Here at NTZ we are glad to see that German weather and climate blogger Schneefan is back from his hiatus and this week he presents a couple of interesting posts, here and here.
Cold to grip Europe for rest of month
First he writes that the latest weather models and patterns are now pointing to an extended winter this year for Europe. For example the 14-day forecast for Hanover shows frosty conditions ahead.
Also a recent run by the European weather model shows severe cold potentially gripping Europe in 9 days:
February 1°C cooler than normal
So far Germany has seen the first half of February come in almost 1°C cooler than normal, making it among the coldest in years, says meteorologist Dominik Jung of www.wetter.net.
Earlier projection was entirely wrong
According weather experts, March is also expected to be wintry and could be one of the coldest in years. That’s quite a turnaround given that the earlier CFS forecast made back in mid-January which showed blow torch temperatures cooking Europe in February:
The US National Weather Service (CFS) 2m surface temperature forecast made on 18 January, 2018, showed very warm conditions for February. That forecast has since been drastically revised.
La Nina dragging temperatures down
So why have we been hearing about so many harsh winter conditions all over the northern hemisphere this winter?
One reason likely has something to do with the fact that the globe has been cooling off substantially since the last El Nino ended in 2016. Currently we are now experiencing La Niña conditions:
Chart shows the weekly deviations from the mean for the El Niño-region 3.4 from May 2016 until the beginning of February 2018. Currently we find ourselves in the cool La Nina phase. Source: KNMI
Furthermore, the National Weather Service continues to show La Nina conditions persisting through most of 2018, which means a greater likelihood of a further cooling of the globe’s surface:
Over the past 2 years global surface temperatures as measured by satellites show steady cooling. Source: WoodForTrees.org.
Another longer term culprit suspected of being behind the cooling is the current solar cycle number 24, which has been abnormally weak over the entire current decade. The Cycle 24 was the weakest in 200 years. Low solar activity has been shown to lead to cooling surface temperatures.
Screenshot shows the number of spotless days on the sun up to February 14, 2018. Source: www.spaceweather.com/
Oceans cooling over past 3 years
Another sign that bodes especially ill for continued surface cooling is that the world’s oceans have been cooling. 71% of the earth’s surface is covered by water, which means these temperature changes will have significant impacts on the globe’s climate.
In January 2018 Ron Clutz reported at Science Matters on an unexpected phenomenon: the cooling of the global oceans over the past 3 years:
The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST3 starting in 2015 through December 2017.”
After a bump in October the downward temperature trend has strengthened. As will be shown in the analysis below, 0.4C has been the average global anomaly since 1995 and December has now gone lower to 0.325C. NH dropped sharply along with the Tropics. SH held steady erasing the Oct. bump. All parts of the ocean are clearly lower than at any time in the past 3 years.
For Reference:
Global SSTs are the lowest since 3/2013
NH SSTs are the lowest since 3/2014
SH SSTs are the lowest since 1/2012
Tropics SSTs are the lowest since 3/2012[…]
The oceans are driving the warming this century. SSTs took a step up with the 1998 El Nino and have stayed there with help from the North Atlantic, and more recently the Pacific northern “Blob.” The ocean surfaces are releasing a lot of energy, warming the air, but eventually will have a cooling effect. The decline after 1937 was rapid by comparison, so one wonders: How long can the oceans keep this up?”
Read the entire post at Science Matters.
“Bad times” for global warming alarmists
Ron also looks at the AMO ocean cycle. Schneefan summarizes it all in a nutshell:
Everything points to an imminent tipping of the AMO cycle. That’s going to pull global temperatures downward. For Rahmstorf and Co. bad times are starting.”
I don’t get why a cooling by natural cycles would mean “bad times” for global warming alarmists? Why should someone who feels alarmed by anthropogenic global warming have bad times? I mean the bad times for an alarmist would be today, right? Not feeling as alarmed by some natural cooling dampening the warming would be good times then. Of course, the really bad times will come back, because you guys claim it’s cyclic. And by then CO2 forcing will have increased even more and aerosols will be fewer in the air.
Regarding El Nina conditions. That just means that more cold water is brought up in West Pacific leading to surface cooling, right? How does that change the Ocean heat content? Does it change at all?
