Last Friday, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC had a press conference and jointly announced the end-of-year analysis for the 2014 global surface temperature anomaly which, in both analyses, came out top. As you may have noticed, this got much more press attention than their joint announcement in 2013 (which wasn’t a record year).
In press briefings and interviews I contributed to, I mostly focused on two issues – that 2014 was indeed the warmest year in those records (though by a small amount), and the continuing long-term trends in temperature which, since they are predominantly driven by increases in greenhouse gases, are going to continue and hence produce (on a fairly regular basis) continuing record years. Response to these points has been mainly straightforward, which is good (if sometimes a little surprising), but there have been some interesting issues raised as well…
Records are bigger stories than trends
This was a huge media story (even my parents noticed!). This is despite (or perhaps because?) the headline statement had been heavily trailed since at least September and cannot have been much of a surprise. In November, WMO put out a preliminary analysis suggesting that 2014 would be a record year. Earlier this month, the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) produced their analysis, also showing a record. Estimates based on independent emulations of the GISTEMP analysis also predicted that the record would be broken (Moyhu, ClearClimateCode).
This is also despite the fact that differences of a few hundredths of a degree are simply not that important to any key questions or issues that might be of some policy relevance. A record year doesn’t appreciably affect attribution of past trends, nor the projection of future ones. It doesn’t re-calibrate estimated impacts or affect assessments of regional vulnerabilities. Records are obviously more expected in the presence of an underlying trend, but whether they occur in 2005, 2010 and 2014, as opposed to 2003, 2007 and 2015 is pretty much irrelevant.
But collectively we do seem to have an apparent fondness for arbitrary thresholds (like New Years Eve, 10 year anniversaries, commemorative holidays etc.) before we take stock of something. It isn’t a particularly rational thing – (what was the real importance of Usain Bolt’s breaking the record for the 100m by 0.02 hundredths of a second in 2008?), but people seem to be naturally more interested in the record holder than in the also-rans. Given then that 2014 was a record year, interest was inevitably going to be high. Along those lines, Andy Revkin has written about records as ‘front page thoughts’ that is also worth reading.
El Niños, La Niñas, Pauses and Hiatuses
There is a strong correlation between annual mean temperatures (in the satellite tropospheric records and surface analyses) and the state of ENSO at the end of the previous year. Maximum correlations of the short-term interannual fluctuations are usually with prior year SON, OND or NDJ ENSO indices. For instance, 1998, 2005, and 2010 were all preceded by an declared El Niño event at the end of the previous year. The El Niño of 1997/8 was exceptionally strong and this undoubtedly influenced the stand-out temperatures in 1998. 2014 was unusual in that there was no event at the beginning of the year (though neither did the then-record years of 1997, 1990, 1981 or 1980 either).
So what would the trends look like if you adjust for the ENSO phase? Are separate datasets differently sensitive to ENSO? Given the importance of the ENSO phasing for the ‘pause’ (see Schmidt et al (2014), this can help assess the underlying long-term trend and whether there is any evidence that it has changed in the recent decade or so.
For instance, the regression of the short-term variations in annual MSU TLT data to ENSO is 2.5 times larger than it is to GISTEMP. Since ENSO is the dominant mode of interannual variability, this variance relative to the expected trend due to long-term rises in greenhouse gases implies a lower signal to noise ratio in the satellite data. Interestingly, if you make a correction for ENSO phase, the UAH record would also have had 2014 as a record year (though barely). The impact on the RSS data is less. For GISTEMP, removing the impact of ENSO makes 2014 an even stronger record year relative to previous ones (0.07ºC above 2005, 2006 and 2013), supporting the notion that the underlying long-term trend has not changed appreciably over the last decade or so. (Tamino has a good post on this as well).
Odds and statistics, and odd statistics
Analyses of global temperatures are of course based on a statistical model that ingests imperfect data and has uncertainties due to spatial sampling, inhomogeneities of records (for multiple reasons), errors in transcription etc. Monthly and annual values are therefore subject to some (non-trivial) uncertainty. The HadCRUT4 dataset has, I think, the best treatment of the uncertainties (creating multiple estimates based on a Monte Carlo treatment of input data uncertainties and methodological choices). The Berkeley Earth project also estimates a structural uncertainty based on non-overlapping subsets of raw data. These both suggest that current uncertainties on the annual mean data point are around ±0.05ºC (1 sigma) [Update: the Berkeley Earth estimate is actually half that]. Using those estimates, and assuming that the uncertainties are uncorrelated for year to year (not strictly valid for spatial undersampling, but this gives a conservative estimate), one can estimate the odds of 2014 being a record year, or of beating 2010 – the previous record. This was done by both NOAA and NASA and presented at the press briefing (see slide 5).
In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02ºC. Given the uncertainties, we can estimated the likelihood that this means 2014 was in fact the planet’s warmest year since 1880. Intuitively, the highest ranked year will be the most likely individual year to be the record (in horse racing terms, that would be the favorite) and indeed, we estimated that 2014 is about 1.5 to ~3 times more likely than 2010 to have been the record. In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~48% likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~38%). (Contrary to some press reports, this was indeed fully discussed during the briefing). The data released by Berkeley Earth is similar (with 2014 at ~35%~46% (see comment below)). These numbers are also fragile though and may change with upcoming updates to data sources (including better corrections for non-climatic influences in the ocean temperatures). An alternative formulation is to describe these results as being ‘statistical ties’, but to me that implies that each of the top years is equally likely to be the record, and I don’t think that is an accurate summary of the calculation.
Another set of statistical questions relate to a counterfactual – what are the odds of such a record or series of hot years in the absence of human influences on climate? This question demands a statistical model of the climate system which, of course, has to have multiple sets of assumptions built in. Some of the confusion about these odds as they were reported are related to exactly what those assumptions are.
For instance, the very simplest statistical model might assume that the current natural state of climate would be roughly stable at mid-century values and that annual variations are Gaussian, and uncorrelated from one year to another. Since interannual variations are around 0.07ºC (1 sigma), an anomaly of 0.68ºC is exceptionally unlikely (over 9 sigma, or a probability of ~2×10-19). This is mind-bogglingly unlikely, and is a function of the overly-simple model rather than a statement about the impact of human activity.
