As La Nina Looms, Warmists Skid Into Panic Mode…Global Warming Pause Set To Surpass Two Decades!

At this point last year global warming alarmists and global socialism politicians were as giddy and as optimistic as ever. Everything was falling into place as it looked as if nothing would prevent them from imposing their green regime. The Pope was on their side, global temperatures had been near record highs (thanks to an El Nino event) , and Hillary Clinton would surely go on to become President of the USA.

Warmist agenda now getting torpedoed

With Clinton at the helm, the US would wholeheartedly commit to Paris and to strict decarbonization. Never did the green dream look so promising. But then came the mother of torpedoes, President Donald Trump.

And now there’s yet another torpedo about to slam into the already badly damaged warmunista ship: a rapidly approaching La Nina. In the wake of last year’s El Nino event, global temperatures had already been falling. A La Nina will only cause the globe to cool further. This is surprising because just months ago experts had predicted El Nino conditions to return.

La Nina powers in

The global warming alarmists are in sheer desperation and panic, as made evident by their hysterically shrill reactions to the recent hurricanes. The latest forecast shows a return to La Nina conditions (and a global cool-down).

Source: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/shtml

The above chart shows La Nina conditions expected to persist into spring, 2018. This cooling will make itsself evident in satellite data with a lag of about 6 months. This means global temperature will fall even further next year, which means the warming pause will go beyond 20 years.

Note the intensifying La Nina conditions forecast for the end of the here in the following NCEP chart for the rest of the year:

 

This oncoming La Nina development led meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue to comment on Twitter:

Not only La Nina is serving to cool global surface temperatures, but so are the powerful hurricanes as well. Yesterday at the Weatherbell Daily Update, Joe Bastardi showed the effects of hurricanes Irma and Jose on sea surface temperature (SST).

Note the band of cool water through the Caribbean and a substantially cooled down Gulf of Mexico. Just a week ago reports abounded on how the waters there surface had been “bathwater warm”. So quickly can weather change. True, there remains considerable amounts of heat at the ocean surfaces.

Frigid winter projected for Europe

The recent winter projection for Europe issued by Meteociel below shows Europe possiby being gripped by a frigid winter. If the prognosis holds, it could be one of the coldest in years:

Meteociel/CFS prognosis from 30 August 2017,  850 hPa temperature deviation from the mean (about 1500m) in Europe for the 2017/18 winter. For Europe very icy conditions are expected (from left to right: December, January, February). Source: www.meteociel.fr/php

Arctic sea ice rebound

Also the Arctic has shown recovery over the past years. This year’s Arctic sea ice for mid September is about a full 1 million sq. km. over the record low set 5 years ago.

Overall Arctic sea ice has remained stable for the past 10 years, surprising global warming scientists. Source: National Snow and Ice Data center (NSIDC).

 

96 responses to “As La Nina Looms, Warmists Skid Into Panic Mode…Global Warming Pause Set To Surpass Two Decades!”

  1. Stuart Lynne

    This can’t be “Climate Science” as you are making actual predictions that can be falsified over a short time horizon. We’ll need a new description of this new way of studying climate.

    1. yonason

      Yes. It is a shocking departure from warmist “reality.” Maybe at least some of them, in utter desperation, will fall back on the almost forgotten old fashioned methods of, …gasp, …actual science! Ya never know. Stranger things have happened.

  2. La Nina incombe... Warmist nel panico - La pausa del riscaldamento globale adesso può superare i due decenni! : Attività Solare ( Solar Activity )

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  3. Kevin Benn

    Stuart Lynne
    I agree with you – the gloating tone of this article is more of a well-deserved finger cocked at the exponents of their own brand of “Climate Science”: take a theory; interpret, bend, fake or ignore every observation or data series that doesn’t support it.
    Now we need to gather everyone around a table covered with “Traditional Science”: alternative theories supported by historical records; well-documented observations and other empirical evidence (which this article also presents). We need to stop taking sides, ditch prestige and power issues, and listen critically but interestedly to those scientists who are patiently trying to map the limits of natural climate variability and identify the various factors which affect alterations in the climate.

  4. Kevin Benn

    Stuart Lynne
    I agree with you – the gloating tone of this article is more of a well-deserved finger cocked at the exponents of their own brand of “Climate Science”: take a theory; interpret, bend, fake or ignore every observation or data series that doesn’t support it.
    Now we need to gather everyone around a table covered with “Traditional Science”: alternative theories supported by historical records; well-documented observations and other empirical evidence (which this article also presents). We need to stop taking sides, ditch prestige and power issues, and listen critically but interestedly to those scientists who are patiently trying to map the limits of natural climate variability and identify the various factors which affect alterations in the climate.

  5. Dirk

    Pierre, that climate bet still running? Wasn’t it started here 2008(?)

  6. As La Nina Looms, Warmists Skid Into Panic Mode…Global Warming Pause Set To Surpass Two Decades! | Newsfeed - Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/15/as-la-nina-looms-warmists-skid-into-panic-mode-global-warming-pau… […]

  7. Steve Knowles

    I had a sudden epiphany regarding the whole man-made global warming/sea level rise issue the other day. Before that, I did believe that if there was man-made global warming, it would result in warming of the seas and an increase in the rate of sea level rise, but then, boom, I thought, “wait a minute, the oceans are warmed by solar energy,and the oceans WARM THE ATMOSPHERE, not the other way around! The fact that the rate of global sea level rise has not significantly increased during the past 50 years virtually destroys the man-made global warming theory, and now that I contemplate the sun’s role in warming the oceans, it seems the man-made global warming theory even has less weight than the featherweight it had! Someone please correct me if I’m wrong in stating that ocean’s warm the atmosphere rather than the atmosphere warming the ocean, and the amount of warming of the ocean that could be caused by warmer air over it is miniscule compared to solar warming.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Someone please correct me if I’m wrong in stating that ocean’s warm the atmosphere rather than the atmosphere warming the ocean

      Correct. The heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere would preclude the warming of the oceans by the atmosphere. Solar radiation can directly heat the first 10s of meters of the ocean. The “heat” absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases cannot penetrate past the oceans’ micrometer layer, which is 0.1 to 1 mm “thick”. Therefore, any factor affecting how much direct SW radiation is absorbed by the oceans, such as cloud cover changes or volcanic aerosols (albedo) is far more determinative in the heating or cooling of the oceans (and atmosphere) than parts per million (0.000001) variations in atmospheric trace gases. CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely today than they were in 1900 (300 ppm vs. 400 ppm). That would not appear to be enough to compete with direct solar radiation and its variables in determining changes in ocean heat content.

      Minnett et al., 2011
      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223950477_Measurements_of_the_oceanic_thermal_skin_effect
      There is a strong diurnal [sunshine] component to the magnitude of these temperature gradients, as well as a dependence on cloudcover, which modulates the insolation, and wind speed, which influences the turbulent mixing. The surface skin layer of the ocean, much less than 1 mm thick, is nearly always cooler than the underlying water because the heat flux is nearly always from the ocean to the atmosphere

      Murray et al., 2000
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL011133/pdf
      Skin SST is typically 0.1 -0.5 K cooler than the immediate sub-surface water, although considerable variation in the skin-bulk difference has been observed (e.g. Donlon et al., 1999). This temperature difference is due to the vertical heat flux through the thermal boundary layer in the top millimeter of the ocean; net surface heat flux is almost always from ocean to atmosphere, resulting in a cool ocean skin.”

      Ellsaesser, 1984
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698184901185
      The current eager acceptance of oceanic thermal lag as the “explanation” as to why CO2 warming remains undetected, reemphasizes that the atmosphere cannot warm until the oceans do. The logical implication follows that most current climate models are lacking in relevance; they have not been constructed with ocean surface temperature as the fundamental variable. When the problem is attacked from this view, sensitivity to CO2 is significantly reduced; a position also strongly supported by the available palaeoclimatic data.