Neither the 700m OHC (link) nor the 2000m (link) OHC is decreasing, so where is that cooling that you are talking about?
Looking forward to a longer winter … maybe we’ll see some snow that lasts for more than one day? Used to be normal a few decades ago 😉
So oceanic cooling occurs due to natural cycles, but when oceans warm it is not due to the warming phase of these natural cycles, but to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Is that correct?
For example, the 1995-2005 warming of the North Atlantic Ocean was man-made, but since 2005 it’s cooled because of “natural cycles”? Right?
So when the Arctic Ocean and the surrounding cryosphere was cooling during the 1940s to 1990s just as anthropogenic CO2 emissions began their explosive ascent, that cooling was caused by natural cycles, right?
What do you think the reason is that the Arctic has failed to warm in the last 12 years or so…since anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose during that time?
Since the Southern Ocean, which represents 14% of the Earth’s surface, has been cooling since 1979, this has been due to natural cycles, right?
I’m curious. What caused the ocean heat content to plummet by -0.9 C between 1000 C.E. and 1600 C.E.? What was the causal mechanism…since anthropogenic influences weren’t present?
It doesn’t look like there’s been much of a change in the Western Pacific in the last 100+ years. In fact, temperature reconstructions reveal today’s temperatures are significantly colder than they’ve been for nearly all of the last 100s to 1,000s of years.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Western-SSTs-Wei-15.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Pacific-Warm-Pool-OHC-Rosenthal-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Western-Tropical-Pacific-Zhang-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-Tropical-Western-Pacific-SST-Dechnik-17.jpg
RE the AMO (60 year) Cycle.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/amo-august.png
In the last ~180 years there have been 3 cycles. The first peaked at 23 Deg C, the second at 23.3, and the third has peaked at 23.6 – Nu?! So where’s that “exponential” increase we’ve been told exists?
No.
You are intentionally misunderstanding (also called trolling) again, Kenneth.
I won’t bother repeating it for you since you’ll always make up something like that and it’s a never-ending conversation. You’ll believe what you want anyway …
I asked whether La Nina influences the OHC.
In El Nino years the cold upward stream gets weaker and the surface water warms up more. The energy input from the Sun doesn’t change and a warmer surface is losing more energy. So the heat content decreases in that phase.
In La Nina years more cold water is pushed to the surface. The energy input from the Sun doesn’t change either, but a cooler surface is also losing less energy, so the heat content increases more than it would just from the imbalance caused by GHGs.
Do you agree or disagree?
And if OHC is increasing in La Nina years, how can anyone claim that Earth is cooling? After all, 90% of the climate change is happening in the oceans, right? You guys keep emphasizing that all the time.
You have just shown how LIMITED your understanding of El Nino really is.
Nothing unexpected in that. !!
Well done, to low-knowledge seb.
By the way, The energy from the Sun is now decreasing.
It was the series of strong solar maximum through the latter half of last century that drove the El Ninos of 1978-1980, 1998-2001 and 2015-2017.
That means warming from the El Ninos, as you have just admitted (one tiny step, seb)
With the weaker sun for this solar cycle and next at least, look for longer recharge (La Nina) periods.
That means COOLING !!
Make you have plenty of fossil fuel heating available for the coming winters, seb
No, I’m not “intentionally” misunderstanding you, not to mention “trolling” you. (You must relish the role of the victim, SebastianH.) In fact, I recall that you have written something like this before: that cooling occurs because of natural variability (“natural cycles”), whereas warming occurs due to human forcing. I was attempting to confirm that this is actually what you think/believe. Apparently you didn’t like this.
That would be your presumption, based on modeled, hypothetical conceptualizations, not real-world observations. You believe that humans control the heat content of the oceans by emitting more or less CO2 emissions. Interestingly, CO2 isn’t even mentioned by oceanographers who identify the radiative factors involved in ocean heat changes. Instead, it’s clouds, wind, aerosols, and humidity. I wonder why it is that CO2 isn’t even mentioned—especially since it’s believed (by you) that CO2 exerts fundamental control. Do you know why it’s not mentioned?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
“The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux.” [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]
—
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0041:OOTIRP>2.0.CO;2
Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting transmittance, or anywhere in the paper.]