Two similar statistical analyses were published last week: AP reported that the odds of nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since 2000 were about 650 million to 1, while Climate Central suggested that a similar calculation (13 of the last 15 years) gave odds of 27 million to 1. These calculations are made assuming that each year’s temperature is an independent draw from a stable distribution, and so their extreme unlikelihood is more of a statement about the model used, rather than the natural vs. anthropogenic question. To see that, think about a situation where there was a trend due to natural factors, this would greater reduce the odds of a hot streak towards the end (as a function of the size of the trend relative to the interannual variability) without it having anything to do with human impacts. Similar effects would be seen if interannual internal variability was strongly autocorrelated (i.e. if excursions in neighbouring years were related). Whether this is the case in the real world is an active research question (though climate models suggest it is not a large effect).
Better statistical models thus might take into account the correlation of interannual variations, or have explicit account of natural drivers (the sun and volcanoes), but will quickly run into difficulties in defining these additional aspects from the single real world data set we have (which includes human impacts).
A more coherent calculation would be to look at the difference between climate model simulations with and without anthropogenic forcing. The difference seen in IPCC AR5 Fig 10.1 between those cases in the 21st Century is about 0.8ºC, with an SD of ~0.15 C for interannual variability in the simulations. If we accept that as a null hypothesis, the odds of seeing a 0.8ºC difference in the absence of human effects is over 5 sigma, with odds (at minimum) of 1 in 1.7 million.
None of these estimates however take into account how likely any of these models are to capture the true behaviour of the system, and that should really be a part of any assessment. The values from a model with unrealistic assumptions is highly unlikely to be a good match to reality and it’s results should be downweighted, while ones that are better should count for more. This is of course subjective – I might feel that coupled GCMs are adequate for this purpose, but it would be easy to find someone who disagreed or who thought that internal decadal variations were being underestimated. An increase of decadal variance, would increase the sigma for the models by a little, reducing the unlikelihood of observed anomaly. Of course, this would need to be justified by some analysis, which itself would be subject to some structural uncertainty… and so on. It is therefore an almost impossible to do a fully objective calculation of these odds. The most one can do is make clear the assumptions being made and allow others to assess whether that makes sense to them.
Of course, whether the odds are 1.7, 27 or 650 million to 1 or less, that is still pretty unlikely, and it’s hard to see any reasonable model giving you a value that would put the basic conclusion in doubt. This is also seen in a related calculation (again using the GCMs) for the attribution of recent warming.
Conclusion
The excitement (and backlash) over these annual numbers provides a window into some of problems in the public discourse on climate. A lot of energy and attention is focused on issues with little relevance to actual decision-making and with no particular implications for deeper understanding of the climate system. In my opinion, the long-term trends or the expected sequence of records are far more important than whether any single year is a record or not. Nonetheless, the records were topped this year, and the interest this generated is something worth writing about.
References
- G.A. Schmidt, D.T. Shindell, and K. Tsigaridis, "Reconciling warming trends", Nature Geoscience, vol. 7, pp. 158-160, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2105
#192 “For example a strengthening of wind over some oceanic region
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2106-incl-SI.pdf
then would increase the heat flow atmosphere -> ocean, leading to lower (dynamic) equilibrium temperature in the atmosphere which of course occurs very fast, as the thermal mass of the atmosphere is very low compared to the net energy throughput.”
Marcus, your invocation of effectively instantaneous heat flow reminds me of an amusing theory known as “Morphic Resonance.” Check it out, it’s fun: http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html
The paper you’ve linked us to is, by the way, yet another instance where climate scientists acknowledge the hiatus as real. From the abstract: “Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.”
They attempt to explain it by invoking “cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature.” Funny, but I’ve been told the ocean has been heating up substantially in recent years. But if atmospheric warming can produce cooling, as we are hearing so often in these frigid days, then I suppose the same could be true for the oceans. If you can point to any specific place in this paper where they argue for instantaneous heat flow, in either direction, I’d be very interested in reading that.
My questions regarding atmospheric to oceanic time lag are based not only on common sense, but also on what I’ve been reading in the cli. sci. literature, as summarized very neatly in the following bit, from the Skeptical Science blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html):
“The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans. Consider a saucepan of water placed on a gas stove. Although the flame has a temperature measured in hundreds of degrees C, the water takes a few minutes to reach boiling point. This simple analogy explains climate lag. The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere. The time that it takes to warm up is measured in decades.”
Victor wrote: “My comments are based on logic and common sense …”
Your comments are based on rote regurgitation of tiresome, many-times-debunked denialist talking points.
OK, this idea that it takes 21 years for ‘warmth to transfer from atmosphere to ocean’ is just too deliciously goofy to resist.
What, I ask myself, would a real skeptic entertaining such an idea do?
Well–I answer myself–they’d look for real-world examples to check this against.
Such as? Well, how about the annual temperature cycles for a particular area?
How ’bout the scene of previous thoughtcrimes–KIDDING!!!–Buffalo, NY?
Well, our friends at NCDC make such data readily available. Download, plot, and you get this:
http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h402/brassdoc/2014%20Buffalo%20Air%20amp%20Water%20Temps.png
Hmm. Sure looks like water temps follow atmospheric temps to me. (Though by that I don’t mean to imply causation; they could both respond to a third factor, or, for that matter, to several interrelated factors.)
And that’s on a timescale that’s measurable in days, not years.
#193 Tony Weddle “Perhaps you could provide an alternative explanation for why the oceans continue to warm and then look for research evidence for your hypothesis?”
Certain climate scientists have proposed that increased CO2 emissions are causing the planet to heat up in a drastic and dangerous manner. As with the proponents of any theory, it is up to them to provide evidence to back it up. Skeptics have no such burden, since they are proposing no theory, only questioning one.
Since, as we know, the Earth has both heated and cooled many times in the past, sometimes by drastic amounts, there is really no need to come up with a theory to explain why the atmosphere seems to have warmed considerably over a 20 year period in the recent past (1979 through 1998). And in the face of the hiatus, suggesting that the warming trend may well have been temporary, there is even less need to offer an explanation.
#193 Sorry, Tony, I forgot you referenced oceanic heating, not atmospheric heating, so let me deal specifically with that. The argument isn’t all that different. The ocean too has been heating and cooling for billions of years, so again, why do we need a theory to explain why it’s heating now (assuming it actually is)?
More to the point: if you want to argue that ocean heating is due to increased CO2 emissions, then you need to explain how warming produced by those emissions found its way into the oceans. Since CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and not the ocean, then we need some evidence that the atmosphere heated up sufficiently to seriously heat up the oceans. And the ONLY period where we see an increase in atmospheric warming drastic enough to have the necessary effect is the period ca. 1979 – ca. 1998. Given the need for a decades long delay (see Skepical Science quote, above) for atmospheric warming to warm the oceans, then we need to account for a delay of at least 20 years or so for the oceans to heat up if we want to attribute that to CO2 emissions.
