that phenomenon we term weather. Yes, there are many steps which need to be clearly identified to create this simple picture. And clearly this is not the place for such an effort. I conclude this with one more critical thought. We know a heat engine which does actual work must also produce much waste heat that must be removed from the physical engine or the engine will self-destruct after operating only a short time. Hence, the importance of thin, high altitude clouds which limit the transmission of this waste heat to space as infrared radiation.
Have a good day, Jerry
But, you see Jerry, the rest of us are not so baffled and confused that we need Sherlock Holmes to lean on in this climate science matter.
Rude, when a logical question would get a more rational response
What is your name?
Why?
Mind your manners, why?
Because it is polite
Jerry, maybe anything important you have to submit is inversely proportional to the length of your submission.
Have a great New Year.
Politics is down the hall
I have calculated a preliminary CFSR 2015 annual estimate of global surface temperature anomaly of 0.278 degrees Celsius (C), referenced to the 1981-2010 climatological period, based on the University of Maine Climate Change Institute (UM-CCI) data. This result compares closely to the 0.273C estimate from WxBell for 2015 in your graphic.
The NCEI estimate for 2015 will likely be well above 0.4C (referenced to 1981-2010), since the January through November average is already at 0.44C and will probably increase slightly when December is included. Consequently, the NCEI estimate for 2015 will likely be the highest global temperature anomaly since 1880, whereas the UM-CCI CFSR global temperature anomaly should only rank 5th highest since 1979 once the final numbers come in.
More details including graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/preliminary-2015-cfsr-global-temperature-anomalies/
One thing I like about the CFSR approach is that the global temperature anomaly estimates do not change throughout the full history of data every time the data are updated, as is the case with the “homogenized” and infilled GHCN based estimates. In my view, if the past GHCN and SST data are going to be adjusted, the adjustments should be well documented and justified and done only once so that values are not constantly changing with each update. The past does not change. Only our perception of it may change over time and routine adjustments increase the chance of intentional or unintentional tampering with the data to achieve a perceived “correct” result that may in fact reduce the accuracy.
Energy is the time-integral of power (AKA forcing). It is disturbing that some who proclaim to know science do not attend to this fact, especially as it applies to average global temperature (AGT) change. Divide the energy change of a body by its effective thermal capacitance and you have calculated its temperature change.
If CO2 was a forcing on AGT, the time-integral of a math function of the CO2 level (divided by effective thermal capacitance) would equal the AGT change during the time interval.
Now look at the graph of AGT and CO2 level during past glaciations as so eloquently displayed in Al Gores infamous movie. If you truly understand this stuff, it should be apparent, contrary to showing that CO2 drives temperature as big Al erroneously proclaimed, the graph actually provides compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT.
This and similar discussions along with identification of the two factors that do explain AGT change for the last 300 years or so (97% match since before 1900) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Assumptions about ignorance should be posed as a question rather than a demand.
Then RichardLH, you owe us a question.
Which one?
Why does the current warmist/sceptic debate bear a close resemblance to the Victorian steam engine would suffocate people because the extra air pressure would suffocate them as advocated by a Fellow of the Royal Society?
A ‘regression to roots’ for Science.
P.S. Have you visited my blog?
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
Another one for you.
What possible insights can be gained in science from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam
How about a singularity viewing the duality bound Universe?
x = 1/x
The answer is on my blog.
Which one?
“Assumptions about ignorance should be posed as a question rather than a demand.’
Don’t disappoint us, it is much to easy to typo “retard” for “richard”….
Don’t make me observe ignorance and prejudice in your reply.
At least have the courtesy to visit my blog so you know some of my opinions and thought.
You should have fun with other trolls that attempt to corrupt this site.
Said the troll from under the bridge
Your “science” would not know the difference from a bridge and a collapsing pile of bricks over your head.
Enjoy the sensation.
Mind the door doesn’t catch you on the way out.
My observation about all Pacific heat transfer questions is to consider this.
The Pacific is nearly 50% of the planets surface. All water.
A vertical hemisphere.
That is important for 2 reasons.
1. It is a mostly enclosed by land view.
Any heat balancing required will only operate within its boundaries. Air energy will be distributed outside that region and thus will show up in GT.
2. Heat transfers south are fine but northwards to the Arctic is very restricted.
The Atlantic is the route for heat transfers to the NP.
Therefore a possibly better ‘look’ at climate would be to subdivided the world into new two data sets.
One which takes the Pacific and Antarctica, the other all the rest.
Incoherent
Yup. Right again, mp. Pseudoscience is always incoherent.
h well. If you were to want to sub-divide the planet so that you put most ocean into onw half, and most land in the other, how would you do it?
It would help if you could mostly contain the major heat flows from the Equator as well.
The ‘views’ described are just that in essence.
Richard, you poor lost puppy, perhaps more wine would help….
You are off track, RichardLH, because it is the atmosphere which mostly determines surface temperatures, and that is reasonably homogeneous, albeit that the troposphere varies in height, thus contributing to warmer temperatures in tropical zones. Any subdividing of the globe introduces cherry-picking.
The reasons are based on entropy maximization, but you do not understand such because you do not have the necessary background in physics. If I am mistaken, then explain (in your own words for once) …
(1) how we know when entropy is maximized
(2) what is the relevance of such to climate
(3) how we thus determine expected surface temperatures
(4) how we subsequently determine what happens to surface temperatures when we vary the proportion of IR-active gases.
[answers]
Said the trolls under the bridge
Very nice article. I agree with the “air conditioner” analogy. However, I the conclusion that while the surface ocean may be cooling or heating, the deep ocean is doing the opposite.
It is true that increased upwelling requires increased downwelling for the sake of maintaining mass balance. However, there is more than one way to skin this cat.
An example might be if you greatly increase brine extraction at the poles via increased ice production on polar seas, the ocean bottoms would be cooled and the requirement for mass balance would require greater upwelling of cold ocean water.
correction: However, I “question” the conclusion….
the issue is whether the cause is internal or external. if its a closed system or an open system. the conclusion that ENSO has no net climate effect favors a closed system.
El Nino and its impacts
My observation about all Pacific heat transfer questions is to consider this.
The Pacific is nearly 50% of the planets surface. All water.
A vertical hemisphere.
That is important for 2 reasons.
1. It is a mostly enclosed by land view.
Any heat balancing required will only operate within its boundaries. Air energy will be distributed outside that region and thus will show up in GT.
2. Heat transfers south are fine but northwards to the Arctic is very restricted.
The Atlantic is the route for heat transfers to the NP.
Therefore a possibly better look at climate would be to subdivided the world into new two data sets.
One which takes the Pacific and Antarctica, the other all the rest.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=207.78,-26.32,413/loc=-75.298,-12.973
(See comments above.)
See comments above.
Poor RichardLH, the Last to Have a clue.
Said the troll under the bridge
Richard, maybe I can only communicate with you in your drunken language, so here goes:
You dknont know what the fkuygik youy are taking about . there is noe fukigins gollabul warming, so there.
You have nose cluses and your lacking in more than that , just asks your boyfringfes.
Hope that helps.
I am sure you understood that, no-one else did.
Bill – you need to learn the difference between a closed system and an isolated system as defined in classical physics. If the troposphere were a closed system there would have to be no gravity and so things would be very, very different temperature-wise.
No need to learn that as I was not proposing the troposphere was a closed system.
I was only making one simple point. Dr Spencer said: during an El Nino that “The result is that the surface waters become warmer than average, and deeper waters become colder than average.”
My point is that I agree that the surface waters become warmer than average due to reduced upwelling. And I agree that upwelling must be replaced with downwelling.
What I question is that the lack of downwelling during an El Nino is cooling the deep ocean.
Since the deep ocean lies sandwiched between and hot earth core and a warmer surface the only way the deep ocean can be colder than the surface is via downwelling of cold water.
It just seems somewhat unlikely that reduced downwelling would cool the deep ocean. The cold deep ocean is dependent upon maintaining a certain level of downwelling of relatively cool water as the only other thermodynamic process, conduction, warms the deep ocean.
Likewise, I fail to understand how the deep ocean cools during El Nino. I think that ocean currents are little understood, including thermohaline and meridional ocean overturning circulation.
See Antarctic circumpolar current, Antarctic coastal current, and the Eckmann Drift generated by those two undercurrents and all the associated complexitie, such as the Antarctic convergence zone, whew!
As I stated above, the present generation of climateers will fumble along, ignoring the most important aspects of climate in their infatuation with daemon CO2.
Correction: countercurrents, not “undercurrents”
Bill Hunter, seriously, please read what I have explained here as you are clearly one of very few “thinkers” on Roy’s blog, and I welcome that. It will blow your mind when you realize what correct physics tells us, and you cannot prove me wrong.
The very fact that the ocean surface has a local maximum temperature (cooler in the atmosphere above and in the thermocline below) and yet is semi-transparent to the solar radiation and opaque to back radiation means that its temperature is not controlled by direct radiation or by any upwelling or downwelling currents. The most dominant energy flow is conduction into the ocean surface from the atmosphere in the tropics and nearby, then downward natural convection and finally natural convection (and some currents) along isotherms (at about -1C to 5C) towards the polar regions where the energy can again surface and exit the ocean mostly at night. Upwelling currents from the cold depths to the warmer surface may slow the downward natural convection heat transfers, but on average the effect of the upwelling and downwelling will tend to cancel out globally – but not the natural convective heat transfer from hot to cold in the tropical thermocline layers.
And if you really think about it, you will realize that the local maximum temperature at the surface is proof positive that the “heat creep” hypothesis is the correct one. After all, only one hypothesis can be correct because mine and the AGW one are mutually exclusive.
Footnote: The first few hundred meters of the outer crust under the ocean floor would not be much warmer than the ocean floor itself – mostly around -1C to +1C. Why then is the outer crust that is just below solid surface much warmer? The reason is that the ocean floor is in effect a heat sink, draining thermal energy along those isotherms until it reaches the surface in polar regions where similar temperatures exist. There is no such heat sink in the crust that is below solid surface regions.
Once again, this temperature data supports the “heat creep” hypothesis, because sub-surface temperatures are determined by what is above, not by heat supposedly flowing out of a hot core and being magically generated by fission or whatever at just the right rate. I doubt that any such nuclear processes are taking place in the core of the Moon which is well over 1,000C.