      Jones and Ricketts, 2017
      http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/esd-8-177-2017.pdf
      [S]ince the mid-20th century, most observed warming has taken place in four events: in 1979/80 and 1997/98 at the global scale, 1988/89 in the Northern Hemisphere and 1968–70 in the Southern Hemisphere. Temperature is more step-like than trend-like on a regional basis. Satellite temperature is more step-like than surface temperature. … [I]n situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.

      1. SebastianH

        CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely today than they were in 1900 (300 ppm vs. 400 ppm). That would not appear to be enough to compete with direct solar radiation and its variables in determining changes in ocean heat content.

        There it is again, trying to make a 33% increase look small.

        Are you 100% sure that cosmic rays are causing the cloud cover change and that it could not be a feedback mechanism?

        The “heat” absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases cannot penetrate past the oceans’ micrometer layer, which is 0.1 to 1 mm “thick”

        This is just unbelievable. How many times do you need to be told that this is not how the greenhouse effect and radiative heat transfer works? You really have to learn how the mechanisms function or you continue to make yourself look like a know-nothing word-we-aren’t-allowed-to-say.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely today than they were in 1900 (300 ppm vs. 400 ppm). That would not appear to be enough to compete with direct solar radiation and its variables in determining changes in ocean heat content.

          There it is again, trying to make a 33% increase look small.

          The “33% increase” is in the CO2 concentration by itself. The atmospheric greenhouse effect does not operate with CO2 working by itself. Instead, it operates in its atmospheric context. And it’s in its atmospheric context that the CO2 concentration has increased by 1 part per 10,000 atmospheric parts since 1900, or 1/10,000ths of a percentage point (0.01%), not 33%. Why do you insist on using the by itself percentage (33% or 45%) when CO2 doesn’t operate by itself, but in its atmospheric context? Do you just want to make the CO2 increase look much more substantial than it actually is?

          This is just unbelievable. How many times do you need to be told that this is not how the greenhouse effect and radiative heat transfer works?

          Why do you have such a problem with anyone making the exact same point as Rob Painting does for Skeptical Science in describing How Increasing CO2 Heats The Ocean?
          —————
          KR: The “heat” absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases cannot penetrate past the oceans’ micrometer layer, which is 0.1 to 1 mm “thick”

          Skeptical Science: “Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer.”
          —————-
          Do you think that Rob Painting should not have mentioned that the “heat [from GHGs] cannot penentrate into the ocean itself”? Or is it only unacceptable when “know nothing” people like me repeat this rather crucial point?

          1. SebastianH

            Why do you insist on using the by itself percentage (33% or 45%) when CO2 doesn’t operate by itself, but in its atmospheric context?

            As you pointed out countless times, it is operation by itself. What you could have written is that the change of the effect of this increase is not linear but logarithmic. Nevertheless, it is a significant change and leads to warming on top of what’s naturally occurring. (see 2C goal, etc)

            Or is it only unacceptable when “know nothing” people like me repeat this rather crucial point?

            You are misunderstanding the point, Kenneth. It is not a transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean as you seem to imagine (by repeating that quoted phrase over and over).

          2. Kenneth Richard

            What you could have written is that the change of the effect of this increase is not linear but logarithmic.

            I think I’ll stick with what I actually wrote. Why does it bother you so much to read this? Why do you insist on trying to make a 1/10,000ths of a percentage point difference into a 33% difference when you know that the former is actually representative of the atmospheric change?

            CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely today than they were in 1900 (300 ppm vs. 400 ppm). That would not appear to be enough to compete with direct solar radiation and its variables in determining changes in ocean heat content.

            You are misunderstanding the point, Kenneth. It is not a transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean as you seem to imagine (by repeating that quoted phrase over and over).

            Do you ever stop concocting straw man arguments? At no time did I write that I “imagine” the posited greenhouse effect is a transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean. Instead, I wrote exactly what the SkepticalScience website says: that the “heat” from GHGs cannot penetrate past the 0.1 to 1 mm “thick” micrometer layer.

            Instead of imagining what you think I might be imagining so as to exploit an opportunity to call me a “know nothing”, why not use the words I actually write? Is fabricating straw man arguments the only way you can “win” debates, SebastianH?

          3. SebastianH

            Why do you insist on trying to make a 1/10,000ths of a percentage point difference into a 33% difference when you know that the former is actually representative of the atmospheric change?

            Because the effect of that change is not equally small as that percentage point difference. That is what you are trying to convey, isn’t it?

            If the CO2 concentration including feedback was responsible for X % of the greenhouse effect and that variable changes by 33 or 45 %, then (assuming X = 20%) you get a change by 6.6% or 9% of the greenhouse effect. If X has a different value, the percentages change accordingly. Good thing the effect is only logarithmic …

          4. Kenneth Richard

            Why do you insist on trying to make a 1/10,000ths of a percentage point difference into a 33% difference when you know that the former is actually representative of the atmospheric change?

            Because the effect of that change is not equally small as that percentage point difference.

            So the reason you choose to use the out-of-context by itself percentage (33%) is because that makes the effect appear to be bigger…even though you recognize that the 1/10,000ths of a percentage point change is an accurate depiction of the atmospheric contextual change. I understand. It’s the same reason why your side decides to write headlines such as The Greenland Ice Sheet Has Lost 9 Trillion Tonnes Of Ice, while failing to mention what that amount of ice loss actually means: Just 0.39 of a centimeter has been added to sea levels since 1993 due to Greenland’s “lost” ice. In other words, you and those on your side prefer to report disingenuous, deceptively large numbers so as to scare the uninitiated. Got it.

          5. SebastianH

            So that’s it? You are scared of a 33% change from 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

            Let’s try an analogy again.

            You have 10000 people to feed. 3 of them are farmers and produce the food for all of them. Now one of the other people changes profession and also becomes a farmer (4 farmers in total). How much more food is now available for everyone? 1/10000th or 1/3?

          6. Kenneth Richard

            So that’s it? You are scared of a 33% change from 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

            No, that’s not what I wrote. What I actually did write was this:

            So the reason you choose to use the out-of-context by itself percentage (33%) is because that makes the effect appear to be bigger…even though you recognize that the 1/10,000ths of a percentage point change is an accurate depiction of the atmospheric contextual change. I understand. It’s the same reason why your side decides to write headlines such as The Greenland Ice Sheet Has Lost 9 Trillion Tonnes Of Ice, while failing to mention what that amount of ice loss actually means: Just 0.39 of a centimeter has been added to sea levels since 1993 due to Greenland’s “lost” ice. In other words, you and those on your side prefer to report disingenuous, deceptively large numbers so as to scare the uninitiated.

            Please do a better job of concocting straw man arguments, SebastianH.

          7. SebastianH

            That was sarcasm … would you be so kind and answer my question regarding the farmers and the food they produce?

          8. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH, once again, your analogies have preposterously nothing to do with anything related to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. That’s why I just ignore them. Stick with the actual topic at hand rather than veering off into the gratuitous.

          9. yonason

            @SebastianH 17. September 2017 at 11:57 PM

            Chatbot beclowns itself again.

            Just because you have another farmer, doesn’t mean you have an increase in produce equivalent to any of the others. It’s a stupid analogy, and Kenneth is justified in trying to ignore it.