Now, as I pointed out in an earlier post (#104), there IS some evidence of a trend toward serious oceanic heating beginning roughly 21 years after 1979 (i.e., 2000), which suggests that this could be due to heat transfer from the atmosphere beginning in ca 1979. If that is the case, then we can expect a concomitant leveling off roughly 20 years later (2020) to correspond with the hiatus in surface temperatures.
As should be clear, the dynamic relation between the two realms can’t possibly be used to explain the hiatus, since the one (the ocean) can only be a reflection of the other (the atmosphere), not an influence upon it (assuming CO2 as the ultimate cause). Unless the heating of the ocean is due to some other, unknown, cause. In either case, we see no evidence of any long term warming trend, in either the atmosphere or the ocean.
#189 Jon Keller
“The safest thing to do right now is to get behind initiatives to cut back on emissions.”
Moving surface ocean heat to the depths through a heat engine gives you emissions free energy and reduces atmospheric warming. Estimates are 14 terawatts, or as much energy as is currently derived from fossil fuels, can be produced by this method. The low efficiency of the process means you need to move about 20 times more heat than energy produced so 14 terawatts would sequester or convert close to all of the 330 terawatts of heat NOAA estimated in 2010 the oceans are accumulating due to climate change.
MARodger asks (#195 – 30 Jan at 5:47 AM) for constructive suggestions to deal with Victor the Troll.
My first response, as someone who has spent too much of the past 30 years staring at this or earlier screens, is to agree that in internet terms, anonymous “Victor” is indeed a Troll, with feigned interest in self-education or on-topic contribution to the dialogue. However, (speaking as a pediatric mental health professional with considerable experience dealing with abusive parents and other monsters) he is also a raging narcissist, who thrives on and demands attention. More is better, all press is good press. An effective troll can dominate any discussion that will let him, since subject matter is irrelevant.
The topics of his posts are not all that important to him, excepting the invested time; he is NOT here to learn or to be convinced. He is here to argue, with impulsive force to every response. He persists after his errors are corrected, and even argues meanings of words (Victor the Ridiculous should be his signature). If the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, in case he wonders) has no literary credibility, why should we expect the complicated formulas of physics, chemistry, and climatology to interfere with or derail his certainty about climate change?
In that light, I’d suggest that responses to Victor the Ridiculous should be limited and indirect. There may be value in group discussion of his inability to accept reality while pretending to listen. We could use his posts as a series of examples of classic trolling narcissism. Yes, this is still attention, but in my experience, talking about a narcissist while he is in the room does not feed the beast (though may make him hungrier, and grouchy). Since he has clearly demonstrated that he will argue any and every point, with “science” only another opportunity to argue meanings, denying him that forum will make small loss to constructive on-topic dialogue.
Final point: I travel a lot (to/from/within Alaska and Canada over 40 years, which has given me some ground-level experience with climate change). Internet access is often sketchy while traveling, and I’m out the door as this post is sent. Pretty much a drive-by here, so any rants directed at me by V the RT will be pointless, since he’s essentially killed this thread, and I won’t look back when access returns. See yall in Feb.
Victor, you really are engaging in serial shark-jumping:
1) “They attempt to explain it by invoking “cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature.” Funny, but I’ve been told the ocean has been heating up substantially in recent years.” – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/comment-page-5/#comment-624441
We’ve been through this before, remember? SSTs are a minor portion of ocean heat content (especially when we’re talking about just a portion of one basin.)
2) “The ocean too has been heating and cooling for billions of years, so again, why do we need a theory to explain why it’s heating now (assuming it actually is)?” – See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/thoughts-on-2014-and-ongoing-temperature-trends/comment-page-5/#comment-624441
Uh, dude, you may remember that Newton is considered a scientific giant for explicating gravitational attraction. I’m pretty sure that’s existed longer than the oceans.
3) “As should be clear, the dynamic relation between the two realms can’t possibly be used to explain the hiatus, since the one (the ocean) can only be a reflection of the other (the atmosphere), not an influence upon it (assuming CO2 as the ultimate cause).”
A thundering non sequitur, and completely contrary to observed reality–ENSO, and all that…
4) The whole 21-year time lag notion…
…which I already commented upon once.
“Since, as we know, the Earth has both heated and cooled many times in the past, sometimes by drastic amounts, there is really no need to come up with a theory to explain why the atmosphere seems to have warmed considerably over a 20 year period in the recent past (1979 through 1998). And in the face of the hiatus, suggesting that the warming trend may well have been temporary, there is even less need to offer an explanation.”
Self-delusion in action. Isn’t it way past time to send Victor to the Bore Hole?
#203 Hide your head in shame, Kevin. Is that really the best “evidence” you can find? Buffalo? I lived there for many years and never saw the ocean once.
If you really believe “this idea that it takes 21 years for ‘warmth to transfer from atmosphere to ocean’ is just too deliciously goofy to resist,” I suggest you share your “evidence” with the folks at the Skeptical Science blog (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html). Here’s their take, as quoted above: “Consider a saucepan of water placed on a gas stove. Although the flame has a temperature measured in hundreds of degrees C, the water takes a few minutes to reach boiling point. This simple analogy explains climate lag. The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere. The time that it takes to warm up is measured in decades.”
#207 Phil Mattheis: “Pretty much a drive-by here, so any rants directed at me by V the RT will be pointless, since he’s essentially killed this thread, and I won’t look back when access returns.”
You’re the one doing the ranting, Phil, not me. I’m not ranting. Nor have I been offering ad hominem arguments, though I’ve been on tne receiving end of many on this blog, often in the form of vicious personal attacks such as this. And frankly I’m disappointed that such shameless attacks are tolerated here.
If you see yourself as a scientist, I suggest you offer scientific arguments rather than insults. What bothers you is not my stubbornness but my refusal to accept explanations that explain nothing. And I’m certainly not alone in my skepticism. I’m assuming this is intended as a forum for debate, not mutual back scratching. Sorry if I’ve been making you uncomfortable.
Meanwhile I am still awaiting a (meaningful) response to what I’ve written back on #104.
@29 Jan 2015 at 3:40 PM
The average Joe’s “common sense” is almost useless for understanding complex systems. That’s why we have science and math (including statistics). If we had to rely on “common sense”, we’d still be baffled over why an atom’s electrons don’t spiral into its nucleus, why Mercury’s orbit disobeys Newton’s laws, and why atomic spectra have distinct emission lines.