Talking and not listening makes conversation difficult
Doug,
Quite frankly you completely lose me after you say the ocean surface represents a local maximum temperature (which I agree with) then claim that “dominant energy flow is conduction into the ocean surface from the atmosphere in the tropics and nearby, then downward natural convection and finally natural convection (and some currents) along isotherms (at about -1C to 5C) towards the polar regions where the energy can again surface and exit the ocean mostly at night. “.
In my experience heat does not convect downwards in natural convection, it rises.
The ocean surface can and does conduct heat to the depths. Likewise the earths core conducts heat into the ocean bottoms (not much but enough to prohibit the ocean bottom from being a heat “sink”.)
The equator is a net absorber of energy and the poles are net losers of energy. Thus whether atmosphere or ocean natural convection cycles will move heat from the equator to the poles where it will be lost to space and what comes back via weather fronts for the atmosphere, or thermohaline currents will be cold.
The only thing I questioned about what Roy posted was the suggestion of deep ocean cooling during El Nino and presumably deep ocean warming during La Nina. A simple alternative explanation is variation in the convective cycles (both ocean and atmosphere), net heat loss at the poles, and net heat gain at the equator providing air conditioning system regulators (registers) that allow variations on rates of heat loss/gain by the ENSO system.
I would be interested in discussing your theory in another fora as it has some elements I find interesting. But I fail to see how it applies here.
I prefer to undertake my own studies first and then ask for a short analysis of what I now know from someone who is a position to judge, myself.
The model of ocean warming outlined relies on the Sun heating the ocean surface to some extent. I will wait to see if there is any increase in average global next year and in what way. Climate scientists make all these statements about what is happening which we are expected to believe without proof so that if we see no average warming then we will be expected to say well what else happened rather than these statements were wrong.
Donald, you are trying to be too scientific for most “climate scientists”.
(Join the crowd.)
See comments above.
Hard to come up with anything original when you’re a zombie, huh?
Apparently hard for you
QED
ditto.
Richard, try oiling your elbow. That way it goes down a lot faster, you see.
Show me how
Giving science a respite, Richard?
I am afraid you have stepped out of sight there. What have I said that was anti-Science? Logic underpins most of what we do. Not so sure in your case.
“we see no average warming”
I see NOAA is now being taken to task by a Senator for fudging the “average warming”. It’s getting to the stage where UAH temperature can be the only trustworthy source to determine GAT.
Roy should not underestimate the importance and value of his work here….and really deserves a big vote of thanks from both warmists and sceptics alike.
See comments above.
Mack, we need to be more concerned about the CO2 zealots. Many soon will be jumping off tall-story buildings.
The landings will not be without pain.
Maybe we should start a charity to fund pillows for soft landings.
I gave at the office….
🙂
Mack,
How is that supposed to work? Is the validity of scientific studies and the methodology applied for them nowadays established by United States senators and political committee, instead by scientific peer review and assessment by the international scientific community?
Jan, You might be aware that scepticism of AGW has now reached a point where the scientists are not only being questioned by us sceptics, but even by govt. officials. Thankfully in your country, you’ve got Sen. Inhofe, who was the last standing bastion against this nonsense…where the US goes we all go. Luckily in your country also, you’ve got all these FOI stuff, senate hearings, a raft of legislation and a sea of lawyers.
Here in little NZ, we have our Climate Science Coalition (sceptics), who a few years ago, tried to take our govt. climate data keepers, NIWA, to court over NZ’s temp records..which had been “homogenised” by the corrupt, hammer and sickle head,(ex E Anglia)and of climate-gate fame,Jim Salinger,who had been getting away with this for years during the 1980’s. What happened? Well we didn’t hear one peep about this in the media. Zilch,silence. The govt. just appointed henchman Justice Venning to preside. NIWA covered Salingers ass,Venning covered NIWA’s ass, the msm. covered Venning’s ass, and the govt. covered and paid for all their asses. Extreme controversy called for extreme ass-covering.
Mack,
my question is, do you agree with a state of affairs where the validity of scientific studies and methodology applied in these is judged about by politicians and political committee, and that those decide which findings published in scientific studies are to be accepted as true and which are not, instead that the validity of scientific studies is assessed based on scientific peer review and the scrutiny by the international scientific community?
Jan,
Well, what’s sauce for the goose…etc. You can’t complain about politicians (or political committees)interfering with science when the whole foundation of your AGW science was interfered with by a politician, Al Gore, in the first place. Very ironic. As m.painter has said, or implied, Jim Hansen is a nutty fraudster who was in cohots with Al Gore over this back in 1980.
Mack,
Your statement, according to which I couldn’t complain about political interference in science because someone else supposedly had interfered with science at some other point in time is a non-sequitur. It is also a tu quoque argument, which is another logical fallacy, which you use to justify your own agreement with the stated proposition that the validity of scientific studies should be decided by political committee, not by scientific peer review and the assessment by the scientific community.
As for your claim about Al Gore. If find this claim profoundly absurd. By what means did Al Gore supposedly interfere into the scientific foundations of AGW? How has he supposedly interfered with the work of thousands of climate scientists all over the world? Even if he wanted to do that, he must have had some superpowers to achieve that.
The assertions about Jim Hansen are pure smear against him. There is no evidence whatsoever for the validity of such accusations.
This is how it works, Jan. They represent the electorate, who demand an accounting of the politicized science that fouls policy. GISS is one place that cranks out this type of science. The people also would like to know how the Goddard Institute of Space Studies was turned into a hive of AGW zealots. Maybe you can shed some light on that issue. How long have you been there?
Oh, by the way, the NOAA coughed up the emails demanded by the US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology. No more claims of “privilege”. Take note.
Also, you zealots thought that you could forever exclude the skeptical point of view from having any weight in policy. You have come to expect that as your natural right. Now you squawk when members of government put the light on your doings. Fine melody, them squawks.
So many words, so little information
Try keeping your elbow straight, and see if that does not help your understanding.
Try listening after you ask a question. Helps understanding and may prevent you looking like a fool.
But Donald, it is not the Sun’s direct radiation reaching the ocean surface which explains its temperature. It is obvious that a mean flux of 168W/m^2 cannot achieved a mean temperature above -40C even if the oceans were covered in black asphalt. If you are interested in learning how the required thermal energy gets there, you need not buy my book as it is now explained here with correct physics, all based on entropy maximization.
Occam’s razor suggests the most likely answers. Proof is needed to move beyond.
Indeed it does, as there is only one correct explanation in agreement with the laws of physics, so the razor has nothing to cut out but the fictitious, fiddled fissics taught by climatologists without any qualifications in physics anyway.
PS: Proof is here with supporting evidence. Prove the proof wrong.
x = 1/x
Not a word of physics, as usual, from RichardLH who is not qualified in such, that meaning having done at least three years at university in physics.
RLH has no concept of how we can tell when entropy is approaching a maximum and what the conditions would be in an ideal troposphere if such were attained. Then he also fails to understand what would happen (as it does every morning) when that state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient) is disturbed by the absorption of new solar energy at the top. Silent readers will learn nothing from RLH pertaining to valid atmospheric physics. The correct verified physics is here and cannot be proven wrong by any reader.
I reply with Logic to Physics.
“RichardLH who is not qualified in such, that meaning having done at least three years at university in physics.”
How you know that to be true is a mystery – and wrong
You do not understand entropy RLH: if you did you would realize what I have explained is correct. You cannot prove me wrong, so you make “last resort” comments that are typical of those promoting the AGW hoax which is based on false physics which you ought to recognize if you really did study and understand thermodynamics. Frankly you ought to be ashamed of yourself promoting “science” which is an absolute travesty of physics.
Had you visited my blog, you would not be in so much ignorance about me and my thoughts.
donald penman,
Your last statement should read “…so that if we limit our data to those measurements that don’t conflict with our beliefs or perform trend analyses using cherry-picked points so that we can say that there is no proof…”. The evidence for global warming is unequivocal; the only question is as to the agent of the change.
“The evidence for global warming is unequivocal; the only question is as to the agent of the change.”
So many assumptions, so little time.
Frankly I find it staggering that so many have been fooled by so few into thinking that direct radiation reaching the ocean surface is what causes it to have observed temperatures. Stefan-Boltzmann calculations make it obvious that the solar radiation is nowhere near strong enough – not even 40% of what is needed. Back radiation does not penetrate the surface, and could not help the Sun raise the temperature each morning (even with cloud cover, mind you) and yet you all, Roy included, continue to fall for the hoax, thinking that radiation from cold carbon dioxide is warming the surface, when in fact correct physics shows it cools, but by less than 0.1 degree.
You all just bury your heads in the carbon dioxide and think I cannot be right in explaining it all by determining what happens as entropy approaches a maximum. That, of course, is precisely what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen. You see that law working when you observed the density gradient which is also the state of maximum entropy. Yet you still just say I must be wrong, so don’t anyone bother to try to understand what I’m saying.
And so none of you can explain (with quantification based on correct physics) how the surface temperature gets to be what it is. I can explain it, but of course I must be wrong because I’m me without a PhD – just a few thousands hours of private post-graduate study, a few published articles, papers, websites, videos and a book to my name. You people have no respect for the laws of physics and you blunder on completely disregarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Good luck! It’s your problem not mine if you have no desire to learn the truth.
The 2nd law is the last refuge of a scoundrel Samuel Johnson
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
Are trolls still allowed?
Well it seems Roy allowed you.
He has put up with you far longer
Go back to this comment to which you have not responded. When you cannot produce counter-arguments based on valid physics, supporting the hoax you promote, well then we’ll see who is the real troll, now won’t we?
When you ask a question with some sense in it, I will respond. Until then please listen to the answers I give before creating a reply
Mr. Cotton,
Until you can explain what happens to the photons released by ultracold molecules as they are cooled, such as by the machine so prominently displayed on your website, your model violates the First Law and is rubbish.
Only if your understanding of the maths and physics is better or more accurate than others. Proof not assertion please.
Yes I understand the physics pertaining to maximum entropy production better than you and others writing here appear to. You could learn from this guy’s site: http://entropylaw.com as I may have mentioned, and from my website http://climate-change-theory.com or my linked papers, videos or my book.