          10. SebastianH

            SebastianH, once again, your analogies have preposterously nothing to do with anything related to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

            Since you don’t understand it with CO2, analogies are the only way to make you see the problem with your reasoning. The rest of the atmosphere doesn’t matter when you are determining the change of the effect from an increase in CO2. Doubling the amount doubles the effect (well not really since it’s logarithmic in this case). Doubling the amount doesn’t result in a “whatever the ppm value is” increase of the effect.

            @yonason: the analogy is sound, but you are right, the fourth farmer would increase the food production only logarithmically if it were a “CO2 farmer”. But I didn’t want to make it too complicated for you guys to understand that the effect still doesn’t increase by 1/10000th, but by what the additional CO2 causes. Therefore an increase by 33% is just that … not a 1/10000th increase.

          11. Kenneth Richard

            Therefore an increase by 33% is just that … not a 1/10000th increase.

            No. The atmospheric CO2 concentration changed from 3 parts in 10,000 in 1900 to 4 parts in 10,000 today. That’s a change of 1 part in 10,000 for CO2 within its atmospheric context, which is where it is operating to absorb IR. It doesn’t operate by itself (33% change), or outside of its atmospheric context. Therefore, the atmospheric contextual change is an accurate depiction of the change in the atmosphere’s gaseous constituents.

            Adding a farmer is gratuitous; a farmer doesn’t have anything to do with the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.

          12. SebastianH

            The atmospheric CO2 concentration changed from 3 parts in 10,000 in 1900 to 4 parts in 10,000 today. That’s a change of 1 part in 10,000 for CO2

            That is an increase by 33%.

            Adding a farmer is gratuitous; a farmer doesn’t have anything to do with the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.

            Oh boy!

            Maybe a potato analogy then? You have 10000 people sharing the harvest of 3 trucks of potatoes among each other. In the next year, they harvest 4 trucks of potatoes (so 1 more truck per 10000 people). How many more potatoes does each person have in that year? Could it be 33% more?

            Math, physics, understanding the mechanisms … that’s what you should learn about. Not posting cherry-picked quotes from dubious papers …

          13. Kenneth Richard

            Maybe a potato analogy then?

            I’m done feeding you, SebastianH.

          14. yonason

            SebH writes – “@yonason: the analogy is sound, but you are right, the fourth farmer would increase the food production only logarithmically if it were a “CO2 farmer”.”

            No way to make your analogy work. Here’s a hint as to why…

            Increasing the number of farmers cannot increase the harvest without increasing the number of seeds available to them all. Think of photons as the seeds.

      2. ScottM

        1/10000 closer? That would mean, if there were 10000 molecules per linear unit before, there would now be 10001. And per volume unit, the linear ratio 10001:10000 would become 1.0003e+12:1.0000e+12. That’s only .03% more dense, so it implies an increase from 300 ppm to 300.09 ppm, when we know it’s around 400 ppm. Something doesn’t add up.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          In 1900, for every 10,000 atmospheric parts, 3 parts were CO2. Today, it’s 4 parts CO2 for every 10,000 atmospheric parts. So, in the last 115 years, the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has increased by 1 part in 10,000. And this has apparently caused a denser “blanket” to form, allowing that extra 1 part in 10,000 atmospheric parts to cause dangerous ocean warming.

    2. tom0mason

      “I thought, “wait a minute, the oceans are warmed by solar energy,and the oceans WARM THE ATMOSPHERE, not the other way around! The fact that the rate of global sea level rise has not significantly increased during the past 50 years virtually destroys the man-made global warming theory, and now that I contemplate the sun’s role in warming the oceans, it seems the man-made global warming theory even has less weight than the featherweight it had!”

      Exactly!
      Just consider how much colder the SST of the oceans would be if they got their warmth exclusively from the atmosphere. The figures just do not match reality, the mythical AGW can’t even effectively warm the air, no chance of warming the oceans.

      I note that the declaration La Niña is very slow in coming, unlike the swift alarmist chanting from the AGW adherents of any anomalous weather effects from an El Niño. It is almost as if NOAA, UK Met Office, Australia’s BOM, etc., don’t know what to expect from a cooling La Niña event.

      At about 10:30 in the video https://youtu.be/LOGt3OzTXBs , Professor Judith Curry says it all (and while she was still at Georgia Institute of Technology) —

      …so we are getting this growing divergence between the observations and the climate model simulation…

      …[and] that is where I break with my colleges, I just think there is a lot more uncertainty. We are now in the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and I think that is the major thing that is causing the pause. And my understanding of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is that we could stay in the cool phase for another two decades.
      So where does that leave us in terms of thinking that this sesitivity that we’ve deduced, largely based on this warming in the last quarter of the 20th century, during that period we were in the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

      1. SebastianH

        The figures just do not match reality, the mythical AGW can’t even effectively warm the air, no chance of warming the oceans.

        So you still don’t understand what the GHE is and how insulation works?

        1. Bartemis

          CO2 is partly insulative – it absorbs IR emissions from the surface. But, it is also dissipative – it is thermalized by other atmospheric constituents and radiates their heat to space.

          In a purely radiative environment, such as encountered on satellites in Earth orbit, they use radiative impedance of MLI blankets to keep various parts of the vehicle not exposed to direct sunlight warm. So, the theory does work, and is applied every day.

          However, the big difference between this application and the Earth is that here, there is convective heat exchange with the radiating elements. So, there is both a heating tendency and a cooling one. Which activity wins out depends upon the state of the atmosphere.

          It appears plain, by other indications that I will not go into here, that the processes currently are near balance, and the net incremental surface heating due to incremental increase in CO2 concentration is negligible.

          1. ScottM

            In order for there to be an increase in convective energy transfer to offset an increase in radiative transfer, the bottom of the atmosphere must first get warmer. Thus, it’s not really a competition of one process winning out over the other; it’s an increase in both processes leading to a new, higher equilibrium temperature.

          2. Bartemis

            “In order for there to be an increase in convective energy transfer to offset an increase in radiative transfer, the bottom of the atmosphere must first get warmer.”

            It doesn’t stop there. The bottom gets warmer, causing the convection upward, which causes more thermalization, so the top cools, which lowers the ERL, lowering surface temperature back down, perhaps below where it started, and there you are.

            There is a massively complex and interconnected chain of action and reaction that has to be chased down in all its repercussions before one can claim to have a full description, and very little data to confirm anyone’s speculation. The important point is that there are both heating and cooling potentials, and anyone’s top level, blithely offered surmise is a venture into the realm of imagination, not objective reality.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            CO2 heating/cooling of the oceans in a nutshell:

            Bartemis: “…very little data to confirm anyone’s speculation. The important point is that there are both heating and cooling potentials, and anyone’s top level, blithely offered surmise is a venture into the realm of imagination, not objective reality.”

          4. Bartemis

            “…it’s an increase in both processes leading to a new, higher equilibrium temperature.”

            On this, it is impossible for a dissipative process to increase energy retention, so there definitely is NOT a warming competition between the two processes.

          5. Bartemis

            The above is in addition to another response in the moderation queue.

          6. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            CO2 heating/cooling of the oceans in a nutshell

            so you do trust random internet people if they say what you want to hear … interesting 😉

          7. Kenneth Richard

            I agree that there is “very little data to support anyone’s speculation” regarding how GHGs heat the ocean…especially because of the dearth of observational evidence available.

            You believe that the science is settled without having any real-world scientific evidence from a controlled experiment to support your claims that 0.000001 variations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are what have caused nearly all of the heat changes in the global oceans since the 19th century.

          8. yonason

            LOL!

            Speaking of “…random internet people…,” SebH is always good for a laugh.

            Never a decent reference, or clear explanation that shows more than an ability to regurgitate warmist propaganda.

            What I “want to hear” is the truth, and what tells me someone might be telling me the truth, is when they make sense, which SebH and his ilk virtually never do.

