Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

    First the Economist, now Reuters, has now noted the long period over which the consensus has been incorrect:

    http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...-gas-emissions

    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416

    (Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
    Here's a little more detail behind what these news articles are popularizing:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/...ew-from-space/

    Since the slowdown in surface warming over the last 15 years has been a popular topic recently, I thought I would show results for the lower tropospheric temperature (LT) compared to climate models calculated over the same atmospheric layers the satellites sense.

    Courtesy of John Christy, and based upon data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, below is a comparison of 44 climate models versus the UAH and RSS satellite observations for global lower tropospheric temperature variations, for the period 1979-2012 from the satellites, and for 1975 – 2025 for the models:

    Clearly, there is increasing divergence over the years between the satellite observations (UAH, RSS) and the models. The reasons for the disagreement are not obvious, since there are at least a few possibilities:

    1) the real climate system is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as the models are programmed to be (my preferred explanation)

    2) the extra surface heating from more CO2 has been diluted more than expected by increased mixing with cooler, deeper ocean waters (Trenberth’s explanation)

    3) increased manmade aerosol pollution is causing a cooling influence, partly mitigating the manmade CO2 warming

    If I am correct (explanation #1), then we will continue to see little warming into the future. Additional evidence for lower climate sensitivity in the above plot is the observed response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: the temporary temperature dip in 1992-93, and subsequent recovery, is weaker in the observations than in the models. This is exactly what would be predicted with lower climate sensitivity.

    On the other hand, if Trenberth is correct (explanation #2), then there should be a period of rapid surface warming that resumes at some point, since the climate system must eventually try to achieve radiative energy equilibrium. Of course, exactly when that might be is unknown.

    Explanation #3 (anthropogenic aerosol cooling), while theoretically possible, has always seemed like cheating to me since the magnitude of aerosol cooling is so uncertain it can be invoked in any amount desired to explain the observations. Besides, blaming a lack of warming on humans just seems a little bizarre.

    The dark line in the above plot is the 44-model average, and it approximately represents what the IPCC uses for its official best estimate of projected warming. Obviously, there is a substantial disconnect between the models and observations for this statistic.

    I find it disingenuous for those who claim that, because not ALL of individual the models disagree with the observations, the models are somehow vindicated. What those pundits fail to mention is that the few models which support weaker warming through 2012 are usually those with lower climate sensitivity.

    So, if you are going to claim that the observations support some of the models, and least be honest and admit they support the models that are NOT consistent with the IPCC best estimates of warming.
    A couple of notes on the above:

    1) In the comments, Dr. Spencer is asked when the models change from hindcast to projection. He notes the physics was frozen in 2007 but was checking to be sure.
    2) Note that even in the hindcast portions (i.e. fitted to past behavior), the actual record is always at the lower bound vs. the cloud of model outputs. It is just that now, the actual record is going below even the lower ranges.

  • #2
    Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

    Thanks again C1ue for all the "climate change" info you provide. I used to look for this myself, but I really do count on you to do it for me! Thanks

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

      Originally posted by jiimbergin View Post
      Thanks again C1ue for all the "climate change" info you provide. I used to look for this myself, but I really do count on you to do it for me! Thanks
      Same here . . . .

      Thanks c1ue
      raja
      Boycott Big Banks Vote Out Incumbents

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        First the Economist, now Reuters, has now noted the long period over which the consensus has been incorrect
        c1ue, what do you think about this?

        New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

        Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981

        A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Klln (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
        • Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.




        http://skepticalscience.com/new-rese...celerated.html
        raja
        Boycott Big Banks Vote Out Incumbents

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

          Originally posted by raja View Post
          c1ue, what do you think about this?