The “heat creep” hypothesis is not based on radiation – it is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Until you can prove the “heat creep” hypothesis incorrect, you cannot prove the radiative greenhouse conjecture to be correct because they are mutually exclusive. My “model” does not violate the First Law or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The energy in photons that are not thermalized is used for the re-emitted photons you clot.
So many words, so little information.
So many trolls, so little science.
If people insist on talking about “canine pepper” then I shall continue to enquire “what is it that you think you know” (no that’s not a spelling mistake – just personal history)
Go back to this comment RLH to which you have not responded.
See comments above
Roy and others:
Please read my two comments replying to Bill here as they explain ocean temperatures and heat transfer mechanisms in accord with correct physics, taking away the need for your guesswork, Roy, as in the head post.
There are other natural causes for all climate variations, including El Nino, and the effects in the oceans are the result thereof, not the cause.
See comments above
For 2015
In Memoria
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/in-memoria/
The fact that mpainter explicitly supports a proposition that politicians should decide about the validity of scientific studies, instead of the scientific community should be doing this by applying scientific means without political interference, is evidence that he/she is an enemy of freedom of science and an enemy of science. Like others here, too, e.g., Mack from New Zealand, or also politicians in Congress like Lamar Smith or Inhofe, actually, like the whole cluster of anti-science nuts that makes the majority of the Republican Party in the United States nowadays. They are right-wing authoritarians who want to force onto science, that the agreement with their political, ideologically, and religiously motivated views is made the criterion for what scientists are allowed to research, and what scientific findings are allowed to be obtained from this research. They very likely also would like to outlaw any scientific findings that were in support of the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming, if they could.
It is very conceivable that they, if they had the means, also would like to punish those scientists who are accused by them of “AGW-zealotry”, i.e., accused of being in agreement with the scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming was real and that the evidence for it had been in, by destroying the professional careers of these scientists, or even by prosecuting them. All his/her writing here by mpainter suggest that he/she at least would like to see that. Although that would mean that they would have to go after the overwhelming majority of climate scientists in the US. Where to put them? Into internment camps?
Luckily, though, mpainter, Mack, and the others here are utterly deluded with respect to their real influence in society, even though the science rejectionists are still disproportionally highly represented in positions of power in US (but this will likely start to change with the elections for the next US presidency). Their distorted self-perception about their importance very likely results from the circumstance that they never leave their bubble of those Internet-blogs where AGW-denial is promoted, where they find mostly like-minded ones who permanently confirm each other how they were about to be winning, and how the “hoax” of AGW was just about to collapse. Just wait for it, wait …wait … It’s just about to happen. And they wrongly extrapolate that their views were representative for whole society.
I’m optimistic though that reason and science will prevail, and that a majority of the people in United States will defend freedom of science against the right-wing fanatics who are waging a war on science.
To second what someone else said somewhere else, the El-Nino year 2015 must have been a very difficult year for the ones who deny (anthropogenic) global warming. Like the year 2014 was already a difficult one, and the year 2016 will very likely again become a very difficult one for them, since also the year 2016 will very likely become again one of the warmest years with respect to the globally averaged surface temperature anomaly since the start of the instrumental temperature record, if not even warmer again than the year 2015. Due to the combination of anthropogenically caused background warming trend and El Nino, which likely will last quite into the current year before the equatorial Pacific goes back to ENSO-neutral conditions.
Could you precise that for me, I got lost about word 1000
You were lost long before that.
It is difficult to follow if the guide appears to have lost the way
Jan Perlwitz,
So, we can conclude from your comment that only those advising obumble are entitled to inform policy; that those scientists who do not adhere to correct climate doctrine are not entitled to be heard, nor are policy makers entitled to hear scientific views that oppose current climate doctrines, nor may policy makers choose any but the approved doctrine, as enunciated by such sources as the IPCC and Huffington Post and their list of approved scientists.
And then you rail against the repression of science! Thanks for your comment…:-)
Have a wonderful 2016.
Furthermore, implicit in your comment is the position that poohtus is entitled to select his advisors on climate issues and thus formulate policy, but the representatives of this Republic are not so entitled, but must choose science advisors approved by…who? James Hansen? You? The IPCC? Take a look at yourself, Perlwitz.
Call for work without establishing need
And this is what I really wrote:
“The fact that mpainter explicitly supports a proposition that politicians should decide about the validity of scientific studies, instead of the scientific community should be doing this by applying scientific means without political interference,…”
Obviously, I’m representing the second point of view that it should be the scientific community that assesses the validity of scientific studies (e.g., the one by Karl et al, Science, 2015) by applying scientific means, without interference from politicians who want to impose their political, ideological, or religious views onto science.
I didn’t say a single word about science advisors of politicians, about who should be allowed to act as these advisors, or who should be entitled to choose those.
mpainter is plainly lying about what I wrote. But that is nothing new and part of his/her whole MO here.
Jan Perlwitz says:
” mpainter is plainly lying about what I wrote. But that is nothing new and part of his/her whole MO here.”
##
For any who are interested in this exchange, I cordially invite you to read Jan’s comment immediately above. Note particularly his “enemy of science” clause, complete with a list of enemies.
The surprise is that he left me off that list. I feel somewhat slighted.
Furthermore, Perlwitz attributes to me
The fact that mpainter explicitly supports a proposition that politicians should decide about the validity of scientific studies, instead of the scientific community should be doing this by applying scientific means without political interference,
##
No quotes concerning my supposed support of imagined proposition.
Let me make my position clear. Climate science has been politicized. This was done long before obumble, but obumble made it a part of his strategy of the political aggrandizement of his aministration and his party. I approve of any Congressional investigation into the politicization of government workers, even (and especially) if they were co-operative, which is illegal. And yes, this includes examining methodologies of scientists.
Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.
Why you insist of this bear pit style of science is beyond me
This was the question that I asked:
“How is that supposed to work? Is the validity of scientific studies and the methodology applied for them nowadays established by United States senators and political committee, instead by scientific peer review and assessment by the international scientific community?”
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205492)
And this was mpainter’s answer to it:
“This is how it works, Jan. They represent the electorate, who demand an accounting of the politicized science that fouls policy … [continues with smear of GISS scientists and my person, jpp]”
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/#comment-205523)
It is a clearly affirmative answer by mpainter to the question whether the validity of scientific studies should be established by United States senators and political community, instead by scientific peer review and the scientific community. mpainter is not saying that it shouldn’t work in this way, instead he is trying to justify the political interference in the scientific process. This is also the function of all the smear and baseless accusations against the scientists at GISS by mpainter. To justify the elimination of the freedom of science.
So, let’s continue this thought. What is supposed to happen when (and if) Lamar Smith’s political committee claims at the end to have reached the conclusion that the results of the Karl et al.-study were false, because the methodology applied by the scientists was flawed, according to the committee, and the data had been “fudged”, according to the committee? What is supposed to happen then? What “whirlwind” would be “reaped”? What should be the consequence then? Tell me.
Well, let’s see. What should Congress do when they determine that science has been politicized by the present administration? And that certain scientists have cooperated with the political aims of the administration? Well, their powers are defined in the Constitution and by tradition. They control the funding. They can pass an act, or a resolution, or make a report by committee. Not much that Congress can do, really. Except defund GISS. Is this what’s got you so beside yourself? Calling people liars? And scribbling up an enemies list? Did Hansen leave you out on a limb? Tsk, Tsk.
“…reason and science will prevail…”
Mother Nature will prevail.
Apply a little knowledge:
All life depends on CO2.
If CO2 is a forcing its effect manifests cumulatively as the time-integral of a math function of CO2 level.
With some logic:
According to the fossil evidence, evolution happened.
Then reason concludes: CO2 has no effect on climate.
Engineering science has discovered the cause of climate change for at least the last 300 years (97% match since before 1900). http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
This is all about physics – heat transfers – thermodynamics. Most climatologists are not qualified in physics and do not understand entropy maximization, thermodynamics or heat transfer mechanisms.
There is no valid physics which can be used to show water vapor and carbon dioxide causing the Earth’s surface to be warmer. Correct, verifiable physics can be used to prove they cool. The AGW hypothesis and the “heat creep” hypothesis are mutually exclusive: only one can be right. The latter is supported by empirical evidence and experiments, as well as by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; the former is not support by anything and easily refuted with correct physics, because the solar radiation reaching the surfaces of Earth and Venus is far too short of the mark and cannot possibly explain observed temperatures. Furthermore, there is no valid physics that claims (as the IPCC et al do) that radiation can be compounded and the sum of back radiation and solar radiation used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to explain the 288K estimated mean surface temperature of Earth, or the 735K mean surface temperature of Venus, which would need flux of about 20,000W/m^2. That is why I can confidently offer AU $10,000 for proving me wrong, subject to the conditions on my blog.
Few things if you get time can you take a look at, lots of connections with the ODO and solar cycles.
I am not much of a blogger or writer but can see patterns and connections well.
It is Always a pleasure reading your blog DR Spencer.
I
https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23wxsolar%20&s=typd
https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23wxpdo&s=typd
https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23wxamo&s=typd
https://mobile.twitter.com/search/?q=%23nino1&s=hash
Oh Jan, here is the whole comment that you cited from:
mpainter says:
January 3, 2016 at 2:53 AM
This is how it works, Jan. They represent the electorate, who demand an accounting of the politicized science that fouls policy. GISS is one place that cranks out this type of science. The people also would like to know how the Goddard Institute of Space Studies was turned into a hive of AGW zealots. Maybe you can shed some light on that issue. How long have you been there?
Oh, by the way, the NOAA coughed up the emails demanded by the US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology. No more claims of privilege. Take note.
##
I would add to that comment that GISS is the spawn of the reprobate alarmist James “boil the oceans” Hansen, who waited 25 years before retracting that particular lie. Hansen is most culpable, and I include him in a condemnation of his methods of science.
Are you proud on your permanent smearing of the GISS scientists? You must be, considering that you insist on repeating it.
These kind of repeated, defaming attacks on Jim Hansen’s scientific integrity are not based on any single shred of evidence for any unethical doings in his scientific work. They are pure smear for the purpose to attack a symbol figure of climate science. One can say the same for the vicious attacks on Gavin Schmidt by “skeptics”, since he is the new GISS director.
The permanent smearing of honorable scientists, especially of those who are seen as leading figures of the science that states anthropogenic global warming, by so-called “skeptics” is part of the war on science that is being waged by right-wing authoritarians for political, ideological, and religious reasons.