          9. SebastianH

            I agree that there is “very little data to support anyone’s speculation” regarding how GHGs heat the ocean…especially because of the dearth of observational evidence available.

            And that’s really fascinating to me. While we can observe that an increase in downwelling LW radiation causes an increase of heat content if there is no equally big increase in emissions. And while we know that in order for emissions to increase, the surface temperatures would have to increase (more radiation and more evaporation, etc). And while we know that CO2 is a source of downwelling LW radiation … you still believe that there is a “dearth of observational evidence”.

            What magical effect could possibly cause something completely unexpected in this scenario?

            Touching that topic: what are the chances that some unknown forcing has an influence on the temperature increase? http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00645.1

            Oh, and since when is this about the heat content change in the 19th century, Kenneth? Let’s stick to what has actually been measured in times where the CO2 concentration increased significantly. And if you observe an increase in something that is the same size as the change of one variable, you can attribute that increase to that change. Is that so hard to understand? Same as with CO2 emissions. The increase is bigger than our emissions, so without our emissions, it wouldn’t increase. Too simple?

            yonason,

            What I “want to hear” is the truth, and what tells me someone might be telling me the truth, is when they make sense, which SebH and his ilk virtually never do.

            And it makes sense to you that someone would attribute parts of the radiative emissions from the surface to the greenhouse effect that certain gases have? If that is the truth you are seeking, then stay in wonderland. It does make zero sense and I don’t need to cite a reference to tell you that 😉

          10. tom0mason

            @yonason 17. September 2017 at 10:18 PM

            Spot on yonason.
            Soon (in the next decade or so) these graspers at straws, these setters of strawmen arguments, these know nothing but assertion will do, these AGW hysterical lives will implode as reality (and not their virtualized world) impresses hardships on to their distracted existence.

            Maybe then they will wake-up and smell the coffee but I doubt it.

          11. Bartemis

            SebastianH 17 –

            “The increase is bigger than our emissions, so without our emissions, it wouldn’t increase. Too simple?”

            Very. Simplistic, actually. Really stupid, honestly. Betrays a complete lack of understanding of dynamic systems.

          12. yonason

            SebH writes:

            [yonason writes] – “What I “want to hear” is the truth, and what tells me someone might be telling me the truth, is when they make sense, which SebH and his ilk virtually never do.”

            [SebH responds] – “And it makes sense to you that someone would attribute parts of the radiative emissions from the surface to the greenhouse effect that certain gases have?”

            NO. NO. NO. Yet again making up a strawman, and trying to shoehorn it into what I wrote. My comment was general, but his strawman is specific and not at all what I meant, nor could it even be remotely construed as such by any normal person. (And I wrote as much in a couple of other previous responses, yet he persists in the flasehood.)

            I have stuff to do that will keep me from posting for a while, but I’m sure SebH will continue making things up, and misconstruing what others mean, all to suit his agenda. It’s what he does. And the more his arguments are exposed to be wrong, the more ridiculous and irrational his responses become.

          13. yonason

            @tom0mason 18. September 2017 at 1:06 PM

            One hopes they wake up, and don’t just find some other worthless “cause” to support, and other people to annoy. How refreshing would THAT be?!

          14. SebastianH

            Bartemis

            Very. Simplistic, actually. Really stupid, honestly. Betrays a complete lack of understanding of dynamic systems.

            Go on, enlighten us with your wisdom! Why would the CO2 concentration still increase without human emissions?

            yonason,

            NO. NO. NO. Yet again making up a strawman, and trying to shoehorn it into what I wrote.

            Yes, I am sorry I confused you with sunsettommy. You just misinterpreted the Trenberth diagram, it was him who attributed parts of surface radiation to the GHGs or rather linked to someone doing that.

            I have stuff to do that will keep me from posting for a while,

            The comment section will be pretty lonely the next few weeks then. I’ll be gone too, enjoying the late summer and rising sea levels in an AGW world 😉

            One hopes they wake up

            Imagine what would happen if you guys finally woke up 😉

          15. Kenneth Richard

            The comment section will be pretty lonely the next few weeks then. I’ll be gone too, enjoying the late summer and rising sea levels in an AGW world

            Considering half the world’s measurements show sea levels are stable or falling, will you really be heading to one of the regions of the world where sea levels are actually rising?

          16. SebastianH

            will you really be heading to one of the regions of the world where sea levels are actually rising?

            Yes.

            https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/sea-level-changes-in-europe-october-1992-may-1

          17. Kenneth Richard

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Sea-Level-Falling-Rising-Europe-PSMSL-1900-to-2015.jpg

            Well that’s good. Wouldn’t want you to not enjoy yourself by heading to one of the many places in the European seas where sea levels are stable or falling because of AGW. That’s no fun.

    3. SebastianH

      Someone please correct me if I’m wrong in stating that ocean’s warm the atmosphere rather than the atmosphere warming the ocean, and the amount of warming of the ocean that could be caused by warmer air over it is miniscule compared to solar warming.

      You are absolutely correct in the first part (oceans/surface generally warming the atmosphere, not the other way around). The second part (highlighted) seems to be a misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. That’s not how the warming effect works.

      Maybe you can get another epiphany when you try to understand how insulation works and how it is similar to what the atmosphere does. Don’t let yourself be distracted by internal atmospheric energy transfer mechanisms, just look at the atmosphere as one layer of insulation. Some skeptics don’t like the comparison to a blanket, but it is the simplest one to get to an understanding of what the radiative greenhouse effect does.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Some skeptics don’t like the comparison to a blanket, but it is the simplest one to get to an understanding of what the radiative greenhouse effect does.

        The “CO2 blanket” is made up CO2 molecules that are today spaced apart by a density of 4 CO2 parts for every 10,000 parts of the atmosphere. In 1900, there were 3 parts out of every 10,000 atmospheric parts that were CO2 molecules. So, since 1900, the CO2 molecules making up the “CO2 blanket” have banded closer together by a factor of 1/10,000ths. And it is this 1/10,000ths change in the atmospheric “CO2 blanket” that is believed to have caused the oceans to heat up dangerously.

        1. SebastianH

          Just to be clear, the “blanket” is the whole atmosphere. It is causing the surface to be warmer than it would be without it (insulation effect otherwise also known as the greenhouse effect).

          An increase by 1 degree Celsius is just an increase by 0.35% temperature wise. CO2 concentration change and its feedbacks (all expressed as forcings) are capable of causing that small a change. I don’t know why you try to belittle the change as insignificant (for us, the planet itself doesn’t care, obviously). It is rather large and not natural (completely human caused).

          And it is this 1/10,000ths change in the atmospheric “CO2 blanket” that is believed to have caused the oceans to heat up dangerously.

          Huh, since when did the oceans heat up dangerously? This is a question of dealing with the consequences of melting land ice and thermal expansion. Are we ok with just dealing with it or would it be better to steer the economies of this planet into a more sustainable future?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Huh, since when did the oceans heat up dangerously?

            That’s the word your side routinely uses. You don’t agree that warming oceans are dangerous?

            http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/28251/20160907/ocean-warming-now-dangerous-level-wreaking-havoc-marine-life-human-health.htm
            Ocean Warming Now at Dangerous Level; Wreaking Havoc in Marine Life, Human Health

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/nov/29/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
            Warmer oceans storing climate change dangers

            https://www.livescience.com/40206-as-ocean-warms-impacts-multiply.html
            Even with its vast capacity to absorb heat and carbon dioxide, the physical impacts of climate change on the ocean are now clear — and dramatic.

      2. tom0mason

        @SebastianH 16. September 2017 at 6:39 PM

        “Just to be clear, the “blanket” is the whole atmosphere. It is causing the surface to be warmer than it would be without it (insulation effect otherwise also known as the greenhouse effect).”