[Mods: the CAPTCHA has become very difficult to use. Please try it yourselves.]
#205 Point of clarification. When I wrote “In either case, we see no evidence of any long term warming trend, in either the atmosphere or the ocean,” that should have read “long term warming trend due to CO2 emissions . . .” There may be some evidence consistent with long term warming in the oceans, but I can’t see how that could be due to CO2, for reasons given above. And by the way, I’m more than willing to stand corrected if someone can point out my error.
I should also make it clear that my remarks refer to the claim that the hiatus can be explained by the diversion of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean. The very different explanation regarding La Nina based oceanic cooling is a different matter.
@Victor #204 :
“Certain climate scientists have proposed that increased CO2 emissions are causing the planet to heat up in a drastic and dangerous manner. As with the proponents of any theory, it is up to them to provide evidence to back it up.”
Is the entire body of climatology backed by physics established since the 19th century not good enough evidence for you?
“… Skeptics have no such burden, since they are proposing no theory, only questioning one.”
Erm, no. They – you – are proposing that a significant chunk of established physics doesn’t work for the Earth’s climate system; a proposition that requires some evidence.
Victor, it seems you didn’t read those links I provided (even though you could find this stuff yourself).
OK, I understand now; you’re not interested in getting at the truth. At least I know. Carry on with your fantasies.
BTW, the SkepticalScience piece about a 40 year lag is badly written as it implies that there is no effect immediately after the cause which is nonsense and not what Hansen said in the paper referenced there. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat immediately it is there – it doesn’t just sit around twiddling its thumbs for 4 decades. Hmm, I wonder where most of the extra heat goes. Please don’t try to answer that.
@207 Yes. Agreed. If the troll wants answers to his confusions he needs to study Ch 3 of AR5 WG1–hell 3.4 is enough–which clearly answers his confusions. I will stay away from any replies to him with great–and quite singular only–conscientiousness.
More interesting than the maximum will be the temperature this year. Pervious highs were associated with strong El Nino events and the following year they were considerably lower as the effect faded. Last year there was only a weak El Nino event so this year the yearly temp may not be much lower. We could even have 2 records or near records in a row, which really would be an event.
PM @ 207
Indeed. If people want to avoid being manipulated by trolls, they should spend some time pondering your comment– which, btw, seems to have stuck a nerve dead on.
Still no meaningful response to my question regarding heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean. “CO2 in the atmosphere” may trap heat “immediately it is there” (#214) of course, but that heat most certainly does not inundate the oceans at that same moment. The Skeptical Science explanation is perfectly accurate and adequate. I’m amazed that anyone claiming a background in physics would deny that.
If you want to explain the hiatus on the basis of heat flow from the atmosphere to the ocean within a period of one or two years, you have to explain how the laws of physics are cancelled at the same time. If there is some other explanation I’d love to hear it.
Some other points:
1. My comments on the word “ridiculousness” were intended as humor, as should have been obvious. However, like so many other things, humor seems impervious to the denizens of this blog.
2. I’ve been accused of posting here because I am an “attention seeker.” Not so, though I’m sure many here have that impression. I’m posting here because the claims of “climate science” alarm me, and this particular blog seems like the best place to learn more about those claims and test my theories regarding what seems wrong with them. So far I’ve read nothing that changes my mind. But that may not mean much, because most of the responses have taken the form of ad hominem arguments, blunt dismissals and personal attacks.
3. Which brings me to my final point. If you want to establish credentials as a serious scientist and not come across as some sort of kook or crackpot, then you need to present yourself in a dignified manner. If you insist on behaving like a rude adolescent, you are undermining whatever status you may have as a serious scientist doing serious research. Many people are quietly lurking here and forming opinions based on what you write and how you express yourselves. Enough said.
219
What part of ‘themal diffusivity ‘ don’t you understand?
While is awash with water, not superfluid helium, air and water in contact are thermodynamically driven towards becoming isothermal, and automatically mixed by the density changes that ensue from daytime heating and nghtime cooling, resulting in a mixed layed100 meters deep.
The much slower thermohaline circulation mixes cold abyssal water on a time scale of centuries – the global ocean turnover time estimated from bottom current velocities is estimated to be on the order of half a millennium
“Hang my head?” I suppose I deserve some blame for underestimating your ability to miss the point–or, more likely, over-estimating your willingness to try. But “shame?” No, I don’t think so.
Tell me, Victor, do you really think the mixing layer/atmosphere coupling is any different in Buffalo than it would be in Boston?
And do you really think that the simple SkS analogy explaining the concept of thermal inertia has anything to with your delusional 21-year lag?
Never mind. Of course you do.
Wind is physics!
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Matthew H. England, et al.,
Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014)
doi:10.1038/nclimate2106
Victor, just curious, how do YOU think heat gets transferred between the atmosphere and the ocean? As in, what is the physical mechanism? It might help people to correct your misapprehensions if they understood exactly how you think things work. I have a feeling it’s different than most…
Victor wrote:
“Since, as we know, the Earth has both heated and cooled many times in the past, sometimes by drastic amounts, there is really no need to come up with a theory to explain why the atmosphere seems to have warmed considerably over a 20 year period in the recent past (1979 through 1998).”
No matter how you look at this statement, it makes no sense. Is it suggesting that temperatures rise and fall with no cause? That is absurd. Or does it mean that, because something happened naturally in the past, there is no reason to discover why it’s happening in the present? That is also absurd. Of course, the planet indeed warms (and cools, although not in my lifetime) from natural causes, but that doesn’t eliminate the need for identifiable causes.
For many people, the fact of natural climate change has talismanic emotional power – the climate has always changed! However, it is illogical. People died before guns were invented, too, but that does not mean you cannot die from a gunshot wound. To the best of our current knowledge, the cause for current rising temperatures is increased atmospheric CO2.
As for how heat transfers to the ocean: I’m just a musician, but what’s the role of La Nina in this? If it cools the atmosphere, isn’t that only because it’s warming the ocean? And haven’t La Nina events dominated during the so-called hiatus?
Re- Comment by Meow — 31 Jan 2015 @ 12:06 AM, ~#212
Actually I have been having a very easy time with CAPTCHA. This may just be chance but just in case you missed it: If you put in all your info including your submission ready to go and then click the “I’m not a robot” square (not the CAPTCHA arrow circle), it will take a look at your post and decide if you are a robot or not without you having to guess their distorted words. I am not a robot about three times out of four.