Can’t you find a Politics Forum for all this non scientific stuff?
Or at least keep the total lines on the page down, please.
Isn’t this an opinion and politics forum here?
I thought that Roy means it as a science site, but perhaps you are right, talking away at each other, nearly drowning out any chance of a sensible conversation. YMMV.
If you don’t like the way Roy Spencer runs his blog, then go find a blog that you do like. There are scores of climate blogs, go try them out..p.l.e.a.s.e.
By all means, JPP, keep the discussion to atmospheric physics. I suggest you start by replying to this comment below.
James Hansen has science integrity? Not in my view, not much. He has sacrificed it for the Cause.
And the Cause is very big, Jan. You’re part of it. Hansen the “Grandfather” of AGW was the chief instigator…most of the other scientists could be excused by being “led to believe”.
Us sceptics are not “anti-science” Jan. ..we only want the correct science…we want the truth. Roy here, (I think is a sceptic) and he’s a scientist, have you noticed?
Where, do you believe, is “the truth” hiding? And how do you believe you are going to find it?
The truth is to be found right here, Jan (follow my link a couple of comments down from here)….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/paris-pow-wow-heap-good/#comment-204500
Here’s another which gives you an indication why I’ve no respect for Hansen…or Al Gore.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
No it’s here: http://climate-change-theory.com
Jim Hansen does not understand entropy maximization. He has nowhere near the knowledge and understanding of thermodynamics that I have. Go back to this comment.
Doug*C
Why do you believe entropy will maximize in an open system?
When you show that you understand the differences between open, closed and isolated systems, and the common application of near-isolated systems in thermodynamics, then we might start to take note of what you, Norman, without qualifications in physics, say regarding this physics. Heat creep happens because the near-isolated system (a column of the troposphere) then “opens” and receives new thermal energy from the Sun each morning.
“In thermodynamics, a thermally isolated system can exchange no mass or heat energy with its environment, but may exchange work energy with its environment. The internal energy of a thermally isolated system may therefore change due to the exchange of work energy. The entropy of a thermally isolated system will increase in time if it is not at equilibrium, but as long as it is at equilibrium, its entropy will be at a maximum and constant value and will not change, no matter how much work energy the system exchanges with its environment. To maintain this constant entropy, any exchange of work energy with the environment must therefore be quasistatic in nature, in order to assure that the system remains essentially at equilibrium during the process.[1]
The opposite of a thermally isolated system is a thermally open system, which allows the transfer of heat energy and entropy. Thermally open systems may vary, however, in the rate at which they equilibrate, depending on the nature of the boundary of the open system.”
[source]
To be a little more precise, when the morning sunshine starts to warm the upper regions of the (originally) near-isolated column of the troposphere that was close to thermodynamic equilibrium after a calm night, say, then the column effectively opens at top and bottom only. Adjoining air maintains effective closure at the sides because the same thing is happening in the adjoining columns. So it’s like an open conduit through which the new solar energy travels down into the surface. Strictly speaking, the new state is hydrostatic equilibrium, though it also has the temperature gradient associated with thermodynamic equilibrium.
Hence, in “ideal” conditions the plot of temperature against altitude moves up in the morning and then down from early afternoon in parallel positions. That’s why the surface temperature rises and falls (even under cloud cover) and it has nothing to do with direct solar radiation in all but a relatively small portion of Earth’s surface where the direct solar radiation may be strong enough to warm some targets such as black asphalt road surfaces (but rarely ocean surfaces) more than the “heat creep” process does.
GISS clearly cheats:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/why-gistemp-loti-global-mean-is-wrong-and-hadcrut3-gl-is-right/
Jan, given your bleatings, my heart bleeds for you.
Most of the dire predictions of the science leaders have been falsified. Look at Hansen’s Manhattan project; submarines are not needed there. The oceans are not boiling and Thermaggeddon is not upon us despite hitting his 350ppm CO2. The Polar bears are fine too. Schneider basically said it all; dishonesty via alarmism works!
This whole conjecture is basically Grimm fairy tale stories to mulct the unsuspecting public. It has no substance.
If COP21 or any alarm was genuine then it would indeed be allowed to be analyzed as a problem along standard lines simply to flesh out the alternative options. In the same way no self respecting scientist would ever have only one hypothesis to try to describe a set of observations.
One only has to look at the stifling of such analysis at UWA using Lomborg’s approach.
One can look at the attempt to enlist RICO legislation in the US to stifle skeptics (never mind that it backfired on the twenty or so third, no 10th, rate scientists who tried to use it). There is a plethora of examples of stifling genuine scientific scepticism which has always been so central in real science.
At least Pr Obama recognized the stupidity of such an approach even though he seems to be sucked in by these witch doctors. Yep, RICO is witch hunting and science without falsifiable hypotheses is no better than witch craft.
Smacks of Lysenkoism being rife in this prolific gravy train industry; science is not immune. Yet you bleat when individuals or organizations are being asked to account for mainly publicly funded work when practices seem anomalous not just to politicians but to other scientists.
tonyM,
your whole comment consists of nothing more than mere assertions, you don’t provide any evidence for your assertions, you don’t provide any quotes for statements by scientists asserted by you, no proof of original sources. The burden of proof for all of this is on you. In short, your comment is the typical drivel by a fake skeptic ideological fanatic.
Jan P Perlwitz
I have proven with standard physics that the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture disregards the physical law that entropy never decreases and increases to a maximum in natural processes. The GH conjecture quite incorrectly adds radiative fluxes and wrongly implies that the total of such can be used as input in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. It cannot be, and you can produce no published physics which claims it can be. Simply experiments confirm what I say, as previously outlined.
Way back in the 19th century it was understood that gravity forms a temperature gradient. This obvious fact, easily derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics (as here) has been “forgotten” by climatologists with their limited knowledge and even more limited understanding of entropy maximization processes.
You, Jan, never discuss the physics in your own words because you can’t, now can you? You perpetually make calls to authorities whom I have rubbished, all saying much the same as Pierrehumbert in his “gold standard” textbook which I have shown to have several key errors that are contrary to the laws of physics. Prove my proof wrong, JPP. The onus is on climatologists to confirm their way-out claims about radiation with practical empirical evidence, contrary to the evidence that centrifugal force also creates a temperature gradient, and contrary to the fact that 16 radiators don’t double the temperatures achieved by one.
Be the next to “take me on” JPP, but in your own words – not citations or links, other than links to the laws of physics.
Here are just a couple of the problems with the radiative GH conjecture:
(1) The backradiation cannot be as great as 324W/m^2 because you would need a perfect black body at about 2C to produce such. The mean temperature of the troposphere is colder than that. Furthermore, a gas cannot emit flux anywhere near as intense as the flux from a black body at the same temperature, because the radiation from the gas is nothing like full spectrum.
(2) Typical energy budget diagrams show …
(a) thermal energy out of surface by radiation: 66W/m^2
(b) ditto – by other than radiation: 102W/m^2
(c) Solar radiation into surface: 168W/m^2 = total out.
Such figures in no way explain a mean surface temperature of 288K which would need variable flux with a mean > 450W/m^2.
No, you haven’t.
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t use “Stefan-Boltzmann calculations”. The radiation fluxes are calculated, using the radiative transfer equations which are derived from the Maxwell equations. The most sophisticated radiative transfer models used in atmospheric/climate science solve these equation for each spectral line individually. Atmospheric/climate science uses here the same equations that are also used in other areas of physics, like astronomy or optics.
The premise of your unproven assertions is already wrong.
This is a strawman argument, because the backradiation measured at surface isn’t emitted from a “mean troposphere” with “mean temperature”. Instead, it is emitted mostly from the lowest layer of the troposphere, whose temperatures is much higher than the “mean temperature of the troposphere”.
Yes Jan PPerlwitz all the energy diagrams do imply an application of Stefan-Boltzmann. Such diagrams (as on this page show …
Solar radiation into surface: 168W/m^2
less non-radiative losses: -102W/m^2
Because the difference of 66W/m^2 did not explain the 288K temperature (using S-B) Hansen thought that it must be the extra 324W/m^2 of back radiation that was bumping up the total to 390W/m^2 which gives almost exactly 288K for a perfect black body. But the ocean surface rejects the back radiation and so too does the solid surface pseudo-scatter it wherever the surface is warmer than the source.
In any event, regarding the 324W/m^2 figure which you say is just from lower layers, then why not add together the radiation from a virtually infinite number of layers? You could more than bake a cake if you apply your logic.
You CANNOT add radiative fluxes from a number of colder sources and assume that the target will warm just as if there were a source effectively warmer than itself radiating the total of the radiation from the colder sources.
As I have said many times, if one electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K you cannot deduce that 16 such radiators would warm it to 700K. Nor can you assume that solar radiation reaching the surface (equivalent to that from a blackbody at -40C) can be added to back radiation (equivalent to that from a blackbody at 2C) to achieve a 15C temperature.
Now Jan P Perlwitz, answer these three questions:
1. Explain in your own words (in a different way to that which I have done for Earth and other planets) why the Earth’s mean surface temperature is what it is.
2. Explain the necessary transfers of thermal (kinetic) energy required to maintain such a temperature.
3. Explain (in a different way to myself) why it is at least as warm as Earth’s surface at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus.
And JPP …
(1) You ignore my point that a gas cannot radiate anywhere near the flux that a black body can because the gas radiates in only a few spectral lines rather than full spectrum. None of those spectral lines can extend beyond the black body Planck function, and so the total intensity is far less than that represented by the whole area under the Planck function.
(2) Whilst they say they are measuring back radiation, they are in fact only measuring the rate of cooling of a sensor, just as an IR thermometer measures a cooler temperature by calculating (using assumed emissivity) such temperature from the rate of cooling of its sensor.
(3) When you say “No, you havent” (proved they ignore entropy maximization and the resulting gravitationally-induced temperature gradient (now confirmed by about 1,000 experiments this century) you would need to pinpoint your assumed error in my explanation of the “heat creep” hypothesis here.
I’m going to lay it on heavy now, smart JPP, because I’ve had enough of your arrogant, assertive statements which you never support with either correct physics or empirical evidence. I do both regarding what I write, and I’m correct.