        “Just to be clear, the “blanket” has dynamically moving places that gets very damp and gets very thin here and there, oh and over there…

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        As an analogy for the atmosphere the “blanket” nought but a security device gripped by the weather-worried and scientifically illiterate to cover over the massive holes in their knowledge.

        1. SebastianH

          So you are against simplification of issues so everyone can understand a mechanism? Do you think it would work to explain everything in full detail to everyone?

          1. Bartemis

            “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Albert Einstein

          2. tom0mason

            seb

            “So you are against simplification of issues so everyone can understand a mechanism?”

            No I am not against simplification, I am against you spouting anti-scientific nonsense about blankets and atmosphere.
            The correct simplification is that NOTHING unusual is happening with this planet’s climate, nature is still in control. That is unless YOU have proof that CO2 warms this planet’s atmosphere like a blanket.

            “Do you think it would work to explain everything in full detail to everyone?”

            If it is about the blanket nonsense then don’t bother.
            If you can fully explain the climate, and all the many natural interactions that make this planet, then go ahead — the world awaits your wisdom (or lack of it).

          3. SebastianH

            Do you really think that CO2 and other GHGs do not contribute to this planets surface being warmer than it would be?

          4. tom0mason

            seb,

            “Do you really think that CO2 and other GHGs do not contribute to this planets surface being warmer than it would be?”

            As usual you can not stay on subject.
            As usual another distraction argument from seb.

            The main point seb is that YOU can not come up with a consistent explanation with reverting to your ‘blanket’ analogy, which in truth should be a wet blanket analogy.

            The secondary point seb is you can not come up with documented proof that CO2 warms this planet’s convecting atmosphere — or can you?
            🙂

          5. yonason

            The main point seb is that YOU can not come up with a consistent explanation with reverting to your ‘blanket’ analogy, which in truth should be a wet blanket analogy. – tom0mason

            Yes. That sums it up nicely. Consistency isn’t SebH’s strong suit.

    4. Patrick Stollenwerk

      “Someone please correct me if I’m wrong in stating that ocean’s warm the atmosphere rather than the atmosphere warming the ocean, and the amount of warming of the ocean that could be caused by warmer air over it is miniscule compared to solar warming.”

      This is not completely accurate, though you are not incorrect in realizing that the oceans are an important component of the puzzle. The direction that heat flows depends on the temperature of two bodies (hot->cold). The change in temperature per unit of heat added depends on the thermal capacity. I think what your epiphany is leading you towards is that the thermal capacity of the ocean is much larger than that of the atmosphere.

      The ocean can transfer heat into the atmosphere in a few ways. It can be through thermal contact (i.e. collisions between molecules in the ocean and in the atmosphere), it can be radiative (infrared light emitted), or it can be evaporative (increases humidity of the atmosphere). Likewise, the atmosphere can transfer heat to the ocean by reversing all these processes (collisions, radiating, and raining).

      The sun is another thermal body that can transfer heat. The sun is obviously much hotter than the ocean or atmosphere so the direction of heat flow is always from the sun to the earth. The sun also only has a single way of transferring heat and that is through radiation. The sun is so hot that most of the radiation it emits is in the visible part of the spectrum. The atmosphere does not absorb visible light very well so it mostly passes through until it hits the ocean surface (or the ground) where a significant portion of it is absorbed (not completely otherwise all the pictures of earth would look very dark!). The solar energy is indeed the primary source of the ocean’s heat content. The ocean however, is much much colder than the sun and thus radiates primarily in the infrared. Fortunately we have some carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that absorbs this infrared otherwise much of this heat would leave the Earth rapidly and we would be quite cold! There are other gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared, but besides water it is the primary component. As the atmosphere absorbs some of this infrared it raises the temperature of the atmosphere. The higher the temperature of the atmosphere, the less heat will flow out ocean. The less heat that flows out of the ocean, the more heat the ocean will accumulate over time from the sun.

      As a consequence, as the ocean accumulates more heat from the sun it will also tend to evaporate more water and somewhat balance the net effect of increasing heat content. However, as more water goes into the atmosphere, more of the infrared will be absorbed and will increase the heat content (and temperature) of the atmosphere even more! Of course, as you know it will rain once too much water has entered the atmosphere. If all of these processes are relatively stable, the global climate should remain relatively stable. The problem with our situation today is that we are liberating carbon dioxide that has been trapped under ground for millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere quite rapidly. Humans have nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past century and a half. Consequently, the new stable point will be a higher temperature and it will have quite dramatic effects on the global climate.

      1. SebastianH

        +1 … thank you.

      2. yonason

        “I think what your epiphany is leading you towards is that the thermal capacity of the ocean is much larger than that of the atmosphere.” – Patrick Stollenwerk

        The train left that station a LONG time ago, Patrick.

        Why is it these climate true believers think they are profoundly enlightening when they tell us the equivalent of “the sky is blue and the grass is green?” I don’t know what we’d do without them. /s/

        Oh, and I see from your website (don’t worry, I won’t be back) that you’re a 97%er, despite it’s having been thoroughly debunked.
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

        You’re flawed logic and fantasy science are a joke. No surprise that chatbot_SebH approves.

        1. SebastianH

          You’re flawed logic and fantasy science are a joke

          Coming from someone who can not even interpret a simple diagram …

          1. yonason

            @SebastianH 17. September 2017 at 8:02 PM

            Show me what I got wrong, and why, junior.

          2. SebastianH

            Show me what I got wrong, and why, junior.

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229485

            Your little excursion in attributing the GHE to different gases and claiming that is what one can derive from the Trenberth diagrams.

        2. yonason

          Your little excursion in attributing the GHE to different gases and claiming that is what one can derive from the Trenberth diagrams. – SebH the delusional

          WOW!

          That is nothing whatever even close to what I wrote, as I explain here (or will when it comes out of moderation).
          http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/04/ph-d-physicist-uses-empirical-data-to-assert-co2-greenhouse-theory-a-phantasm-to-be-neglected/comment-page-1/#comment-1229777

          To quote Kenneth Richard…

          “No words.”

      3. Kenneth Richard

        Patrick Stollenwerk: “The solar energy is indeed the primary source of the ocean’s heat content. The ocean however, is much much colder than the sun and thus radiates primarily in the infrared. Fortunately we have some carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that absorbs this infrared otherwise much of this heat would leave the Earth rapidly and we would be quite cold! There are other gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared, but besides water it is the primary component. As the atmosphere absorbs some of this infrared it raises the temperature of the atmosphere.”

        Interesting that you mention CO2 as the “primary” infrared absorber when even those on your side (I see you write for the SkepticalScience blog) acknowledge that water vapor molecules (10,000 to 40,000 ppm)/and cloud cover are the primary infrared absorbers, accounting for about 80% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 making up just 20% (and many have it far less) of the IR-absorbing greenhouse effect. Funny how the conceptualization of water in its gaseous (and cloud) form as the primary source of heating water in its solid form (the 0-4000 m deep oceans) seems to have deserved no more than a passing mention in your screed. Gotta focus on CO2, right?

        Please cite a controlled scientific experiment that provides physical measurements showing how much cooling occurs in water bodies when airborne CO2 concentrations are reduced by -10 ppm above them. Then provide the results (observed physical measurements) from an experiment (controlling for CO2) that shows how much warming occurs in water bodies when CO2 concentrations are increased by +10 ppm above them. Do you have anything?

        I ask because your website acknowledges that “it’s not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air in order to carry out real world experiments”.