Steve
Re- Comment by Victor — 31 Jan 2015 @ 12:16 PM, ~#219
Victor, I am very happy to hear that you are just goofing around in order to be humorous. I would hate to think that you are someone:
– who actually believes that using regression and averaging for data analysis and presentation is “lying with statistics.” I have a suggestion that is actually more amusing. Consider that you have been depending on yearly averaged data which hides an enormous amount of short term variability. Ask stridently for daily data.
– who is unable to read and understand and make reasoned decisions about published scientific findings.
– who uses the definition of a science denier to describe a good skeptic. This was really funny.
– who complains of ad hominem attacks but doesn’t know what this fallacy means.
You are doing a real service for folks who come here to learn by providing all the dumb old denial talking points for the commenters here to dismember. You continue to provide a most excellent bad example.
Steve
Since Victor seems to be following well-trodden paths, some of which have forks that may lead to understanding, a bit more from http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm#S3
___________
Student: “It just doesn’t add up.”
Teacher: “Calculus isn’t just addition.”
@29 Jan 2015 at 3:40 PM
The average Joe’s “common sense” is almost useless for understanding complex systems. That’s why we have science and math (including especially statistics). If we had to rely on “common sense”, we’d still be baffled over why an atom’s electrons don’t spiral into its nucleus, why Mercury’s orbit disobeys Newton’s laws, and why single electrons sputtered at a slit in an object create an interference pattern on a screen on the other side.
[Mods: the CAPTCHA has become extremely difficult to use. It has taken me at least 15 attempts to post this comment. Please try the CAPTCHA yourselves.]
#215 Tony Weddle “Victor, it seems you didn’t read those links I provided”
Yes I did. The first (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/) contained exactly the sort of thinking I’d been responding to in the first place, so I didn’t see any need to discuss it. Nothing new there. The second began by more or less restating what I’d already quoted from another Skeptical Science piece, and the rest was also nothing new. Nevertheless, that first sentence bears repeating: “Much like a heated kettle of water takes some time before it comes to the boil, it seems intuitive that the world’s oceans will also take some time to fully respond to global warming.” In the article I quoted earlier the author is more specific, referring to a delay of “decades.”
I’m sorry to be posting here so much, but if people stopped responding to my posts with pointless bits of meaningless “evidence” I’d be posting a lot less, I promise.
It’s clear from these links that you don’t understand what I’ve been getting at, Tony. So. One more time:
The first post, from Real Climate, by Stefan, repeats a standard claim: regardless of whether or not the hiatus is real, it doesn’t matter, because the oceans are continuing to warm at a high rate. Here’s the gist:
“If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.”
Now the “greenhouse effect” to which he refers is supposedly enhanced by the emission of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. But these emissions are emitted into the atmosphere, not the ocean. And as we learn from the Skeptical Science article I linked to earlier, there is going to be a delay of “decades” between the effects of the CO2 emissions in question (i.e., the heating of the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect) and a corresponding warming of the oceans. If that is in fact the case, and I see no reason to doubt it, then the fact that the oceans are continuing to warm can have no bearing on the hiatus at all, and will not reflect the slowdown in atmospheric warming for “decades.”
Inspecting one of the (many) graphs tracking oceanic warming, I noticed a steep upward trend roughly around 2000, 21 years after 1979, when a steep warming trend began in the surface temps. So it occurred to me that there could be a delay of 21 years or so between the two. However, that was just a guess, the delay could be longer, or possibly a bit shorter. Nevertheless, if the effects of CO2 emissions can reach the ocean only via the atmosphere as intermediary, we would expect any trends in the atmosphere to be followed by corresponding trends in the ocean, at a distance of: decades. Thus if the oceans are continuing to heat while atmospheric warming has reached some sort of plateau, it would be inaccurate to claim that the heat has somehow been transferred from the latter to the former, thus nullifying the hiatus. It’s far more likely that the ocean has been following the heating trends of the atmosphere at a distance of some decades and will eventually reach the same plateau.
Now I’m not claiming that there is no possibility of an error in my take on all this, but if you want to enlighten me as to the error of my ways, you do need to understand the point I’m making. OK?
I feel Victor the Troll is unwittingly using irony to demonstrate that multiple ridiculousnesses can exist within a single person. That the gobshite he spouts here is not snipped or boreholed is a little difficult to understand. Our pet troll of old, Dan H., used to fight not to be boreholed with moderators eventually insisting he reference any assertions presented here. Victor is worse in that he is bolder and less receptive to the comments of others that Dan H. ever was.
As Victor is insistent @219 that he has an unanswered question, I will endeavour to provide such but not by correcting what he says: that has already been done as much as can be done for the likes of Victor. Rather I will endeavour to describe why his assertion (there is no question) is wrong. That simpler message may be understandable to him and thus may achive meaningfulness for him. But, by the spots on that leopard, Victor the Troll has no place here.
Victor wrote at 211,
“Meanwhile I am still awaiting a (meaningful) response to what I’ve written back on #104.”
At 219, he wrote,
“Still no meaningful response to my question regarding heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean.”
Victor, you no right to complain about lack of response, meaningful or otherwise, since you are guilty of practicing what you preach against: You have not responded – meaningfully or otherwise – to my comments at 120 and 156, in which I exposed the general illogic underling all your argumentation, this general illogic being the falsity that, given a cause and effect relationship established by the laws of physics, effects not manifesting as strongly as we would like is somehow some sort of legitimate argument that this cause and effect relationship established by the laws of physics is false.
Here’s an example of your general illogic: Suppose we had a time period in which the planet’s albedo decreased (fewer clouds or aerosols, let’s say) but the average surface temperature of the planet also decreased. Your illogic is to think that this somehow would be some sort of legitimate argument that the (inverse) cause and effect relationship between albedo and global temperature established by the laws of physics is false. The proper response is not to deny the cause and effect relationship established by the laws of physics, but to go looking for competing cause and effect relationships that can result in real world data not matching up to expectations as strongly as we would like. One such competing relationship would be the relationship between solar output and global temperature, in which we could have the signal from decreased solar output overcoming the signal from decreased albedo enough to give us a net effect of decreased global temperature.
Yes, the cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse gas effect and global temperature has been established by the laws of physics, just as these other cause and effect relationships have been established by the laws of physics.
For the general reader:
The sum total of nontrivial knowledge in mathematics and science is essentially found in the reputable professional literature, which is that literature of the reputable professional monographs, textbooks, and refereed or peer-reviewed journals taken in its ongoing aggregate, this essentially being the only thing humanity has to keep the cranks from taking over the world.