And Jan P Perlwitz, Roy and others …
The reason I say you and they ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics is because the IPCC and Pierrehumbert very clearly state that, without greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface temperature would be the same as that found somewhere up in the troposphere at the so-called “radiating altitude” – namely about 255K or, more recently a little lower at -19C.
This assumes that isothermal conditions would be the state of maximum entropy in a gravitational field. That is a wrong assumption, because higher molecules have greater gravitational potential energy than lower ones, and so there would be unbalanced energy potentials with more molecular (KE+PE) on average at the higher altitudes. Hence entropy would not be at a maximum and they are assuming the Second Law process of maximum entropy production would not operate to rectify that situation.
Of course the Second Law would operate and it has done so over the life of the planet with there being a propensity for unbalanced energy potentials to dissipate (see http://entropylaw.com) and thus the mean sum of molecular (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) tends towards being homogeneous. As only KE affects temperature, there is thus a temperature gradient as thermodynamic equilibrium is approached.
And that is the reason why the surface temperature is “33 degrees” warmer than the temperature of the radiating altitude. Back radiation is not the reason.
Jan wrote: “Instead, it is emitted mostly from the lowest layer of the troposphere, whose temperatures is much higher than the mean temperature of the troposphere”
Your comment, Jan, “consists of nothing more than mere assertions, you dont provide any evidence for your assertions, you dont provide any quotes for statements by scientists asserted by you, no proof of original sources.”
The 2C temperature is on average about 2Km up in the troposphere. Water vapor, comprising the main radiating molecules, has modal concentration above that. It, like CO2 and CH4, radiates in limited spectral regions and so its total radiative flux is nowhere near that of a blackbody, even if it were all at 2Km altitude and 2C temperature.
Furthermore, much of the radiation from CO2 overlaps that of water vapor and thus has no additional effect.
“I have determined the total emissivity of a mixture of gases containing 5% of water vapor and 0.039% of carbon dioxide in all spectral bands where their absorptivities/emissivities overlap.” This Professor of physics found that the emissivity of a typical mixture of water vapor and CO2 was 0.3917 so I would suggest you will not get 324W/m^2 however you look at it. [source] They “measure” 324W/m^2 because they use far higher unrealistic emissivity in their calculations.
You can’t add back radiation and solar radiation to explain the surface temperature with Stefan Boltzmann calculations. But teh IPCC energy diagrams imply you can.
Because Roy’s experiment was not perfectly insulated you cannot know whether there was an input by the “heat creep” process or not, but on average there has to be globally, and it is blatantly obvious when the surface of Venus warms from 732K to 737K over 4 months on the sunlit side. It is also obvious when spacecraft measurements show that the temperature increases as you go down into the nominal troposphere of Uranus where hardly any solar radiation reaches.
You can’t get double the temperature with 16 electric bar radiators that you can with one.
Hi Doug,
Ball 4 has a point you ignore. In one of your links it states ideally:
“The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop.”
The statement points to direction of flow, but in the real world there exists no final endpoint of maximization. The flow never really completely stops. Ball 4 apparently accurately points out that no perfect insulation exists in nature. So there seems to be always potential for further entropy maximization, outside of possible divine protection. If not please explain why?
Have a great day!
JohnKl:
I have written elsewhere today about the obvious need for approximation when there are weather conditions. So too do the AGW crowd use the Ideal Gas Law (based on isolated systems) and approximations that ignore weather variations. Do we observe a pressure gradient in the troposphere or not? Does pressure at any given altitude really vary all that dramatically? As sure as we have relatively (approximately) stable density and pressure gradients, so to do we have such for temperature because, as maximum entropy is approached both the density and temperature gradients form autonomously in the troposphere and even in over 850 lab experiments this century with sealed, insulated cylinders. And of course they form in vortex tubes all over the world, proving that this is the effect of the force field, not parcels of air rising, expanding and cooling, for nothing holds such fictitious parcels together: it all happens at the molecular level.
In a nutshell, John, considering a column in the troposphere – quite a big one if you wish with a large radius so that energy transfers at the circumference are relatively speaking infinitesimal. Now, weather conditions (and even new solar radiation each morning) will certainly upset any state of (near) thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated density and temperature gradients) but there will always be a propensity to repair the damage to those gradients, that is to restore them again, especially in calm conditions at night. Entropy will tend again towards a maximum, and indeed we know that heat flow from the surface can and does virtually stop in the early pre-dawn hours in calm conditions. The gradients never exhibit a propensity to flatten out to zero. Explain that!
John – please see also the two comments starting with this one.
Jan P Perlwitz:
Methinks you protesteth too much! I just dream up these things just to annoy you.
Here are some of my latest dreams.
“Hansen predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.”
AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, The Press-Courier,(Milwaukee) June 11, 1986
“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”
AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, The Press-Courier (Milwaukee), June 11, 1986
source
“The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the
next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A
that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and
in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years.”
J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346
(*** the last time I looked scenario A held and was woeful being much more than double the actual T increase. I am not cherry picking …1988 and 2008 …but happy to smooth it as an average of say 5 years around those dates. Guess it got the sign right u would call it a success)
a few more dreams to follow…..
Jan… more dreams of mine…
“The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have
a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warming
of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of
magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the
paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees
are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating
[Davis, 1988] J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9357
“A major report from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program earlier this month concluded that without a major effort to fight warming, global temperatures could increase by 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade until the middle of the next century, and sea levels could rise by a foot.”
Guy Darst, Nasa Scientist Says Future Droughts Likely, The Lewiston daily Sun, June 24, 1988, p. 6
“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasnt existed on earth for 100,000 years”. Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” — The News and Courier, June 17th 1986
“The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today which is what we expect later this century sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we dont act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earths history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.
–Jim Hansen, Climate change: On the edge The Independent, 17th February, 2006
“How long have we got? We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.”
Jim Hansen, Climate change: On the edge The Independent, Friday, Feb 17, 2006
“A major report from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program earlier this month concluded that without a major effort to fight warming, global temperatures could increase by 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade until the middle of the next century, and sea levels could rise by a foot.”
Guy Darst, Nasa Scientist Says Future Droughts Likely, The Lewiston daily Sun, June 24, 1988, p. 6
more dreams to follow….
Jan … more dreaming..
If scientist James Hansen is correct, humankind may be turning planet Earth into a giant steamer and the population into unwilling clams.
The director of the Goddard Institute for Space studies in New York City, who spoke Wednesday at the University of Florida, forecasts the average global temperature rise as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030. This, he said, would more than double the annual number of days in many U. S. cities with weather in the 90s.
John Wood, Earth is heating Up, Space Scientist Warns, Gainesville Sun, Sept 4, 1986, p. 1
`Hansen and 16 other co-authors published their study on sea levels in the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Their study said a sea level rise of several meters could occur in as few as 50 years, and that even the U.N.s global warming target of 2 degrees Celsius was highly dangerous.
Yeah, right and by then we will have pigs surely flying and taking deep dives into the expanded oceans.
And fighting words from former NASA senior scientist Dr John Theon described his association with Hansen:
As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research.
Theon commented on the unreliability of computer models used by Hansen and GISS to simulate the climate system:
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.(My emphasis)
Astronaut and physicist Walter Cunningham expressed his concerns about how some climate scientists have been operating at NASA:
In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have abused our public trust.
And:
Many of NASAs retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASAs exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.
Climate models:
As fo the climate models and their runs you don’t need to go further thatn the Christy compilation of spaghetti runs.
Over 97% fail dismally and the few which remain barely make it within the error level.
The FAR predictions fail dramatically as well.
UWA:
The UWA rejection of a $4 million grant to study the optimal options for climate change mitigation was witnessed by myself in various media.
No I did not tape it nor take copies for you nor do I care to look it up for you.
RICO abuse by scientists:
Similarly with RICO; it is well documented and I don’t have any more time to dream up for you. Others have already done it for just your enlightenment.
Schneider:
Just google his name, lies and climate.
I’ll dream a little more…but my fingers get tired!
Only the last one is an original quote with proof of source, as requested by me (although I suspect that you didn’t take it from the original source, but only copied it from second hand). Thus, I only will reply to that one. The other ones are hogwash.
1. Thus, all you have to supposedly back up your claim that climate science allegedly generally failed with its predictions is a single study from 1988, one of the first studies, with only one model that still had more idealizations than later models, or what is nowadays state of the art. That’s pathetic.
2. Here you can find a comparison of the climate change projections from that study with the observed surface temperature change (scroll down to Figure 3a):
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/
The temperature anomaly of the year 2015 will be above 0.8 for LOTI. If one adds this data point to the figure, I would say the projection of scenario B, done even with this early model, doesn’t look as bad, despite the climate sensitivity of that model was somewhat higher than the one of its more sophisticated and more complete successor models at GISS.
This reply by me above refers to the first comment by tonyM from January 4, 2016 at 9:09 AM.
Re: tonyM on January 4, 2016 at 9:14 AM:
I only accept original quotes with proof of original quotes. I do not accept second hand quotes. Regarding the first ones, is the mere citing of such quotes supposed to prove anything? Argument by innuendo again? You are asserting “failed prediction”. That would require some comparison, where predictions are tested against observations. These things are done in scientific studies. You haven’t cited any. Not a single one.
Re: tonyM on January 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM:
Again, only second hand quotes, argument by innuendo, citing of mere opinion by some people, or mere assertion, but not a single scientific reference where “failed predictions” are shown. Not a single one.
But you demands from me that I show in a blog comment that a whole theory “works”, or that I must show where an “experiment” was done that proved AGW (but then you outright dismiss the scientific literature where the evidence for AGW is provided). You are dishonest, you display double standards.
Jan P Perlwitz: Go back to this comment and answer the three questions I have posed. Many silent readers will be watching and I shall draw attention to your responses from a few hundred social media climate threads. You’re on notice to put up or shut up!
Absolutely NOTHING pertaining to temperature records (and whether or not they correlate with carbon dioxide) can be used to prove carbon dioxide is the cause of warming, because correct physics tells us that cannot be the case. The assumption that CO2 warms is based on the assumption that extra back radiation from the extra CO2 will somehow make the surface gain extra thermal (kinetic) energy from the colder source of CO2 that is sending the extra radiation. As I have said, the back radiation cannot be added to the solar radiation, and neither explains the already warmer surface temperatures. This is just so obvious for Venus where the surface gains extra thermal energy and rises in temperature from 732K to 737K over the course of the four-month-long Venus day. It would need radiative flux in the vicinity of 20,000W/m^2 to achieve a rise in temperature, but that is about seven times what reaches the top of the Venus atmosphere directly from the Sun. It just doesn’t work that way. The atmosphere is not an amplifier of solar energy.