        So if it’s not possible to use real world experiments to determine how much heating or cooling occurs in water bodies by varying CO2 concentrations above them, and if CO2 is only considered to be responsible for anywhere from 2-20% of the overall greenhouse effect, why do you nonetheless believe that it is predominantly CO2 concentration changes that are heating the ocean? And why is it not necessary to have real world scientific evidence/physical measurements to nonetheless believe that your assumptions have been verified?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Curtin, 2012
          https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/761473/
          We show that a comprehensive analysis results in relegating [CO2] to insignificance as a determinant of climate change, and that atmospheric water vapour arising almost exclusively from nonhuman sources is by far the largest source of radiative forcing and temperature change. … The failure of the regression to reveal any contribution of changes in [GHG] to changes in Gistemp’s GMT anomalies is obvious both from Figure 1 and from Table 2, which shows total statistical insignificance because with t < 2.0, and 𝑃>0.05, the critical values are not attained. These results validate the null hypothesis from Hegerl et al. that there is no discernible and statistically significant causation of global temperature change attributable to the radiative forcing from anthropogenic changes in noncondensing GHGs. … [O]nly the [H2O] variable is statistically significant, accounting for more than 90 per cent of the changes in mean maximum temperature over the period 1960–2006. … [H2O] accounts for more than 90 per cent of temperature change near where C. D. Keeling began his measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back in 1958.

          [W]ater vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas because it absorbs strongly in the infra-red region of the light spectrum, first demonstrated by Tyndall (1861), despite the conventional view that because the water vapor content of the atmosphere will increase in response to warmer temperatures, water vapor is only a feedback that merely amplifies the climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. In reality, the [H2O] variable in the NOAA’s database proves to be a remarkably powerful determinant of climate variability over the period from 1960 to 2006 not only at Barrow but across all USA, as it is always highly statistically significant at better than the 95% level of confidence for both annual mean minimum and maximum annual temperatures. This is hardly surprising, if only because in reality, as Tans has noted, “global annual evaporation equals ~500,000 billion metric tons. Compare that to fossil CO2 emissions of ~8.5 billion ton C/year,” and even the total level of [CO2] is only 827 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent. It would seem to be a case of the tail wagging the dog if the additions to [CO2] from human burning of hydrocarbon fuels have raised global temperatures enough (just 0.0125°C p.a. [per year] since 1950) to generate annual evaporation of 500,000 billion tonnes of [H2O].

        2. SebastianH

          Interesting that you mention CO2 as the “primary” infrared absorber

          Now I have to play that little game you like to play and be the pedantic one. That’s not what he wrote, Kenneth. Don’t makeup things!

          “besides water it is the primary component” doesn’t mean the same as just “it is the primary component”

          So if it’s not possible to use real world experiments to determine how much heating or cooling occurs in water bodies by varying CO2 concentrations above them

          Do you think radiation from CO2 is fundamentally different than radiation from water vapor / clouds?

          I bet that Curtin, 2012 paper would perfectly fit in that list:
          https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00704-015-1597-5/MediaObjects/704_2015_1597_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
          I wonder in which category it fits best …

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Now I have to play that little game you like to play and be the pedantic one. That’s not what he wrote, Kenneth. Don’t makeup things!

            Patrick Stollenwerk: “besides water it is the primary component” doesn’t mean the same as just “it is the primary component”

            I stand corrected, as I interpreted the “primarily” adjective to have applied to CO2, not water in its gaseous form. So does Patrick agree that CO2 is not the primary IR absorber, and that it is indeed water vapor that is primarily (~80%) responsible for heating the oceans to depths of 4000 meters? If so, why does Patrick spend so much time detailing how it’s CO2 that warms the ocean…if he really means that it’s water vapor that warms the water in the ocean?

            Do you think radiation from CO2 is fundamentally different than radiation from water vapor / clouds?

            Well, considering the effects of CO2 are minuscule relative to water vapor/cloud cover changes, I would assume that directly comparing the two would be similar to comparing apples to potatoes.

            http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cloud%20radiative%20forcing.pdf
            “Water vapour and cloud are the dominant regulators of the radiative heating of the planet. ..The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. … The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.”

          2. SebastianH

            We aren’t exactly emitting water vapor, are we? The humidity of air is largely a function of temperature, not human industry emissions. CO2 however, that’s what we are responsible for …

          3. Kenneth Richard

            We aren’t exactly emitting water vapor, are we?

            No, we aren’t. But since doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is only modeled to produce an atmospheric temperature change of +1.16 C, with increases in water vapor providing the forcing to produce another 3 or 4 degrees of warming beyond the mere 1.16 C from CO2 alone, wouldn’t you agree that the models indicate that water vapor forcing produces dangerous warming, whereas the models of CO2 warming (again, doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm only produce a temperature change of 1.16 C) suggest that we would only barely warm up out of the Little Ice Age level temperatures without the increases in water vapor?

            By the way, of the 0.8 C of warming since 1850, how much of that was from water vapor increases? 0%? Why would that be if it’s water vapor that is modeled to cause multiple degrees of warming beyond the limits of what CO2 can produce?

            And just so you know, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by solar radiation. Or could you provide an explanation for why water vapor concentrations reach 40,000 ppm in the tropics, but just 1,000 ppm or less at the poles…without the Sun’s radiance as the determining factor? The Sun regulates the amount of water vapor in the air, SebastianH, and thus the greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you disagree?

          4. Patrick Stollenwerk

            Thank you, SebastianH for pointing out Kenneth Richard’s misreading of my statement.

            Kenneth Richard: I am not a writer for skeptical science. I think the website is a valuable source of information.

            Also, yes, I am aware that water is the primary infrared absorber in the atmosphere. The reason that I draw the attention to CO2 is because the water vapor content of the atmosphere is regulated by temperature. The saturation point (i.e. when the vapor content is so high such that it begins to rain) increases with increasing temperature. So if humans pump water vapor into the atmosphere at unnatural rates, it will reach a saturation point such that any further addition of vapor to the atmosphere will be balanced out by increased rainfall. As a consequence there is no change to the equilibrium of the climate.

            This is not the case with CO2. CO2 only exits the atmosphere when plants consume CO2 during photosynthesis. Plants then eventually die and decay and release this CO2 back into the atmosphere. When humans liberate CO2 buried deep under ground in the form of fossil fuels, there is no mechanism for removing the excess CO2 generated. It changes the equilibrium of the carbon cycle. As discussed earlier, this disruption of the equilibrium has the net effect of increasing the temperature.

            As the temperature increases, the water vapor content of the atmosphere can now increase and as a consequence will amplify the effect. So it is true that water is very, very important in the process! However, it is not true that human water vapor emissions have anything to do with it. If you follow the above argument it should become self-evident why I spend so much time detailing CO2’s contribution.

            Also in response to this:
            “Please cite a controlled scientific experiment that provides physical measurements showing how much cooling occurs in water bodies when airborne CO2 concentrations are reduced by -10 ppm above them. Then provide the results (observed physical measurements) from an experiment (controlling for CO2) that shows how much warming occurs in water bodies when CO2 concentrations are increased by +10 ppm above them. Do you have anything?”

            This is a very weird and specific requirement and not how science is done. Why is that information necessary to draw conclusions about CO2’s effects on global temperature? You are not going to get this citation because, as you know, you cannot possibly create copies of the Earth with various slight changes in CO2 concentrations and then carry out temperature measurements over decades or centuries. Using that as the criteria before one can be confident about claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not reasonable.

            My question for you is this: what test or set of tests could be done that could give results such that you would ascribe a high degree of confidence in AGW? What evidence, besides the impossible scenarios you describe, would place your confidence around AGW. For me to change my view, I would have to see a preponderance of evidence for a mechanism that can have an effect that explains the recent, rapid changes in the global temperature and exceeds what can be currently attributed to CO2. This requirement is simple, and certainly in the realm of logical possibilities, and to my knowledge has not been met.

