Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming stopped 16 years ago


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 16 October 2012 - 09:27 PM

Low and behold the climate models predict exactly what is observed;

Quote

There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere for this recent decade indicates that a net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W m−2 (refs 2, 3) should be producing warming somewhere in the system4, 5. Here we analyse twenty-first-century climate-model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade. Eight decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La Niña-like conditions.

http://www.nature.co...limate1229.html

Failure to understand what the ENSO actually is would lead you to think that the heat had simply disappeared into thin air.

You are also confusing energy flux through the ocean profile with its temperature profile - the two are not the same.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#62    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 17 October 2012 - 05:01 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 16 October 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

let's make some assumptions that favour your position.
let's assume that all the warming of the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters is from co2 re radiating its long wave infra red.
let's assume that this infra red radiation is not somehow picked up in the recent widespread 0-700 meters ocean temperature depth measurements, but just instantly moves to a depth of 700-2000 meters in the ocean.
according to Levitus et al 2012 who measured the ocean heat to a depth of 2000 meters, the equivalent Watts/square meter as spread out across the ocean surface would be equivalent to a co2 forcing of 0.39W/m2 which is 3 times lower than the IPCC climate sensitivity estimate, which means there is no cause for alarm over man made global warming.

Cornelius said:

The simple question here is - Has the Global system stopped accumulating energy, or has it continued to accumulate energy ?
this says nothing to the issue raised.

"While, the lower diagnosed value of radiative imbalance raises questions on the skill of the models (and the IPCC reliance on them), it is important to distinguish between the three terms radiative imbalance, radiative forcing, and radiative feedback. In terms of global averages their relationship can be written as

global radiative imbalance = global radiative forcing + global radiative feedback.

The Levitus et al 2012 data provides a measure of the global average radiative imbalance for 1955-2010 which is ~+0.3 Watts per meter squared.

If one accepts the IPCC radiative forcing values of anthropogenic radiative forcings of +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) Watts per meter squared and/or the solar radiative forcing of +0.12 (+0.06 to +0.30) Watts per meter squared as correct, what the Levitus et al data shows is that the global radiative feedback is negative (and this necessarily would include the water vapor, sea ice etc radiative feedbacks). That is

global radiative feedback < global radiative forcing.

Alternatively, the IPCC anthropogenic radiative forcings and/or the solar radiative forcing could be in error.

Either way, the 2007 IPCC WG1 report has a serious error in it."
http://pielkeclimate...niche-modeling/

so if you accept the findings of Levitus and you accept the forcings as stated by the IPCC, then the global radiative feedback is negative which means man made global warming is nothing to worry about - Catastrophic AGW has been falsified.

Edited by Little Fish, 17 October 2012 - 05:02 PM.


#63    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

Pielke and yourself ignore that Ice consumes a considerable element of the forcing. He simply assumes that the ocean is the only heat absorber in effect - which is entirely incorrect.
Pielke has made a basic error here. Why would a supposed expert make such a basic omission from his calculations ??

Also, by choosing to focus on the time period that he has - he has made the error bar far to large to draw the sort of conclusion which he attempts. This is the folly of cherry picking data intervals to support a bogus claim - and is something which Pielke does time and time again. We use the longest time intervals possible to overcome these inherent weaknesses in the data - and this is especially so when dealing with relatively weak data.

This is the stuff of undergraduate level statistics - for none statisticians.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 October 2012 - 05:50 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#64    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 October 2012 - 06:44 PM

It is not even true to say that the upper 700m has not accumulated heat;

Quote

In another blog post, Dr. Pielke said that the upper 700 meters of ocean have accumulated no heat since 2003.  However, we examined the data from several studies on the subject (provided by NOAA), and found that between 2003 and 2009, the upper 700 meters accumulated between 1.1 x 1021 Joules (Levitus - though this reference may be slightly out of date), and 5.6 x 1022 Joules (Palmer), with Willis et al. falling in between at 5.1 x 1021 Joules.

http://www.skeptical...-questions.html



Only by focusing on the most conservative estimate can the statement approach reality.

The reality is even Pielke acknowledges that there has been heating of the Oceans;

Quote

will Dr. Pielke agree that his previous assessment of zero Joules accumulated during this period was incorrect, and that the timeframe (since 2003) and depth (700 meters) is insufficient for a suitable assessment of the climatological trend?

I agree it is positive from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ but relatively small. In my Waterloo talk, I used a value of 1/4 of the rate in the early decade.