Radiation is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature of any planet with a significant atmosphere.
And Jan, to quote you: “the scientific literature where the evidence for AGW is provided” actually has relatively little reference to the physics involved. Pierrehumbert’s book (which I have shown to have several key errors) is representative of the arguments usually presented, and they are all wrong for the reasons I have explained in comments above. So don’t bother quoting them because I’m not gullible enough to lap up their fictitious, fiddled fissics.
And Jan, it is quite appropriate to ask to see an experiment (or a study) supporting the AGW hypothesis. I have produced a study showing water vapor cools – where is any study showing the opposite? Such experiments and studies are a normal requirement of scientific research. In contrast, there are experiments which disprove the AGW conjecture. For example, are you going to say that vortex tubes do not produce the separate streams of hot and cold air that they are designed to produce? Are you going to say that the various experiments measuring the temperatures at various points in a vortex tube are likely to be so inaccurate that there is no convincing evidence that the tubes do in fact create a temperature gradient using centrifugal force? And, given that we can quantify that radial temperature gradient using exactly the same physics (Kinetic Theory) that we can use to quantify the tropospheric temperature gradient formed by gravity, are you going to say there is no convincing evidence that either temperature gradient even exists? Because gravity does in fact produce the temperature gradient, and because correct physics (pertaining to entropy maximization) explains why, and correctly quantifies that temperature gradient, there is no need for concern that CO2 backradiation is needed to create that gradient which already exists due to gravity.
The greenhouse is smashed. QED.
With all the money spent on GH research, why hasn’t there been a one-day study like mine published anywhere, but showing the opposite?
Why hasn’t an experiment been done with three parallel black metal plates, the outside ones at -40C and 2C (representing the radiation reaching the Earth’s surface from the Sun and the atmosphere) to see if the middle plate reaches 15C?
Jan P Perlwitz:
This is your claim:
“..your whole comment consists of nothing more than mere assertions,
you dont provide any evidence for your assertions,
you dont provide any quotes for statements by scientists asserted by you,
no proof of original sources.”
These were in response to my claim of gravy train, gross exaggeration, politicization and Lysenkoist behaviour even trying to use RICO legislation to silence skeptics.
Then when you are presented with evidence, quotes and sources you declare you will only accept originals. Most of the originals can only be in photo copy form and can’t be reproduced here, which you should know. This is testimony to your level of integrity.
Then you try to conflate and obfuscate in your usual style of argument by asking what is it supposed to prove; argument by innuendo you say. You say that is all I could find as failed predictions. Whoa!!! Your hogwash and pathetic descriptors applies neatly to your whole response.
Go back to YOUR original assertion of the four lines above and my original statements. That is the only thing I was responding to.
Now you conflate it with my having to prove something or that I should have provided a whole list of failures. Really? That was not my purpose. So show me where I have stated that purpose (in any case, in terms of hypothesis it only requires one failure to damn it and I reject your suggestion that Hansen was close other than close to nonsense. FAR predictions were equally hogwash and pathetic just to use your descriptors).
It is certainly proof that you will twist and turn in any direction to follow your zealotry and avoid the clear issue being discussed.
Further, I have never seen interviews being pal reviewed. Nor have I seen machinations of exaggerations, lost homework, dastardly behaviour against some scientists who dare object, nor objectionable restrictions to free thought or rejection of grants etc being pal reviewed by anyone in this field. Have you??
Tell me, do you exist? Show me the peer reviewed literature to prove it. I do not believe it otherwise. This is your modus operandi; duck, weave and pretend it doesn’t exist if it does not conform to your bible – but only when it suits you.
You seem to have trouble understanding science given it must be in your pal reviewed bible to accept a failed prediction etc. On these grounds you should dismiss some of Einstein’s work and Crick and Watson’s DNA work. I suggest you go tell them that they were wrong and the DNA structure was wrong because it was not peer reviewed.
Pal/peer review is not a requirement of the scientific method.
I have come to the conclusion that you are in the mould of a religious zealot where your religion can see no evil, does no evil, says no evil in some self righteous march that unless it is written in your bible, or to your version of it, then any objection cannot be true.
A veritable ostrich posing as a scientist. Your strutting to being a rooster finds you to be a feather duster.
Well said TonyM. Let’s see how Jan manages to wiggle out of answering the three questions I have posed above. Oh, of course, the answers will be in some (uncited) “scientific literature” – or will they? Fancy claiming that they don’t even need to use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations! I’m interested to learn of what other physics supposedly ties back radiation flux to surface temperatures and gives a clear-cut quantification as to how such temperatures should vary with increases in the cold back radiation that still does not penetrate ocean surfaces, as even Roy admits to knowing.
Frankly, Roy is just as bad in his refusal to look into how surface temperatures are determined. He proved what we all know, namely that the rate of surface cooling by radiation is slowed, but he is still oblivious to the fact that he has not been able to explain how the surface gets to its current temperature in the first place. I’m the only one to have done so, but it requires a totally different paradigm.
PS: TonyM:
Do you want to join me in taking on Jeff at the Air Vent? He’s another narcissist like Jan. If so, start with this comment.
Jan and others – There is no reason to believe anything is correct when written by the real Doug. Doug proposes theories and physics that were proven wrong by experiment of Dr. Spencer on the actual atmosphere last northern summer. Doug, by his own admission, has never taken & passed a course in atm. thermo. 101. Examples:
Doug: “…the ocean surface rejects the back radiation…”
Dr. Spencer’s experimental evidence: The water surface did not reject or pseudo-scatter the LW back-radiation. LW radiation from the passing night time clouds was detected by thermometer several inches deep in the water sample.
——
Doug: “..You CANNOT add radiative fluxes from a number of colder sources..”
Analysis by Dr. Spencer based on his experimental evidence: You can add radiative fluxes from a number of colder sources. Energy is an extensive physical quantity (1LOT).
——
Doug: “..added GHGs cool rather than warm…
Dr. Spencer’s experimental evidence: Added GHGs warm rather than cool.
The thermometer temperature of the night time cloud observing water sample was increased over the non-observing control water sample several inches deep. Note there was no delay in the cloud LW radiation detection; slower heat creep (trademark Doug) e.g. diffusion could not have had time to operate.
Dr. Spencer link with data, cloud LW detecting experimental evidence:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
For Doug, just chill out, the basic science really does not support your political views, eat a sandwich and pass atm. thermo. 101:
http://www.systemcomic.com/2011/08/03/so-youre-mad-about-something-on-the-internet/
What Roy “proved” has nothing to do with my “heat creep” hypothesis which is not about radiation. There is overwhelming physical evidence that supports what I say. What is not supported is the greenhouse conjecture because it does not even explain the surface temperature, as can be understood if anyone tries to answer the three questions (in a comment above) that I posed to Jan.
TonyM
Jeff at the Air Vent is stumped by this comment which he’ll probably delete …
Meanwhile you, Jeff, cant even explain the Earths surface temperature, let alone that at the core of the Moon or the base of the Uranus troposphere, whereas I can. Emissivity of the atmosphere is less than 0.4. Back radiation is thus far less than the 324W/m^2 figure lied about. You need a mean of over 450W/m^2 plus non-radiative losses (102W/m^2) = over 550W/m^2 of variable flux into the surface, to get a mean temperature of 288K, but the Sun delivers only a mean of 168W/m^2. Bad luck, Jeff. Youre stumped because radiation into the surface of a planet with a significant atmosphere is not the major determinant of the surface temperature.
Ball4: Radiation cannot be compounded. Go back to this comment. You cannot explain the surface temperature with valid radiation calculations. Let’s see you try!
Doug – There is no reason to believe anything you write is correct when it doesn’t agree with the linked experiment conducted by Dr. Spencer as I’ve shown.
Chill out, pass an atm. thermo. 101 course so that even you will be able to correctly combine separate energy streams of SW & LW radiation et. al. That will enable you to run a simple energy balance at Earth surface showing the median 288K is determined by measuring and combining energy streams in & out. Actually you will then also be able to run a simple test to find the correct atm. emissivity looking up in tropics and polar regions.
Carbon dioxide radiation cannot raise the maximum temperature for the day. Warming is assumed to be caused by radiation from carbon dioxide supposedly slowing surface cooling and then, because of that supposed slowing, the minimum temperature for the day is supposedly warmer. But it’s not: it may take a few minutes (or just a few seconds) longer in the night to get down to the minimum temperature, but that’s all. The minimum temperature is determined by all the thermal energy stored in the troposphere, and over 98% of that is in nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules.
Radiation can only slow that component of cooling which is itself by radiation, and that is only about a third of all surface cooling. Other cooling processes may well accelerate to compensate. Furthermore, the minimum temperature for the night is determined primarily by the supporting temperature in all the air molecules colliding with surface molecules, and carbon dioxide only comprises 0.04% of those. IR-active molecules lower the temperature gradient, so that the thermal plot rotates downwards at the surface end. That is why more moist regions in the linked study had lower mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude. So-called greenhouse gases lower the mean surface temperature, and the reasons (based on entropy maximization and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) are here: https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and in this video presentation: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-TXYe4rJp0xmbBh51AD8jptu34LAJc-b
All climate change is 100% natural and follows climate cycles regulated by planetary orbits, the most obvious being about 1,000 years with a superimposed 60 year cycle which is in the middle of 30 years of cooling. The 1,000 year cycle is due to start its cooling phase before the end of this century, and warming will not exceed about half a degree before then, mostly between the years 2028 and 2058.
The real Doug – You apparently understand the “slowing surface cooling” due to added atm. IR active material (GHGs) as shown by data in the Dr. Spencer experiment I linked. Think hard about those data driven physics.
That “slowing surface cooling” does not turn on (or off) after (or before) the maximum of the day Doug; it is functioning all the time even before reaching the maximum daily T. Thus added atm. IR active material CAN influence the daily max. T as shown by that experiment.