—
ftp://mana.soest.hawaii.edu/pub/rlukas/OCN-MET665/fluxes/radiative/Ohlmann%20etal%20Part%20II%202000%20JPO.pdf
“Results from radiative transfer calculations indicate that in-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount“ [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting heat flux, or anywhere in the paper]
–-
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.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting heat flux, or anywhere in the paper]
As has been mentioned several times, parts of the Earth have been warming, parts of the Earth have been cooling.
The North Atlantic has been cooling dramatically since 2005 (here, here, here, here).
The Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean have been cooling since 1970 (here and here).
The Arctic has not been warming since 2005. The Indian Ocean hasn’t warmed since the 1980s.
Antarctica hasn’t warmed in the last 100 years, nor in the last 38 years.
Greenland was warmer during the 1870s-1940s period than the 1940s-2015 period.
I could go on and on and on.
———————————————————
According to a recent paper, the amount of overall warming in the last 50 years is “only about 0.1°C“. That’s one tenth of one degree Celsius of warming in 5 decades of “human forcing”. Run for the hills!
In contrast to “only” one tenth of 1 degree of warming in 50 years, the oceans in the 0-1000 m layer have historically risen by 1 degree C in 100 years (500% faster than modern). This is what is referred to as “natural variability”. There is nothing occurring today that may be construed to have fallen outside the range of what occurs naturally…or without anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Sorry that this doesn’t support your beliefs.
Why woundn’t Seb think ” that cooling occurs because of natural variability (“natural cycles”), whereas warming occurs due to human forcing.”?
That is what James Hanson and Gavin Schmidt seem to believe!
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf
They clearly indicate in the paper above and by their prior statements that while any warming could not possibly be due to natural causes and must be caused by human activity, natural variation does have the power to mitigate the effects of human caused warming.
What they really see is the writing on the wall that the planet is cooling and is most likely going to continue to do so for some time to come. The PDO heading down. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/decadal/pdo.html
The AMO having peaked and heading down:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/AMO.html
And the weakest solar cycle (#24) in over a century
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg
approaching it’s minimum and the best forecast indicating that cycle #25 will be a weak also.
I’m pretty sure he does believe that, as he’s written something to that effect before (i.e., the El Nino warming events are warmer than they otherwise would be because of CO2…). I just don’t think he wants to admit it.
Well Kenneth, all I can say is that I sincerely hope for the sake of mankind that this emerging cold period goes no deeper than what we had in the 1970’s and that the predictions of a coming MIA are not correct.
Though it would be amusing to see the alarmists justify their claims when Iceland is surrounded by sea ice, the Thames is kept open with icebreakers, and new low temperature records are being set all over the place, it would bring hard times for many and be deadly for some. Cold kills.
Then it’s accidental misunderstanding?
Keep making things up, Kenneth. Very classy.
OHC is fueling El Ninos, isn’t it? At least the OHC decreases during an El Nino. And the OHC increases because of an imbalance mainly caused by anthropogenic emissions. So, of course, El Ninos happen at a higher energy level with higher OHC. Why wouldn’t they?
Find better papers. Omitting greenhouse gases when talking about changes in outgoing radiation and heat content is a rather huge oversight.
Why dodge the question (“do you agree or disagree?”) with this reply? I am asking you how proclaiming cooling (this and other blog articles) goes together with a generally increasing OHC?
I am sure you can. You have an endless supply of cherry picked data, haven’t you? Here is an image of the globe warming over the years (beginning with 1850): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWJhsQaX4AAd0y7.jpg:large
Notice the large cooling areas? Me neither.
Here is a similar version from another dataset: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWBiaCiXkAIGU9Z.jpg (less complete in early years, no interpolation)
Even if there really were a recent non-anthropogenic climate change which was larger in magnitude, that doesn’t invalidate the cause for the current climate change. This is a non-argument.
Or do you assume that your previous employer still pays you after an employer change when your account balance increases at the end of of the month? Since that was caused by the previous employer before and the current increase is in roughly the same range, so the money surely must be coming from the old employer. Couldn’t possibly be coming from the new employer, right?
Interestingly, CO2 isn’t even mentioned by oceanographers who identify the radiative factors involved in ocean heat changes.
Find better papers? Uh, SebastianH, it’s not my “oversight” that scientists don’t even mention CO2 as a factor affecting surface flux processes when discussing mechanistic contributors to ocean heat changes. Do you think they consciously try to mislead readers by failing to mention the ocean’s real control knob? That would be rather conspiratorial, wouldn’t you think?