          New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

          Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981

          A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Klln (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
          • Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
          http://skepticalscience.com/new-rese...celerated.html
          Out of context reporting of atmospheric temperatures over decadal time scales are nearly worthless if one wishes to understand climate change. The atmospheric temperature trend may have paused but the warming trend is in place. The earth has experienced an extended La Nina state which while causing heat waves and large droughts in the US has the overall effect of moderating worldwide atmospheric temperature warming. One of the important findings in the Balmaseda et. al. paper is that the deep oceans have been warming during this period. The oceans act as a battery, a store of energy. This energy will resurface. As happened in the late 90s, that energy will flow back into the atmosphere during the next strong El Nino. While the next El Nino will bring much needed rainfall to some parched areas of the US including our little state, it will also add a large amount of energy, (heat) to the atmosphere and we'll experience a spike in atmospheric temperature. The great consensus of scientists understand that warming continues. Apparently it's just changed venues.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

            Originally posted by raja
            c1ue, what do you think about this?
            Trenberth - he of the infamous "missing heat" quote - thinks he has found the missing heat. It is theoretically in the deep ocean.

            There are several problems with this:

            1) How has the heat skipped the layer above it? Which hasn't been warming
            2) How can you tell if the heat has increased? We're talking hundredths of a degree difference - which there absolutely is no historical data and even measurement is problematic.

            Basically, the hammer is seeing a nail. Whether it is real or not, IMO there are several steps missing:

            a) There needs to be a mechanism by which heat is bypassing the upper ocean layer to get into the deep ocean
            b) There needs to be actual data which shows historical behavior as well as ongoing trends

            All in all, zero cred in my book.

            p.s. Skeptical Science is a very, very bad place to get any information from. Not only are the authors not scientists, they've been caught over and over again postediting as well as being just plain wrong.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

              http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-warn-ice-age/

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

                Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                1) How has the heat skipped the layer above it? Which hasn't been warming
                Since we'll never agree on any of your other statements, I thought I'd try to focus on this one to see if we can at least put this non-scientific idea to rest. To start, heat is not temperature and it is temperature that is being measured. The temperature at the surface has not changed because the oceans are vast and the movement of heat is accomplished in several ways. That is, it's not a simple conductive system. Even Roy Spencer has observed that Trenbreth's theory is sound, the deep ocean can warm without the surface temperatures warming. He of course does not agree with Trenbreth but he finds this part of the science correct. Who is correct with regard to the bigger picture will take time to sort out. You know where I stand.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

                  Originally posted by santafe2
                  Since we'll never agree on any of your other statements, I thought I'd try to focus on this one to see if we can at least put this non-scientific idea to rest. To start, heat is not temperature and it is temperature that is being measured. The temperature at the surface has not changed because the oceans are vast and the movement of heat is accomplished in several ways. That is, it's not a simple conductive system. Even Roy Spencer has observed that Trenbreth's theory is sound, the deep ocean can warm without the surface temperatures warming. He of course does not agree with Trenbreth but he finds this part of the science correct. Who is correct with regard to the bigger picture will take time to sort out. You know where I stand.
                  1) I'm not talking about temperature. The reality is that the NOAA Ocean Heat indices are flat, thus heat is flat for the upper ocean layer exactly as I had noted.

                  As for temperature for Earth's surface - that also is flat. To say that there was global warming when temperatures were going up, but to now say that there is still global warming when temperatures are flat - is at a minimum a misdirection.

                  2) Spencer hasn't said that Trenberth's theory is sound. His actual statements were that Trenberth's idea is possible, but that the mechanism for heat transfer is unknown and that Trenberth's idea is also unprovable at this time.

                  That's quite a bit different than saying it is sound.

                  In contrast, Trenberth refuses to give Spencer (or any of other non-consensus views) a similar credit: possible but unproven or unprovable.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    1) I'm not talking about temperature. The reality is that the NOAA Ocean Heat indices are flat, thus heat is flat for the upper ocean layer exactly as I had noted.
                    You have to be talking about temperature or it's not about warming / non warming. The atmosphere is about flat and so is the upper ocean. But there is a huge volume below the surface of the ocean and that area is apparently warming. We're just two people talking on a forum. Winning here doesn't matter. Getting it right does matter. Either the world is still warming or it isn't. The latest research shows that that warming is moving into the deeper ocean. That concerns me. The ocean is vast. A minor warming in the deep ocean may result in a major atmospheric warming.

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    As for temperature for Earth's surface - that also is flat. To say that there was global warming when temperatures were going up, but to now say that there is still global warming when temperatures are flat - is at a minimum a misdirection.
                    The idea of misdirection is political. Almost no one working in science cares about directing people. They care about the science. Why would anyone devote their life to science if they have a political and or business bent? There is way more money in business and politics than science. Please be honorable enough to defend this flat temperature meme when the next atmospheric spike happens.