——
Doug: “Carbon dioxide radiation cannot raise the maximum temperature for the day.”
Dr. Spencers experimental evidence I linked shows carbon dioxide radiation can raise the maximum temperature for the day.
——
Doug: ..added GHGs cool rather than warmSo-called greenhouse gases lower the mean surface temperature..”
Dr. Spencers experimental evidence: Added GHGs warm rather than cool.
So-called greenhouse gases raise median surface energy balance input thus in part contribute to increasing temperature. The mean surface temperature is inaccurate as Doug showed elsewhere, correctly use median temperature.
There is no reason to believe anything is correct when written by the real Doug unless confirmed by experiment (not assertion).
Did Roy Spencer’s experiment extend over the absolute minimum period of 24 hours for each configuration? Climate records are based on just two temperatures (max and min) each day for each weather station.
“So-called greenhouse gases raise median surface energy balance input thus in part contribute to increasing temperature.”
They do not do so where the surface temperature is above the temperature of the emitting gases. See my 2012 paper linked from the ‘Evidence’ page here and the cited reference written by a brilliant 21st Century Professor.
The real Doug (lacking a pass of atm. thermo. 101) – “They do not do so where the surface temperature is above the temperature of the emitting gases.”
Experimental evidence by Dr. Spencer: Added GHGs warm rather than cool. His data shows they increase temperature above that of control sample where the surface temperature is above the temperature of the emitting gases.
Assertion by Doug is again proven wrong by test, there is no reason to believe anything is correct when written by the real Doug unless confirmed by experiment (not assertion).
Ball4 has found a process which decreases entropy. Very clever of him. / sarc
I explained the oversight Roy made in this comment, Ball4.
Roy and others can see in this comment why Ball4 has no idea as to what the “heat creep” hypothesis is all about with its explanation of temperatures in cores, mantles, crusts, surfaces and tropospheres of planets like Earth, and the necessary natural convective heat transfers.
The real Doug: “I explained…”
No decrease of universe entropy in this real test Doug. You are writing improper science with only incorrect political assertions in those linked comments.
Dr. Spencer: properly explained correctly by proper experiment. His data shows precisely where Doug is wrong.
There is no reason to believe anything is correct when written by the real Doug. Assertion by Doug is yet again proven wrong by Earth atm. test data. His linked assertions have collapsed in the deepest of humiliations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Universe entropy is irrelevant, Ball4. Every spontaneous independent process in nature obeys the Second Law – every one-way pencil of radiation – everything.
With your garbage science you could argue that water could flow up the side of a mountain to a lake at the top provided that it subsequently flows further down the other side. Universe entropy would increase, Ball4.
Doug – You will have to force your water up that mountain (increasing entropy) so you misunderstand your own process – it is clearly not spontaneous, it is forced. Just as you misunderstand Dr. Spencer’s test on the atm. and have been deeply humiliated.
Consider a just poured hot cup of coffee that is cooling to room temperature Doug, this is a spontaneous independent process. The coffee entropy goes down! Q: How can that be Doug? I run this test every morning. A: Universe entropy goes up. You would know this if you had actually passed atm. thermo. 101 and understood the entropy law site.
Spend some time reading Clausius original writings Doug – with your purported B.Sc. the integrals should be no problem to understand. Doug entropy will increase and Doug humiliation(s) decrease. But I predict that wont happen.
No Ball4, you totally miss my point, as usual. Only if you were right would the water flow uphill spontaneously, just as only if you were right would a one-way pencil of radiation from the cold atmosphere transfer thermal energy into a warmer surface and raise its temperature. You are the one who has been gullible enough to believe the fictitious fiddled fissics about universe entropy being all that has to increase. You are communicating with myself who has done extensive post-graduate study in the field of thermodynamics – more than most PhD students would do for a thesis. Go and study the work of Swenson (late 1980’s) regarding new developments in the understanding of entrop maximization – see the references at http://entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
I am right for the reasons in this comment. The greenhouse is utterly smashed.
As I have said many times, the Clausius statement is merely a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that only applies in a horizontal plane where there is a gravitational force acting on molecules in flight between collisions. If and only if molecular gravitational potential energy is held constant does it have no effect on entropy. That’s damn obvious my friend.
Silent readers will note Ball4’s complete lack of understanding of entropy maximization in his statement “The coffee entropy goes down!” I’m still laughing. Good-bye, Ball4 – you have proven you don’t understand this physics.
Does anyone read Ball4’s words “universe entropy” here?
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in every real process the sum of the entropies of all participating bodies is increased. In the idealized limiting case of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged.” [source]
Entropy is NOT the opposite of energy. It can increase without any variation in total energy. Entropy is a measure of the progression towards total dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, where such potentials can involve any form of energy including gravitational potential energy. The density gradient in a troposphere approaches stability as entropy approaches a maximum. Stability obviously occurs when there are no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. That same state (called thermodynamic equilibrium) has a homogeneous sum of molecular (gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy) and hence it has a temperature gradient (dT/dH) which, in the absence of radiation (such as in a sealed, perfectly insulated vertical cylinder of argon) can be calculated from the equal exchange of PE and KE as follows, where m is mass and cp is the specific heat …
m.g.dH = – m.cp.dT
dT/dH = -g/cp
Doug – “…only if you were right would a one-way pencil of radiation from the cold atmosphere transfer thermal energy into a warmer surface and raise its temperature….I am right.”
Proper atm. experimental data by Dr. Spencer shows Doug is wrong: A one-way pencil of radiation from the colder atmosphere transferred thermal energy into a warmer surface and measured its temperature higher than the control water sample. Doug is deeply humiliated here yet again.
——
Doug: “Every spontaneous independent process in nature obeys the Second Law……Second Law of Thermodynamics that only applies in a horizontal plane..”
Doug can’t even keep his stories straight, humiliating.
——
Doug: “Does anyone read Ball4s words universe entropy here?”
Yet another humiliating gaffe by Doug – Eddington writes “theory of the universe”. So does Clausius in his Ninth Memoir p. 365: “2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=8LIEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:PwR_Sbkwa8IC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h6DgT5WnF46e8gSVvbynDQ&ved=0CDYQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
——
Doug: If you had passed atm. thermo. 101 you would have learned delta S of the coffee is negative due to kinetic energy rejection to its surroundings by radiative, conductive, convective energy transfer & avoided even deeper humiliation. If the surroundings were below freezing the coffee would freeze solid, decreasing its entropy further. Surrounding universe delta S in the process will be more positive than the loss due to the kinetic energy addition and the entropy generation. Read Clausius, not Swenson. I correctly predicted you would not, remember:
Clausius Ninth Memoir p. 365: “2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
(continued)
Because gravity forms the temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere, there is no room for James Hansen’s guess that it must be backradiation that is doing so. Ironically, inter-molecular radiation (such as between water vapour molecules) reduces the temperature gradient, working against the gravitationally-induced gradient. Thus the thermal plot rotates downwards at the surface end and the “greenhouse gas” water vapour cools, which is in accord with observation. So too do CO2 and CH4 for the same reason.
Of course the entropy of the universe always increases. But the Second Law applies to processes within the universe (like a one-way pencil of radiation from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface which thus cannot transfer thermal energy into the surface) and it applies just to “participating” bodies in each such process.
Ball4 demonstrates just how gullible people can be when they are brainwashed with the fictitious, fiddled fissics taught in climatology courses. I’m still laughing at his self contradiction: his coffee cools transferring thermal energy to the surrounding cooler air, but his super back radiation transfers thermal energy from the cooler air to the warmer surface. LOL
Doug: …where m is mass and cp is the specific heat m.g.dH = m.cp.dT, dT/dH = -g/cp…”
Doug – You do realize this derivation assumes m is ideally perfectly insulated, right? Perfection is not of this world. Hydrostatic atm.? Yes. A world without convection. Without heat creep! You don’t do you? Humiliating. Deeply.
——
Doug: the greenhouse gas water vapour cools, which is in accord with observation.
Nope. Dr. Spencer atm. test: added greenhouse gas water vapour observed increased T of water over the control water as measured by thermometer. Doug continues an embarrassing humiliation opposing actual data observed with only assertion. If Doug were right, the temperature of the observing water would have decreased, decreasing universe entropy. Read Clausius Doug: Ninth Memoir p. 365: 2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. The test by Dr. Spencer is confirmation Clausius is correct and you are wrong.
Read this professor’s paper Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” and Sections 1 to 5 of my 2012 paper on radiated energy that extended his work and showed that the thermal energy transferred by radiation (only ever from hot to cold) corresponds to the area between the Planck curves.
Nope, I’m talking about real temperature and precipitation data (not rates of cooling of the surface) for 15 random locations (numbered 01 to 15) where the study produced these results …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8C 20.1C
Medium (06-10): 33.0C 21.2C
Dry (11-15): 35.7C 21.9C
The IPCC claims that average concentrations of water vapor (say 1.25%) cause most of 33 degrees of warming. That’s at least 20 degrees for each 1%. So, a rain forest with 4% would be warmed by at least 80 degrees according to their conjecture. LOL
My response is in the four comments starting with this one.
The reasons why the “heat creep” hypothesis is the correct one are explained in this comment.
Doug Im talking about real temperature and precipitation data..
You were talking incorrectly about the greenhouse gas water vapour cools. Please at least try to keep your stories straight, it is humiliating to wander. Your study is a model; your model is not an experiment.
Those other authors you mention would be the source of your humiliating major confusion in writing assertions that dont agree with the experiment by Dr. Spencer. Read and understand Clausius – stick with his stuff & your assertions will eventually improve to agree with actual observations. Thus avoiding Doug’s present deep humiliations.
Doug why the heat creep hypothesis is the correct one…
Doug does not even realize the convection component of his trademark heat creep does not operate in an ideal hydrostatic atm. with neutral stable DALR=-g/Cp. Humiliating. Convection was fully operating in the test by Dr. Spencer.
I have explained what you state. Yes, net convective heat transfers cease when the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) is attained. That is standard physics: by definition there is no heat transfer across internal boundaries of a system when it is in a state of maximum entropy. We see that in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours when the convection stops but the (stable) temperature gradient remains. You obviously don’t understand when “heat creep” occurs, that being only when there is not a state of maximum entropy – which should be blatantly obvious. Soon after dawn, on Venus for example, the Sun can only raise the temperature of upper regions that are <400K (approx) and so that's when the heat creep process starts to move thermal energy down to the surface, raising its temperature from 732K to 737K slowly over the course of the next 4 months of sunlight.