          5. Kenneth Richard

            The reason that I draw the attention to CO2 is because the water vapor content of the atmosphere is regulated by temperature.

            Patrick, we are here talking about water vapor and 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations heating or cooling the oceans to depths of 4000 meters. Water vapor heating water and CO2 heating water. You do understand that just 1% of the planet’s heat energy resides in the atmosphere, right? It’s the oceans – where 93% of the Earth’s energy resides – that must be warmed and cooled by variations in clouds and water vapor, and by CO2, to claim that net heat changes in the Earth’s climate system are determined by greenhouse gases. You have failed to address the water vapor-heats-water conceptualization, and instead focused all of your attention on water-vapor-heats the atmosphere (i.e., rain causes cooling, keeping the atmosphere’s temperatures in balance, etc.).

            Again, for the atmosphere to warm, the oceans must be warmed first. It’s the oceans that heat the atmosphere, and not the other way around. And since direct solar radiation can penetrate 10s of meters into the ocean, and the heat from greenhouse gases cannot penetrate into the oceans at all (past the “skin” layer), any factor (i.e., decadal-scale cloud cover changes, changes in volcanic aerosol density, etc.) that affects the amount and intensity of solar radiation that is absorbed by the oceans is going to be far more determinative of the oceans’ temperatures, and thus the atmospheric temperatures, than will variations in atmospheric trace gases like CO2.

            So if you agree that water vapor is the planet’s primary greenhouse gas, you must focus on water vapor as the dominant source of net heat changes in the oceans, and not the atmosphere. Not only that, but cloud cover changes are easily the most dominant factor affecting the LW greenhouse effect. And you curiously didn’t even mention clouds either. As is commonly known, when it comes to clouds vs. CO2 in the LW, it’s not even close…

            http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cloud%20radiative%20forcing.pdf
            The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.”

            But even if we were to go with your focus on atmospheric heating, and assume that your statements about water vapor levels not actually providing any real net forcing of atmospheric temperature changes, but keeping temperatures in equilibrium…

            Patrick Stollenwerk: “[A]ny further addition of vapor to the atmosphere will be balanced out by increased rainfall. As a consequence there is no change to the equilibrium of the climate.”

            …what you have stated here is in complete violation of the equilibrium climate sensitivity models for doubling CO2 as endorsed by the IPCC. As you (hopefully) realize, the models state that doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm alone only incur a forcing of 3.7 W m-2, and a temperature increase of just 1.16 C. Again, that’s the most warming that CO2 by itself can deliver if its concentration is doubled. The IPCC modeled equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates for doubled CO2, however, reach 3 C, 4.5 C, even up to 6 C with CO2 doubling. How does the atmosphere allegedly warm by 3 to 6 C, or 2 to 5 degrees C above what could be achieved with CO2 alone? Answer: water vapor increases. Yes, what you have stated above is in violation of the IPCC’s own models. Because water vapor is expected to increase temperatures from 1.16 C (CO2 alone) to up to 6 C. So your “no change” in temperature with increased water vapor isn’t supported by the IPCC models.

            And why have you completely neglected cloud cover changes, since they dominate over any effects from CO2 within the GHE. In fact, a 2016 analysis from a Nature paper indicates that the greenhouse effect from CO2 was completely overwhelmed by cloud cover changes from 1992-2014, leading to a “hiatus” in greenhouse forcing during those years. Can I assume this is new information for you?

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/
            [T]he atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters both become trendless when clouds are considered. … Overall, the downward tendency of clouds is the dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect hiatus [during 1992-2014]. In conclusion, the pause of the greenhouse effect since the 1990s may be one of the reasons for the global warming hiatus starting in the early 2000s.”

            This is a very weird and specific requirement and not how science is done.

            Um, Patrick, real-world experiments using independent control variables to produce cause-effect physical measurements (i.e., empirical evidence) is exactly how science is done. Why do you not think the scientific method is not how science is done? Why is observational evidence not required to believe what you do?

            One can realistically perform a real-world experiment controlling for the effects of CO2 concentration variations on water temperatures by measuring water temperature changes in two identical, side-by-side containers, one with 500 ppm to 1,000 ppm CO2 concentrations pumped over it with CO2 generators (used for greenhouses) and the other with no increased CO2 (400 ppm). How much warmer will the water in the container with elevated CO2 be than the one without the CO2 generator pumping 500 to 1,000 ppm concentrations in the air above it? Do you know? Of course not. You don’t even think we need experimental verification or observational evidence to declare that your beliefs are “settled science.”

            Here’s a paper (in the reply post below) that uses experimental evidence (imagine that!) to show that the absorbed shortwave energy completely dominates over the effects of LW in determining water temperatures, as “the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not”, meaning that LWIR (over which water vapor and clouds dominate as it is) is far less of the determinant of water temperature than is direct SW.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            Irvine, 2015
            Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
            http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156
            [I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.

            The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states clearly their belief that the Efficacy (E) of solar forcing (E Solar ) is approximately equal to (E GHG ) in Working Group 1 (WG1) Chapter 8.1.1.3. It has been suggested that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated by the long wave radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs and that this either acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere or alternatively is comprehensively mixed by wave action and that these entirely different mechanisms warm the oceans almost exactly the same amount as solar energy which is transported radiatively to a depth of many meters..

            Not only is it highly improbable that these entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC, it can also be shown by means of a simple experiment, “Appendix 1”, that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.

            One area that the CMIP5 models do not treat as a tuning parameter is the difference between E(Solar) and E(GHG). They, in fact, treat the approximate equivalence of these two factors as a desired property based on the vertical and geographical distribution of these two forcings in the atmosphere and tune their models to suit. They do not take account of the large difference in water absorption between long wave radiation and short wave radiation.

            These changes in radiative absorption have a significant effect on OHC and are approximated in the CMIP5 models for both GHG radiation and solar radiation. The energy from these two vastly different radiative sources is then diffused by various methods, but importantly, is treated the same for the purpose of this diffusion process. What the CMIP5 models don’t do is allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not.

            What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.

          7. SebastianH

            Is this going to be one of those endless repetitions again?

            But since doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is only modeled to produce an atmospheric temperature change of +1.16 C, with increases in water vapor providing the forcing to produce another 3 or 4 degrees of warming beyond the mere 1.16 C from CO2 alone, wouldn’t you agree that the models indicate that water vapor forcing produces dangerous warming

            You know what feedbacks are and how they work? When someone stabs you with a knife, do you then also claim that it is the blood loss that kills you and that should be the thing we should worry about?

            The Sun regulates the amount of water vapor in the air, SebastianH, and thus the greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you disagree?

            I disagree. It is the temperature that regulates the humidity. Temperature of the wet surfaces that are the source of evaporation and temperature of the air that enables it to hold water.

            Why is observational evidence not required to believe what you do?

            Why can’t you accept that we have enough observational evidence to determine what is happening.

            —————————————

            [Large snip – You will need to construct responsive comments that are less redundant, less personally insulting, and more substantive than the following:]

            You really don’t know how radiative heat transfer works, do you?
            You still don’t get it
            you continue to refuse to learn about the mechanisms involved and instead use every opportunity to show that you don’t understand them.

            [Further long responses that repeat these same you-don’t-get-it ad homs over and over again will also be snipped and/or removed.]

          8. Kenneth Richard

            The Sun regulates the amount of water vapor in the air, SebastianH, and thus the greenhouse effect from water vapor. Do you disagree?

            I disagree. It is the temperature that regulates the humidity.