I would, however, like to also convert this to the heating rate in Watts per meter squared and assess how close it is to Jim Hansen's estimate from GISS of o.6 Watts per meter squared [see http://pielkeclimate...592hansen.pdf].

http://www.skeptical...ions.html#64819



Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 October 2012 - 06:50 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#65    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:01 PM

The summery of my position on this is;
-Even the 700-2000m meters layer of the ocean is still a relatively small proportion of the actual ocean, and concentrating on it as the sole recipient of forcing energy is grossly misleading
-The estimate calculated by Pielke Sn is not far off the estimate given by many of the model estimates which average 0.5w/m2 for the top 2000m. given the uncertainties this is well within the boundary of standard error.
-The time frame employed by Pielke is grossly to short to make any meaningful statement about an inherently uncertain dataset.
-Concentrating on Levitus (2012) alone is cherry picking the best case scenario from at least 5 similar studies.
-La Nina is the process of deep sequestering of heat into the ocean and the La Nina events have dominated the ENSO over the study period chosen. As such any discrepancy between incoming and outgoing energy is likely to be found in an imperceptible rise in the bulk of the oceans which reside within the lower oceans.
-Once a strong El Nino returns we can expect to see a significant spike in surface air and 700m ocean temperatures - from an already anomalously high level.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#66    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:22 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 17 October 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

The summery of my position on this is;
-Even the 700-2000m meters layer of the ocean is still a relatively small proportion of the actual ocean, and concentrating on it as the sole recipient of forcing energy is grossly misleading
kawano et al 2010 say only 5% of Ocean Heat Content is below 3000m which suggest your "grossly misleading" statement is grossly misleading. if Kawano 2010 is correct then it is right to focus on the top few thousand meters of ocean depth since that is where 95% of ocean heat would be found.

Quote

-The estimate calculated by Pielke Sn is not far off the estimate given by many of the model estimates which average 0.5w/m2 for the top 2000m. given the uncertainties this is well within the boundary of standard error.
to be clear it is Levitus 2012 which calculates 0.39 W/m2.
"The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0  1.9  1022 J (2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39Wm2"

"The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955."
http://data.nodc.noa...S/grlheat12.pdf

Quote

-The time frame employed by Pielke is grossly to short to make any meaningful statement about an inherently uncertain dataset.
-Concentrating on Levitus (2012) alone is cherry picking the best case scenario from at least 5 similar studies.
there is good reason to use Levitus since it is most recent, uses data unavailable to other studies and it uses more accurate data, remember ARGO was only fully deployed in 2006.
it is hardly cherry picking to use the best and most recent data, why would you want to dilute the best study with a bunch of (metphorically) crap studies, which seems to always be the MO of your SKS website.

Quote

-La Nina is the process of deep sequestering of heat into the ocean and the La Nina events have dominated the ENSO over the study period chosen.
As such any discrepancy between incoming and outgoing energy is likely to be found in an imperceptible rise in the bulk of the oceans which reside within the lower oceans.
-Once a strong El Nino returns we can expect to see a significant spike in surface air and 700m ocean temperatures - from an already anomalously high level.

Br Cornelius
the study period of Levitus 2012 is 1955-2010, are you claiming la nina has dominated over the last 55 years? <confused>

so where did the heat go that was supposed to come from co2 heating?
the ocean?
the ocean accounts for 93% of warming of the earth system (Levitus 2012), and 95% of that warming occurs in the top 3,000 meters (Kawano 2010) which roughly corresponds to a forcing of 0.39W/m2 - which is too small to be consistent with catastrophic AGW.

a simple calculation reveals that the warming in the top 2000 meters only accounts for a small fraction of what the IPCC claims co2 is supposed to be responsible for. so where did the rest of the warming go? you previously speculated ice, despite your quantifying as "considerable" it only accounts for a very small insignificant fraction. I think it either doesn't exist (the IPCC has exaggerated co2 warming) or it has radiated out into space.

the bottom line here is, if you think the warming has gone below 2000 meters in the ocean, then produce some data to back it up, otherwise there is no data to support the catastrophic man made global warming that you are propagating.

Edited by Little Fish, 18 October 2012 - 10:24 AM.


#67    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:52 PM

Let me just show you what the IPCC actually says is their estimate for the OHC;

Quote

For the period 1993 to 2003, the Levitus et al. (2005a) analysis has a linear global ocean trend of 0.42 ± 0.18 W m–2, Willis et al. (2004) has a trend of 0.66 ± 0.18 W m–2 and Ishii et al. (2006) a trend of 0.33 ± 0.18 W m–2. Overall, we assess the trend for this period as 0.5 ± 0.18 W m–2. For the 0 to 700 m layer and the period 1955 to 2003 the heat content change is 10.9 ± 3.1 × 1022 J or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m–2 (data from Levitus et al., 2005a). All of these estimates are per unit area of Earth surface. Despite the fact that there are differences between these three ocean heat content estimates due to the data used, quality control applied, instrumental biases, temporal and spatial averaging and analysis methods (Appendix 5.A.1), they are consistent with each other giving a high degree of confidence for their use in climate change studies. The global increase in ocean heat content during the period 1993 to 2003 in two ocean models constrained by assimilating altimetric sea level and other observations (Carton et al., 2005; Köhl et al., 2006) is considerably larger than these observational estimates. We assess the heat content change from both of the long time series (0 to 700 m layer and the 1961 to 2003 period) to be 8.11 ± 0.74 × 1022 J, corresponding to an average warming of 0.1°C or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m–2, and conclude that the available heat content estimates from 1961 to 2003 show a significant increasing trend in ocean heat content.
.......