Unfortunately, Victor rejects this literature. And, also unfortunately, this may be why he makes claims that are physically impossible by the mathematics. Victor wrote at 205,
“Now, as I pointed out in an earlier post (#104), there IS some evidence of a trend toward serious oceanic heating beginning roughly 21 years after 1979 (i.e., 2000), which suggests that this could be due to heat transfer from the atmosphere beginning in ca 1979.”
This idea that the heat that has accumulated in the world’s oceans since around 2000 came from simply a transfer of heat from the atmosphere is utterly physically impossible – so says the mathematics. To get an idea of how much heat energy has accumulated in the oceans since 2000: It’s massive – if all this energy went into heating the atmosphere instead of the oceans since 2000 (this would not have been possible, but this is just to illustrate), then the average global surface temperature would have increased roughly 15 degrees C (or more?) in just these last 15 years. If all this massive amount of energy was first all there in the atmosphere in 1979, even if it was “siphoned off” a little at a time by the oceans until 2000, then the global atmospheric temperature during that time would have been hotter on the order of 15 degrees C. (By that Sherwood and Huber paper in 2010, it would have meant typical summertime afternoon heat and humidity measures like heat indexes probably around 200 degrees F where most of humanity now inhabits. And thus it would have meant the end of human civilization and essentially all modern mammalian – including human – life on essentially almost all the planet, since modern mammals cannot survive with typical summertime afternoon heat indexes around 200 degrees F or have viable populations at even just 150 degrees F without suitable microenvironments to retreat into.) But it wasn’t – the actual values were of course off by a very, very, very large margin. The numbers demonstrate that what Victor claims is physically impossible by a very, very, very large margin.
The substance of the “discourse” @104, of “that issue” @104, of those “comments regarding time delays with respect to oceanic heating” @104, of the “point(ing) out (of) … evidence” @104, of the “what I’ve written” @104 is apparently a “question” and apparently a yet-to-be-answered question to boot.
So what is the substance of #104? What is being said?
The confusion presented here is that “the warming process” under discussion is not exclusively heating the atmosphere. The vast majotiy of this heating process is heating the oceans. The “shift”, sudden or otherwise represents but a minor part of a much larger process which makes it very easy to understand.
A link is then given to IPCC AR5 Fig 3.2a
The substance of the presented “suggestion” remains as yet unclear as does why it “would make a lot more sense”.
As presented, the derivation of the length of delay “ca. 21 years is unsound. The assertion that “the current rise in ocean temperatures reflects the earlier rise in atmospheric temperatures” is in error. It is the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere that here force ΔOHC not an increase in atmospheric temperature, prior or otherwise. The OHC thus only “reflects the current effects of airborne CO2 on the environment” when the climate is in equilibrium. The predictions of future ΔOHC are baseless.
The reference cited, a blog from ex-climatologist & blog-mom Judy, yields no support for the assertion that ΔOHC tracks ΔSAT with a lag of ca. 21 years. Rather it argues the OHC data is “less mature,” that “there is substantial disagreement among the various OHC climatologies, and there are no OHC climatologies prior to 1950.” This would suggest that ΔOHC is not known well enough to start plotting correllations between ΔOHC & ΔSAT. If such correllations were present, the presence of any plausable physical basis would likely be very difficult to establish. And no proposals of such a physical basis have be presented so far.
Victor provides further support for his assertions @201 where he cites an SkS post.
The SkS post is not graeatly technical in nature and simply describes a lag between ΔF and ΔSAT, proposing that an average %50 of ΔSAT resulting from ΔF would appear in the 40 years following the ΔF. The SkS post makes no mention of any lag between ΔSAT & ΔOHC. No support for the assertions @104 are provided by the SkS post which contrary-wise argues that a planetary energy imbalance (and the resulting ΔOHC) can occur when SAT remains flat on decadal timescales.
In conclusion, the main error evident @104 & @201 is a confusion between ΔF & ΔSAT.
@Victor:
I believe that you misunderstand the mechanisms of global warming; or it might be me – someone will no doubt correct me if I’m wrong.
The atmosphere is largely transparent to incoming visible light, longer wave UV and shorter-wave IR from the Sun; for that reason the Sun doesn’t directly warm the atmosphere to any appreciable extent. That incoming electromagnetic radiation does however directly warm the surface of the Earth, both land and sea.
The Earth’s surface being warmed by, then re-radiates, the heat. Because the wavelength of emitted EM radiation varies with the temperature of the source, it does so in the form of longer-wave IR than that received from the Sun – the Earth’s surface is significantly cooler than that of the Sun.
CO2 (and some other gases) in the atmosphere are however more opaque to LWIR; they absorb that a chunk of that outgoing radiation and re-radiate it in all directions – so that a fraction less than half is re-radiated downwards; which has the effect of slowing the transfer of heat (by radiation) out of the atmosphere. Increasing greenhouse gases means that more outgoing LWIR is absorbed and re-radiated and hence the atmosphere – and in the end the system represented by the Earth – warms. Heat is passed (largely by conduction) back to the Earth’s land and sea surface from the atmosphere (there is also some re-radiation of LWIR back to the surface from the lower reaches of the atmosphere).
As you will know, heat passes from a hotter to a cooler body; and on the average, the surface layers of the oceans are cooler than the air above them (as anyone who has tried swimming in the North Sea on a sunny day in August will testify). So heat will (on the average) pass from the atmosphere, by conduction, to the oceans.
The rate of conduction of heat between two bodies depends on the temperature differential between them. As the temperature differential of the lower portions of the atmosphere and the surface layers of the ocean varies, so therefore does the rate of conduction of heat from the atmosphere into the oceans vary. As atmospheric temperatures increase, therefore, heat transfer into the oceans increases as the system tends towards a new equilibrium temperature. The oceans however have massive thermal inertia; so it takes a long time for the oceans to warm up towards that new equilibrium temperature – as SKS says, measured in decades.
But the atmosphere’s heat capacity (= thermal inertia) is much less than the oceans. The atmosphere’s temperature can and will respond much faster to changes in the temperature differential with the ocean surface. If as a result of physical processes (such as El Nino) warmer water reaches the surface of the ocean, so less heat is conducted from the atmosphere into the ocean and the atmopsheric temperature will therefore increase – on a much shorter – comparatively instantaneous – timescale.
The effect of La Nina conditions is that cooler water reaches the ocean’s surface – so heat transfer increases, cooling the atmosphere again on a virtually instantaneous timescale (by comparison with the time it takes for the oceans to fully warm in response to the increase in greenhouse gases).