            Why is the temperature at the poles (<1,000 ppm water vapor concentrations) -60 C colder than the temperatures at the equator (40,000 ppm water vapor concentrations)? Why are summer temperatures ~30 C warmer than winter temperatures at the latitudes between (10,000 to 20,000 ppm concentrations), with humidity much higher in summers and much lower in winters?

            Hint: the temperature is regulated by variations in the Sun's radiant energy reaching the Earth, SebastianH. Why should this be so difficult for you to admit?
            ---------------------------
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682614001357
            Increased Earth surface heating during solar maxima regulates integrated water vapor, cloud liquid water content, and rainfall.
            Highlights
            Solar control on [Indian Summer Monsoon] ISM rainfall, [cloud liquid water content] LWC and [integrated water vapor] IWV is observed over India during 1977–2012.
            •Sun influences the formation clouds and rainfall activity through GCR [Galactic Cosmic Ray] mediation.
            Increased Earth surface heating during solar maxima regulates IWV, LWC and rainfall.
            •SSN [Sunspot Number] shows both positive and negative correlation with LWC and ISM rainfall.
            •Wavelet analyses also indicate a solar control on ISM rainfall, LWC & IWV over India.
            —————————–
            Why is observational evidence not required to believe what you do?

            Why can’t you accept that we have enough observational evidence to determine what is happening.

            Because I’m a skeptic that the science has been “settled” and am unimpressed by the argument from authority or “consensus”.

          9. SebastianH

            Hint: the temperature is regulated by variations in the Sun’s radiant energy reaching the Earth, SebastianH. Why should this be so difficult for you to admit?

            Why would I need to admit anything here? The Sun is one of many factors determining temperature.

    5. ScottM

      Back radiation from the atmosphere does get absorbed by the ocean. Increasing the back radiation into the ocean must therefore increase the temperature of the ocean.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Increasing the back radiation into the ocean must therefore increase the temperature of the ocean.

        By how much compared to direct shortwave? Experiments reveal quite a discrepancy rather than a similarity between SW and LW effects.

        Irvine, 2015
        Heat Transfer VIII – Simulations and Experiments in Heat and Mass Transfer
        http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-engineering-sciences/83/27156

        [I]t is established physics that Long wave Radiation from GHGs only penetrates the oceans to a depth of a fraction of a millimetre. 99% of the long wave radiation reemitted by GHGs is absorbed in pure water in the first 0.015mm of the surface.

        The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states clearly their belief that the Efficacy (E) of solar forcing (E Solar ) is approximately equal to (E GHG ) in Working Group 1 (WG1) Chapter 8.1.1.3. It has been suggested that the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean is heated by the long wave radiation (LWR) reemitted by GHGs and that this either acts as a blanket slowing the release of energy to the atmosphere or alternatively is comprehensively mixed by wave action and that these entirely different mechanisms warm the oceans almost exactly the same amount as solar energy which is transported radiatively to a depth of many meters..

        Not only is it highly improbable that these entirely different mechanisms would have almost exactly the same effect on OHC, it can, also, be shown by means of a simple experiment, “Appendix 1”, that nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation.

        One area that the CMIP5 models do not treat as a tuning parameter is the difference between E(Solar) and E(GHG). They, in fact, treat the approximate equivalence of these two factors as a desired property based on the vertical and geographical distribution of these two forcings in the atmosphere and tune their models to suit. They do not take account of the large difference in water absorption between long wave radiation and short wave radiation.

        These changes in radiative absorption have a significant effect on OHC and are approximated in the CMIP5 models for both GHG radiation and solar radiation. The energy from these two vastly different radiative sources is then diffused by various methods, but importantly, is treated the same for the purpose of this diffusion process. What the CMIP5 models don’t do is allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not.

        What can be said is that LWIR from GHGs will have a different and smaller effect on OHC than a similar amount of solar radiation as the LWIR is nearly totally absorbed in the evaporation layer while nearly all short wave solar radiation is not.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1963.tb01399.x/pdf
        While short-wave radiation will warm both surface and subsurface layers, long-wave radiation will cause a cooling of the surface depending on the temperature and humidity of the air. The exchange of sensible heat will tend to cool or warm the surface dependent on the air being cooler or warmer than the water. Evaporation in most cases will cause a cooling of the surface. In general, the effects of radiation, evaporation, and heat transfer will be indistinguishable.

  8. John F. Hultquist

    Note the chart uses the 30-year Normals of 1981-2010.
    This is the agreeded upon comparison period.
    Still, in this instance, this makes the “average” higher than it will be after the next slide to the 1991-2020 Normals interval, and higher than if the last 7 years of measurements were used.
    [I think so, but have not done the calculations.]

  9. tom0mason
  10. Asmilwho

    “Overall Arctic sea ice has remained stable for the past 10 years, surprising global warming scientists. Source: National Snow and Ice Data center (NSIDC).”

    This is not what the NSIDC shows on their homepage (nsidc.org). What they show is a graph with a clear -10% per decade decline in sea ice extent since 1979, even including the recovery since 2012.

    There is enough cherry picking data from a larger set to “prove” a point going on from the warmist side, let’s not start doing it here.

  11. Frederick Colbourne

    “…the oceans are warmed by solar energy,and the oceans WARM THE ATMOSPHERE, not the other way around!”

    Let’s restate this as: Visible light enters the oceans. What comes out is thermal energy.

    The ASTER instrument flown on the Terra satellite collected a multi-spectral dataset, from memory, 12 bands of the spectrum from about 0.4 microns to about 12 microns.

    (https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov)

    The shortest 3 images (bands) are in the visible spectrum (blue, green and red) and the 5 longest wavelength images in the thermal end of the spectrum. That leaves 6 image in the infrared.

    The first 3 and the last 5 bands record physical phenomena over both land and sea. The 6 infrared bands record physical phenomena over land but record little or nothing over the sea.

    We can use the infrared bands to make a boolean mask (sea =0; land =1) to define coastlines.

    This demonstrates that visible light enters the oceans and thermal energy is emitted. Little infrared energy is emitted from the oceans, unless you redefine the thermal bands as infrared.

    There is a gap between where IR band ends (2.43 microns) and where the thermal bands begin (8.125 microns. The thermal bands end at 11.65 microns.

    The significance of these numbers to climate is that the Earth emits from about 4 microns to 100 microns, peaking at about 15 microns. The gap in the ASTER records means that ASTER datasets do not cover enough of the spectrum to assess global energy emissions.

    But ASTER does show the insignificance of oceanic emissions in infrared and the dominance of thermal emissions.

    See page 4 in Goody and Yung, 1989.
    https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Atmospheric_Radiation.html?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&redir_esc=y

  12. Luther Bl't

    The latest Meteociel run dated 15 September depicts a quite different, much milder, winter for Europe. What a difference 2 weeks makes! Roll on 30 September…

  13. ScottM

    Where is this la Niña panic you speak of?

  14. Lyall Smith

    Here is a hypothetical scenario to place a number on heating the oceans — 321 million cubic miles.
    If all of the worlds marketable energy was devoted to heating up the oceans– that is 27 quadrillion BTU’s per year, it would take 5000 years to heat the oceans by ONE degree F !!!

  15. tom0mason

    An interesting opinion of the El Nino/La Nina is from a UK weather model maniac at gavsweathervids.com. His latest ‘Third Winter 2017/18 Update’ is interesting regarding the events in the tropical Pacific — https://youtu.be/RDJ1AGXJyvg … From the 27minute spot to 35 minutes he talk extensively about how both the ECMWF and the CSFv2 got the tropical Pacific temperatures wrong from the predictions made just three months ago, and how the temperature of the tropical Pacific has dramatically flipped in the last 6 months.

  16. La Nina incombe… Warmist nel panico - Guard for AngelsGuard for Angels

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]