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    2) Spencer hasn't said that Trenberth's theory is sound. His actual statements were that Trenberth's idea is possible, but that the mechanism for heat transfer is unknown and that Trenberth's idea is also unprovable at this time.

                    That's quite a bit different than saying it is sound.
                    We could parse this idea to death and bore every reader on iTulip in the process. Spencer agrees with Trenbreth. In science possible and sound are not so far apart.

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    In contrast, Trenberth refuses to give Spencer (or any of other non-consensus views) a similar credit: possible but unproven or unprovable.
                    Over time one of us and the scientists we follow will be proven incorrect. In my book, Spencer is a decent guy but not too smart. I'm sure you feel the same way about Trenbreth and others that I respect. Time will tell.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The gory details behind the <s>global warming</s> climate change 'freeze'

                      Originally posted by santafe2
                      You have to be talking about temperature or it's not about warming / non warming. The atmosphere is about flat and so is the upper ocean. But there is a huge volume below the surface of the ocean and that area is apparently warming. We're just two people talking on a forum. Winning here doesn't matter. Getting it right does matter. Either the world is still warming or it isn't. The latest research shows that that warming is moving into the deeper ocean. That concerns me. The ocean is vast. A minor warming in the deep ocean may result in a major atmospheric warming.
                      Several issues with the above statement:

                      1) that the deep ocean is warming. This is far from proven given that the records are extremely sparse.
                      2) that the deep ocean, if it is warming, is warming due to CO2
                      3) that the deep ocean, if it is warming, and if the warming is due to CO2, will affect surface temperatures directly

                      The problem I have with listening to Trenberth is that he is looking for warming. People who look for something, will find it even if it isn't real.

                      My view, as I've noted again and again, is that time will tell.

                      The problem, of course, is that many are pushing for action now even before there is time to tell.

                      Originally posted by santafe2
                      The idea of misdirection is political. Almost no one working in science cares about directing people. They care about the science. Why would anyone devote their life to science if they have a political and or business bent? There is way more money in business and politics than science. Please be honorable enough to defend this flat temperature meme when the next atmospheric spike happens.
                      This statement is both obviously proven wrong in public example, and disingenuous to the extreme.

                      I've posted numerous examples where so-called objective scientists have evinced very clear political beliefs and advocated for political actions based on their so called objective work.

                      James Hansen has stopped even pretending to be a scientist, and is now a full time agitator. Stephen Schneider made numerous public comments about how the public needed to be 'steered'. James Holdren, our present 'science czar', equally has all sorts of political views and desires quite in conflict with his supposed position as objective scientific advisor.

                      Thus to say that 'most' people working in science don't care about directing people - this may be true.

                      It isn't true in climate science.

                      Originally posted by santafe2
                      We could parse this idea to death and bore every reader on iTulip in the process. Spencer agrees with Trenbreth. In science possible and sound are not so far apart.
                      Uh, not exactly. Spencer is saying that Trenberth could be right.

                      Trenberth, however, refuses to return the courtesy.

                      Originally posted by santafe2
                      Over time one of us and the scientists we follow will be proven incorrect. In my book, Spencer is a decent guy but not too smart. I'm sure you feel the same way about Trenbreth and others that I respect. Time will tell.
                      I do hope that over time, the truth of the matter will arise. I also note that again you attack Spencer personally rather than the work he has (or has not) done.

                      My view, unlike yours, is much less sanguine about that possibility.

                      CAGW has promulgated such a long series of misleading, overhyped, or just plain wrong views on such areas ranging from hurricane and tornado frequency and intensity, to snowfall levels, to rain levels, to drought levels, to higher temperatures, to lower temperatures, to diseases, to starvation due to crop failure, and on and on that frankly the entire business reeks.

                      And in the vein of the first point: the ongoing record for consecutive days since a Cat3 or greater hurricane landfall in the United States is still going strong: 2751 days and counting...



                      Tornadoes: record low number in the past 12 months after the previous rash of tornadoes...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X