In neither case, however, does the direction of heat flow change; heat is still (net) flowing into the oceans from the atmosphere, only the rate changes.
None of this contradicts the piece on SKS, which is dealing solely with how long it takes for the oceans to warm fully in response to the increase in atmospheric temperature.
V: Certain climate scientists have proposed that increased CO2 emissions are causing the planet to heat up in a drastic and dangerous manner. As with the proponents of any theory, it is up to them to provide evidence to back it up.
BPL: The evidence is overwhelming at this point. You don’t seem to be familiar with it. May I suggest you read Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” (2nd ed.) 2008? Another good popular exposition is George S. Philander’s “Is the Temperature Rising?” (1998). For more basic information, though it has some math, I suggest Dennis Hartmann’s “Global Physical Climatology” (1994).
V: Since, as we know, the Earth has both heated and cooled many times in the past, sometimes by drastic amounts, there is really no need to come up with a theory to explain why the atmosphere seems to have warmed considerably over a 20 year period in the recent past (1979 through 1998). And in the face of the hiatus, suggesting that the warming trend may well have been temporary, there is even less need to offer an explanation.
BPL: The warming trend is not twenty years old, but 165 years old by direct measurements and perhaps 250 years old if you include ice-core data. Twenty years is not enough information to be helpful, since you generally need thirty or more to distinguish a climate trend. By the way, are you familiar with the technical meaning of “trend” in statistics? Could you define it?
V: More to the point: if you want to argue that ocean heating is due to increased CO2 emissions, then you need to explain how warming produced by those emissions found its way into the oceans.
BPL: Light entering a medium has three possible fates, if you assume no phase change or chemical reaction. It can be absorbed, reflected (scattered, in more than one dimension), or transmitted. Since seawater absorption is nonzero at many wavelengths, increased atmospheric back-radiation due to a heightened greenhouse gases would inevitably warm the ocean, just as it warms the land.
Victor doesn’t understand heat transfer between the oceans and atmosphere. He thinks this means no one else understands it either. Let’s see if he can spot the fallacy in this reasoning.
Victor: “Enough said”
Please.
@Victor:
Following on from my #224 (1 Feb @6:29):
..and, of course, the effect of cooler water at the ocean’s surface is less re-radiation of heat into the atmosphere over it, and hence (i) less heating of the atmosphere from that source (ii) more heat retained at that water surface.
OK, good. I’m not sure any of you have really addressed the issue I raised, which is more a matter of simple logic than a technical issue, but I’m grateful for the effort. Give me some time to digest all this and then I’ll try to formulate a coherent response. I appreciate the respectful tone of (most of) these responses, and the serious effort behind all. Thanks.
Victor – sorry for the confusion. I thought you were referring to those times where the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean surface.
I believe Victor is part of an internet school that denies any of the some 340 Wm-2 of long wave radiation absorbed by the first 10 thin things of the ocean can warm the oceans. So by definition, his net radiation number is zero. 340 barely goes in; 340 comes back out; zero stays.
From the Science of Doom link:
Hypothesis A – Because the atmospheric radiation is completely absorbed in the first few microns it will cause evaporation of the surface layer, which takes away the energy from the back radiation as latent heat into the atmosphere. Therefore, more back-radiation will have zero effect on the ocean temperature. …
The actual mechanism by which LW radiation warms the oceans is poorly understood, so Victor gets to take a position that is likely dead wrong. Being dead wrong and being able to logically thwart any attempt to correct his insanity is his life’s work. His spot on the scrapheap of the completely irrelevant is firmly within his grip, and it’s staying there.
From the master’s dissertation of a student of Peter Minnett, author of the RealClimate article on why GHGs warm the oceans:
In summary, the use of the TSVD method has been shown to produce the retrievals of the thermal skin layer temperature profiles using spectral radiance data obtained from the M-AERI. This is very encouraging for the future application of measurements from sea-going spectral radiometers, as instruments not only for the validation of satellite-derived SST but also for studying the physics of the ocean skin temperature layer. Understanding the gradient of the skin SST profile would also allow us to under- stand how greenhouse gases warm the ocean.
So she is saying that Peter MInnett’s theory for why greenhouse gases warm the oceans waits for a way to measure what is actually happening.
Saying it’s inevitable, or that is it is obvious? That does not cut it.
In view of the many derisive responses to the various issues I’ve raised, I’d like to make a few points of clarification. Firstly, I don’t think any of you really get it that these comments are not having the effect you intend. What they tell me is not that I’m stupid, because in fact I’m not. I’ve had much success both as a student and a professional in my field(s). What they speak to, as far as I’m concerned, is your own insecurities — not to mention the immaturity I’ve already mentioned earlier. People who are secure in their understanding and their beliefs don’t need to defend them by denigrating others. When I realize that some of you may be teachers, I cringe, because obviously your students are going to be horrified at the prospect of asking the “wrong” question and being attacked and possibly even flunked out for being so “stupid” as to ask a question that might be perceived as challenging “the science.”
The secret of my success as a student was the fact that I was always willing to ask questions, without worrying about whether the teacher might think they were pointless or dumb. I’d be sitting in a class where the teacher was spouting all sorts of stuff that went over everyone’s head and everyone around me was just sitting there, acting as though they understood when they didn’t. I was never afraid to raise my hand and ask for an explanation and after it was given, I noticed how everyone else was breathing sighs of relief — finally they understood, thanks to me. I never thought of myself as smarter than anyone else, and in fact there were many very smart students in my school. But I usually did better than the others, simply because I was never afraid to ask. (I was also never afraid of bullies either, by the way, which is why you guys don’t intimidate me.)
When I graduated high school I could have written my own ticket to anywhere, including Harvard and Yale, as my grades and test results were among the top in the entire state (New York State). Some years later I was offered a fellowships to study for my Ph.D. at Harvard and the University of Chicago. I chose UCLA, because they had the best program in the field that most interested me. How many people do you know who turned down a Harvard fellowship?
So if you’re wondering why I’m persisting here, in the face of so much derision, condescension and insult, now you know. I very simply want to understand, and the best way I know of is to ask “dumb” questions. Sorry if that offends you.
I must confess that I am disappointed by this posting from RealClimate.
I come to RealClimate to learn. The articles generally are written by people who know and understand a great deal more about climate science, statistical techniques and the scientific method than I do. Many of the comments following the articles, particularly those written by regulars (Ray Ladbury, BLP, Tamino, Hank, and many others) are likewise written by folk who know what they are writing about, and can convey their understanding to others.