Your radiation from a cold "body" (a small region of water vapour or CO2) in the atmosphere to the warmer surface would lead to a net decrease in entropy (because T is in the denominator and so the increase of entropy in the surface is less than the loss in the atmosphere) and that is impossible, regardless of what you think happened in Roy's experiment. Such radiation can only slow the component of the rate of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. It does not slow evaporative cooling or conduction-cum-convection and, more importantly, it has no effect upon the supporting temperature that virtually stops the cooling at some stage during the night.
I really don’t have time to teach you this individually: it has been in my paper nearly three years now.
Doug: “net convective heat transfers cease when the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (that is, maximum entropy) is attained.”
Does not cease in nature without perfect insulation Doug. Perfection is not of this world. Clausius: Ninth Memoir p. 365: 2. “The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.”
——
Doug: “…when heat creep occurs, that being only when there is not a state of maximum entropy..energy transferred downwards by the heat creep process that is maximizing entropy..”
So which is it Doug? Not or maximizing? You contradict yourself. An error arising from your lack of passing atm. thermo. 101. There actually is never a state of maximum entropy existing in nature Doug since from Clausius: Ninth Memoir p. 365: 2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
——
Doug: “regardless of what you think happened in Roy’s experiment.”
The atm. test data of Dr. Spencer speaks for itself, Doug, proving your thinking & assertions are wrong.
——
Doug: “..has been in my paper nearly three years now.”
There is no reason to believe the assertions here or in your paper Doug – the atm. test by Dr. Spencer proves your paper is substantially wrong & not well founded on experiment.
You really don’t understand entropy, do you? When there is not a state of maximum entropy there is damn blatantly obviously scope for entropy to increase to a maximum.
Go to this comment.
Doug – As Clausius wrote, there is never a state of maximum entropy in nature. Entropy is not maximizing – entropy is increasing. You are wrong when using the maximizing term. Well, until the heat death of the universe.
Now, do some testing to correctly learn about nature, surely there were some lab courses during your purported B.Sc. Not modeling, testing – as Dr. Spencer accomplished proving you are wrong.
“Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.”
[source]
Then go and edit Wikipedia, anonymous Ball4, and get back to us when your edit sticks for a few days. Until then, we don’t want to hear from you concerning your fictitious, fiddled fissics with which you have been brainwashed in your climatology course.
“According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such a system will spontaneously proceed towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy.”
[source]
Clausius: Ninth Memoir p. 365: 2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Do not rely on 2nd hand sources Doug or thought experiments, that can be humiliating as you’ve experienced since being proven wrong by the test data of Dr. Spencer. Rely on proper 1st hand experiment as did R. Clausius.
Doug 4:37pm: No need for an edit. Take note of the words: “an isolated system” in that clip. Your humiliation stems from the fact there is no perfect insulation, hence no system in nature can be “an isolated system” except so far as we know: the universe.
Clausius: Ninth Memoir p. 365: 2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
The “glass of hot liquid” in your 2nd hand 4:27pm clip is not an isolated system. So its entropy will always tend to a maximum, never be maximized in nature, at least until the universe maxes out.
And I suppose the atmosphere will collapse because the gradient does not stabilize (approximately) as maximum entropy is approached within the constraints of its approximately isolated system. Even your coffee won’t necessarily cool.
Oh, and all the greenhouse garbage science may as well be scrapped too because it talks about lapse rates which it derives from the Ideal Gas Laws, but they were formulated for ideal isolated systems.
More for you to edit, young Ball4 ….
“In the attempt to explain the idea of gradual approach to thermodynamic equilibrium after a thermodynamic operation, with entropy increase according to the second law of thermodynamics, Boltzmanns H-theorem used equations which assumed a system (for example, a gas) was isolated. That is, all the mechanical degrees of freedom could be specified, treating the enclosing walls simply as mirror boundary conditions. This led to Loschmidt’s paradox. If, however, the stochastic behavior of the molecules and thermal radiation in real enclosing walls is considered, then the system is in effect in a heat bath. Then Boltzmanns assumption of molecular chaos can be justified.
“The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena”
[source: Wikipedia: Isolated System]
A system does NOT have to be isolated for there to be a tendency to move towards a maximum entropy state for all the participating bodies, provided that the effects of any new relatively small quantity of energy or mass (or loss thereof) is taken into account. In the case of a column of air in the atmosphere at night we can take account of such new energy as from a warmer surface, and it is relatively small compared with the total thermal energy in the column of air. Better still, we can consider the combination of the surface region and the column above it as being closer to an isolated system. Likewise, in the morning, we take into account new (relatively small) energy supplied by the Sun in the stratosphere and the upper the troposphere and we can determine the direction of heat flow based on the tendency to move towards maximum entropy, even if weather conditions prevent attaining of such.
In a nutshell, we have a damn good approximation. If we did not have, then we have no explanation for the (reasonably stable) density gradient, the temperature gradient or the pressure gradient.
Doug – Very, very good progress, not much very humiliating in those comments, you are beginning to make some physical sense. Yes, the concept of an isolated system is very useful & you will find much useful discussion of the subject (reversibility) by R. Clausius in his book I linked. Yes, the gas law is ideal in the form P=density*R*T (it is why they call it the IGL) but isolated only in the sense a proper (arbitrary) control volume be employed in the case of an atmospheric process.
Now stay with that physics (I predict you will not) & eliminate all assertions. Restate your theories so they are all found from and based on proper experiment (not models).
Get into the lab m’lad or catch up on others experiments like those of Dr. Spencer and start working. You have a lot to accomplish to eliminate your humiliations. Especially your proper experiments will find the energy conserved in relevant atm. processes is PE+KE+p*V.
What causes El Nino warmth is all natural and related directly to the effective solar radiation that warms (mostly) the stratosphere, the upper troposphere and the tops of some clouds. Solar radiation is not usually strong enough to raise the already-warmer temperatures found in the surface and the first two or three kilometers above sea-level. Natural cycles regulate that effective solar radiation. What mankind does with carbon dioxide has nothing but a minuscule cooling effect, just as is observed where water vapor concentrations increase. It’s all explained here.
Dr. Spencer,
Proposition, low cloud response is different in PDO+/- phases.
Did we see the same decrease in low cloud cover this past summer?
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi points out in graph #2 in the link below that after an El Nino (but before a La Nina forms) that temperatures drop to below what they were prior to the El Nino forming.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/38793
Since the air conditioner isn’t yet working harder (La Nina) how does the temperature drop to lower levels than before?
Sounds to me like an El Nino is natures way of bleeding off excess heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.
An important aspect of the El Nio phenomenon which deserves more attention is the effect on surface layer mixing. Normally wave driven mixing results in a similar temperature throughout the mixed surface layer down to a depth of about 100m. However, El Nio conditions bring extended periods of calm and the doldrums expand greatly in latitude. During periods of extended calm wave driven mixing ceases and after a week of no wind the top meter or two at the surface can become as much as 4-5 C or more warmer than the remainder of the normal oceanic surface layer beneath. When the wind comes up again this extra warm layer can disappear in a few hours as wave induced mixing resumes.
This relatively thin skin of surface warmth does not appear in the temperature record from the cooling water intakes of ships which make up the vast bulk of the historical sea surface temperature record. However, this extra warm interface with the atmosphere over large areas of tropical ocean must surely have a significant effect on weather and which currently is not very well understood.
“an increase in radiative energy input…precedes peak El Nino warmth by about 9 months… due to a small decrease in low cloud cover … during El Nino (La Nina would have increased cloud cover).”
So the warming/cooling during +/- ENSO could be mostly due to plankton having less/more nutrients respectively. Plankton produces aerosols that significantly alter cloud formation
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/07/18/how_plankton_produce_clouds_109309.html
and the upwelling currents are responsible for bringing nutrients (the limiting factor in plankton growth) to the ocean surface.
And still no one can fault the physics and claim the AU $10,000 reward offered for doing so at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com – copy here your comments that you submit on my blog and I’ll copy my replies.
Roy:
I will explain to you why the probability that I am wrong is infinitesimal, based on observed facts.
Firstly, the IPCC greenhouse radiative forcing hypothesis and my heat creep hypothesis are mutually exclusive, so only one can be correct at most.
(1) The study I produced (in the Appendix of this paper) clearly shows water vapour cools. Statistically the probability of average water vapour concentrations doing most of 33 degrees of warming (as the IPCC claims) is infinitesimal.
(2) Others have shown that all planetary tropospheres exhibit a temperature gradient closely related to the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. (There is a small reduction due to inter-molecular radiation, such as we see for water vapour.) But the overall level of the temperature plot in all planets is anchored by the weighted mean effect of the key absorbing layers, usually in the stratosphere and upper troposphere, where radiative balance with insolation is achieved. These are often the only regions where the solar radiation is strong enough to raise the existing temperature a little each planetary morning after cooling the night before. For example, on Venus this happens in regions where the temperature is less than about 400K. The direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface cannot raise its temperature not by a long shot. The fact that for all planets the temperature between the core and this mean anchoring altitude follows the calculated temperature gradient and gets down to the expected temperature that is in radiative balance with the Sun would be a huge coincidence if I were wrong in my explanation that shows why the temperature builds up from the anchoring layers towards the core with energy transferred downwards by the heat creep process that is maximizing entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So, once again, the probability of my being wrong is statistically infinitesimal.
So, Roy, this is a HUGE breakthrough in our understanding of atmospheric physics. Of course there will be those who try to smear me, just as there were for Einstein. But the evidence is there to support it overwhelmingly. I have even been able to use the hypothesis to explain and quantify (for the first time in world literature) the observed temperature differences in Ranque-Hilsch vortex tubes, as you can read in my comments and computations here on Wikipedia.
Nobody can prove me wrong, but that is not the objective. We need to get the message out about what is the correct science. What Hansen and Pierrehumbert wrote is full of errors in the fictitious, fiddled physics they present and subsequently teach to climatology students.
May I suggest you spend 43 minutes watching the full 2015 video presentation linked from my latest website http://climate-change-theory.com launched a year ago today and visited by over 14,850 in those 12 months.