There is a contribution to the global heat content integral from depths greater than 700 m as documented by Levitus et al. (2000; 2005a). However, due to the lack of data with increasing depth the data must be composited using five-year running pentads in order to have enough data for a meaningful analysis in the deep ocean. Even then, there are not enough deep ocean data to extend the time series for the upper 3,000 m past the 1994–1998 pentad. There is a close correlation between the 0 to 700 and 0 to 3,000 m time series of Levitus et al. (2005a). A comparison of the linear trends from these two series indicates that about 69% of the increase in ocean heat content during 1955 to 1998 (the period when estimates from both time series are available) occurred in the upper 700 m of the World Ocean. Based on the linear trend, for the 0 to 3,000 m layer for the period 1961 to 2003 there has been an increase of ocean heat content of approximately 14.2 ± 2.4 × 1022 J, corresponding to a global ocean volume mean temperature increase of 0.037°C during this period. This increase in ocean heat content corresponds to an average heating rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 for the Earth’s surface.

......

To place the changes of ocean heat content in perspective, Figure 5.4 provides updated estimates of the change in heat content of various components of the Earth’s climate system for the period 1961 to 2003 (Levitus et al., 2005a). This includes changes in heat content of the lithosphere (Beltrami et al., 2002), the atmosphere (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2001) and the total heat of fusion due to melting of i) glaciers, ice caps and the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets (see Chapter 4) and ii) arctic sea ice (Hilmer and Lemke, 2000). The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. Ocean heat content variability is thus a critical variable for detecting the effects of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance. It is noteworthy that whereas ice melt from glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets is very important in the sea level budget (contributing about 40%), the energy associated with ice melt contributes only about 1% to the Earth’s energy budget.
Posted Image
Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006), Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004).

.......

Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1). Nevertheless, it is a useful diagnostic, particularly for aerosols (see Sections 2.4 and 2.9).

2.8.1 Vertical Forcing Patterns and Surface Energy Balance Changes

The vertical structure of a forcing agent is important both for efficacy (see Section 2.8.5) and for other aspects of climate response, particularly for evaluating regional and vertical patterns of temperature change and also changes in the hydrological cycle. For example, for absorbing aerosol, the surface forcings are arguably a more useful measure of the climate response (particularly for the hydrological cycle) than the RF (Ramanathan et al., 2001a; Menon et al., 2002b). It should be noted that a perturbation to the surface energy budget involves sensible and latent heat fluxes besides solar and longwave irradiance; therefore, it can quantitatively be very different from the RF, which is calculated at the tropopause, and thus is not representative of the energy balance perturbation to the surface-troposphere (climate) system. While the surface forcing adds to the overall description of the total perturbation brought about by an agent, the RF and surface forcing should not be directly compared nor should the surface forcing be considered in isolation for evaluating the climate response (see, e.g., the caveats expressed in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Ramanathan, 1981). Therefore, surface forcings are presented as an important and useful diagnostic tool that aids understanding of the climate response (see Sections 2.9.4 and 2.9.5).


http://www.ipcc.ch/p...s2-8.html#2-8-1

Not using the right metric will get you into trouble Little Fish.

The Surface Forcing is not the same as the Radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. The Surface forcing used by the IPCC is in broad agreement with what Pielke uses and is based upon Levitius study among others. You have proven nothing other than your lack of understanding.

However this stuff is complex and not always intuitive so we all make mistakes (me to) - its OK to admit you made a mistake :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 October 2012 - 04:57 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#68    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,543 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:55 PM

For a detailed explanation of the difference between radiative forcing and surface forcing;

http://scienceofdoom...energy-balance/

The estimated increase in warming of the surface is given as 1W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 - so current estimates of the forcing are well within line with what we would expect considering we are still a considerable way off a doubling of CO2.
However remember that various feedbacks go into making up the IPCC estimate - and most of them have only just begun to take effect. Take for example the Methane shotgun which has only recently been observed to have started to have begun to accelerate. then there is reduced albedo associated with the rapid decline of the arctic sea ice.

What is currently happening is only of marginal interest to what is likely to happen in the next century when all of the factors come into play at full force.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 October 2012 - 07:08 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#69    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 18 October 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

The Surface Forcing is not the same as the Radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. The Surface forcing used by the IPCC is in broad agreement with what Pielke uses and is based upon Levitius study among others. You have proven nothing other than your lack of understanding.

this is what Pielke and Levitus say to that:

"Assuming that there is a direct one-to-one comparison on annual timescales to TOA imbalance is not valid." - Gavin Schmitt

Gavin is in error as shown in the paper
Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Geophys. Res., 83, 1958-1962

and as I have discussed in my paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335."

There is a direct relationship between ocean heat content changes and TOA radiative imbalances even on the annual time scale."
http://pielkeclimate...-gavin-schmidt/

and here is a chart showing a direct relationship between the TOA radiative imbalance and ocean heat content over an annual period as published by Levitus
Posted Image
http://pielkeclimate...al-jgr-1978.pdf


Quote

For a detailed explanation of the difference between radiative forcing and surface forcing;
that article is based on a study which itself is based on a model which is not based on actual observations based in reality. for actual observations of reality, see above.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users