Occasionally I make a comment if I think something is being missed, or ask a question of things I don’t understand, but I don’t think I suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and nor am I an idiot that unsceptically accepts anything that anyone writes.
Yet what do I find in this posting? RealClimate has allowed almost the whole of the comment thread to be hijacked by a venal idiot who revels in the posting of a constant stream of ridiculous statements and questions to which many individuals then feel obliged to respond. The result is that very little of any real worth has emerged from the comments following Gavin’s post. I appreciate that censorship is a difficult terrain, but unless RealClimate is content to descend to the level of the Daily Mail or Telegraph (I’m from the UK) then that is what should have been applied to this poster many days ago.
I understand you have a Borehole. Please, use it.
Victor,
You just don’t get it. There is no delay in anything. Heat transference is happening all of the time, continuously. You haven’t understood the SkS pieces if you think there is some magical pause between CO2 appearing in the atmosphere and heat being trapped. At the same time, heat is being transferred between the atmosphere and the oceans. It’s a continual process. The so called delays are to do with how heat transfers around various heat sinks. There really isn’t anything magical about all of this but you appear to think that there is. If the oceans are warming, then that heat has to come from somewhere, whether you understand the process or not.
I’ll respond first to #120 KeefeAndAmanda:
“Denote this following stronger condition as C_s: When real world cause and effect relationships are expressed in real world mathematical data in terms of functions on the real numbers, these real world cause and effect relationships must always be expressed in real world mathematical data as one-to-one functions such that the rates of change in the input data must always correlate perfectly with the rates of change in the output data.”
This is supposed to represent my position, but that’s not the case. Nor does the “weaker” argument you offered, designated C_w. My position can be stated very simply: correlation does not in itself imply causation; causation requires correlation.
Thus if you want to argue that A is the cause of B it’s not enough to simply demonstrate a correlation between the two. But it IS essential, as a first step at least, to demonstrate that a correlation DOES exist. You’ve managed to turn that around, as though I were the one offering the hypothesis. I’ll say, with Newton: Hypotheses non fingo. I frame no hypothesis.
I’m simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced. If that is what YOU believe then you are the one who must first of all go beyond a simple one to one correlation and, secondly, at the very least, demonstrate that a correlation even exists.
Could a correlation exist that does not present itself perfectly on a one to one basis from one moment to the next? I suppose so. I’m not arguing otherwise. But if you want to argue that a correlation exists you have to do better than attack anyone who fails to see the correlation you claim to see. If there are problems with the correlation it is up to YOU to explain how they don’t really matter. It is not up to a skeptic to prove the correlation you see couldn’t possibly be real. If it’s your hypothesis, it’s up to you to defend it.
Victor (shorter): “I’m stupidity sent to college.”
@238 Idiotic, ignorant, and wrong-headed statements about a scientific field with a large and well established knowledge base are empirical facts. Any expert can identify them. Claimed “credentials” about clearly undemonstrated high intelligence/knowledge mean precisely zero in the face of these facts.
Almost certain who Victor is. Troll does not cover it. Borehole is too good for him.
V., everyone comes in here asking dumb questions. My first question was how come I was seeing ‘around 3 degrees’ for climate sensitivity when the physics says to expect about one degree of warming from doubling CO2.
Took me most of a week to get a simple straight answer to that, and it came from a Harvard string theorist, quite sober and clear. Very politically conservative guy, too, well beyond where most people draw the fringe line.
Oh, forcings _and_ feedbacks.
Thing is, I went and did the reading and never reepeated that question.
Oh, and I applied the excellent advice from another past-that-line guy, a fierce gun nut climate denier (who, I admit, I think, should take his own advice on this subject, but that’s another story).
That advice? How to Ask Questions The Smart Way
It’s about software questions, but works quite well for climate and any other science.
Shorter: prove you learned something from the last question, and show sources — by asking an interesting followon question (not one that’s explained in what you just said you read). Then someone will help you with the next question.
Worked for me. Might work for you.
We’re all amateurs outside our very narrow personal expertise.
Victor (243): I’m simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.
BPL: r(CO2, dT) = 0.87 from 1860 to 2013, if that helps.
1. Increasing the atmosphere’s GHG concentration increases the amount of backradiation reaching the ocean’s surface.
2. All else being equal, (1) will cause ocean surface temperatures to rise.
3. But if something causes heat to be transferred from the ocean surface into its deeps more rapidly than usual, ocean surface temperatures could rise more slowly, not rise at all, or even fall despite the increased backradiation.
4. Even if ocean surface temperatures fall as in (3), heat continues to accumulate in the earth system until the amount of outgoing radiation at the top of atmosphere equals the amount of incoming radiation there.
5. Heat accumulation as in (4) can take decades, because the heat capacity of the oceans is far larger than that of the atmosphere.
6. (5) is what is meant by “warming in the pipeline”.
7. That is, each molecule of GHG emitted immediately increases the amount of backradiation at the surface, but because of the surface’s heat capacity, the surface’s temperature takes a long time to reach equilibrium with the increase in backradiation.
P.S. To this:I understand how the CAPTCHA is supposed to work. The problem is that most of the images that it gives me are nearly impossible to decipher.
OK, first of all I recognize that many things I’ve written here have rubbed many of you the wrong way. I haven’t descended to personal attacks, but I’ve written things that many here find offensive, and for good reason. So I’m not surprised when people react negatively to my presence. My questions and criticisms make you uneasy and the criticisms are not sugar coated. Sorry about that but that’s just the way I am. I certainly don’t expect anyone to suddenly change his mind and agree with me or welcome me. That’s not why I’m here. As I said, I’m here to understand. And debating with you guys sharpens my understanding because it forces me to think more precisely. And by the way, I am NOT here to learn Climate Science, so do yourselves a favor and stop expecting me to.
Now if you would prefer that I stop posting, the remedy is very simple. Just stop responding to my comments. When I stop getting responses I will stop posting. Simple as that. I think many of you would have stopped, but I seem to always say something that gets under your skin and you feel compelled to respond despite yourselves. Interesting.
Also, if you would like to respond for whatever reason but don’t want to clutter up this comment section with “Victor” related stuff, then feel free to comment on my blog. I won’t post the URL here because that seems to bother some, but if you do search on “Mole in the Ground” and “blog” you’ll find it.
For now my intention is to respond to as many of the explanations you have offered as I have time for. Your explanations interest me and I’m learning from this process. Once I’m done responding, then, if there are no more responses back, I’ll be happy to leave. Thanks for your time.