The “fuel” of ENSO events and the change in surface layer temperatures is caused by wind currents. That’s what El Nino and La Nina events are, SebastianH. The wind currents affect upwelling of warmer or cooler waters. Put another way, the temperature gradient of OHC varies by layer, and ENSO events disturb those layers. And, contrary to what you believe, the influence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on the wind currents that disturb warmer vs. cooler layers has not even been considered to be detectable by scientists. For example:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/340780#.VzB0zw-3sCA.twitter
The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says an expert. Climatologist and oceanographer Prof Dr Fredolin Tangang of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this year’s El Nino was even more extreme than the severe phenomena experienced in 1982/82 and 1997/98.
“There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change,” said Tangang, who had served from 2008 to 2015 as vice-chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations agency. The IPCC, which comprises representatives from 190 countries, produces a report every six to seven years on the trend of global climate change, its causes and impacts and how to migitate these. Saying that the current El Nino was in its final stretch and that the condition in the Pacific Ocean was expected to return to neutral by June, Tangang stated that the IPCC, in its latest report released in 2013, did not come up with a conclusion on the inter-relation between El Nino and global warming. He said that unlike typhoons, which the IPCC concluded would increase in intensity as global warming intensified, El Nino occurrences did not switch in frequency or intensity due to climate change.
“El Nino is a naturally occurring phenomenon, which is part of the inter-annual variability associated with oscillation of the atmosphere-ocean interaction in the Pacific Ocean that occurs in a two- to seven-year cycle.”
So Seb
Exactly how much warming do you believe there was and what proportion of that warming was caused by natural forces as opposed to that caused by human activity? You have to have an answer because you have been an alarmists all long.
And before you ask, I believe that only a tiny, unmeasurable, amount of warming was caused by human activities. Unmeasurable because we simply lack the ability to ferret out that miniscule amount from the normal noise in the data.
It’s an oversight of the authors of those papers. I am pretty sure there are papers waiting to be found by you that don’t ignore this and quantify this factor.
They affect upwelling of cooler waters, but not warmer waters. The warmer surface during an El Nino is caused by less cool water from below reaching the surface. This warmer than usual surface is of course losing more energy towards the atmosphere/space and thus the heat content decreases. That’s the fuel of El Nino induced warming of the atmosphere.
During normal times or a La Nina the same amount of energy from the Sun reaches to same parts of the oceans, but because they are cooled by upwelling cool water the surface doesn’t warm as much. Less energy lost to the atmosphere/space equals OHC increases.
Do you agree or disagree about how the mechanism works in regards to OHC?
it’s not my “oversight”
You’re “pretty sure” there are papers that identify CO2 as the primary control knob in detailing the mechanistic heat flux processes for OHC changes? Great. So find them. I was unable to locate any in my extensive searches.
And papers that quantify this CO2–>OHC factor? You’re “pretty sure” that these exist? Then you should have no problem locating them, then.
Clark, 2010
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/21/4/171.abstract
Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
The ‘clear sky’ upper limit for the CO2 induced increase in evaporation is below the measurement uncertainty bounds. Long term averages of surface air temperatures are approximately 2 C below the corresponding ocean surface temperatures. This means that there is usually no direct heating of the ocean by the atmosphere, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As discussed below (Figure 15), any slight increase in atmospheric H2O vapor concentration will produce atmospheric cooling through increased upward LWIR emission under these conditions. Latent heat of evaporation is not released until the water condenses, which is generally at altitudes above 1 km. It is therefore impossible for an increase in downward atmospheric LWIR flux of 1.7 W.m−2 to heat the ocean.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/el-nino-skit.html
When, for an as yet, unknown reason the easterly surface winds weaken, or reverse, the warm pool moves from the western Pacific to the central and eastern Pacific ocean basin. This situation is known as an El Niño, and when this happens, heavy rainfall occurs along the western coasts of Peru, Mexico and California instead. The warm water also acts as a cap that prevents cold water from upwelling along the eastern edge of the Pacific.
I agree that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about if you believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause the warmth of El Niño events…which you must since you believe that humans are the 100% cause of warming.
Since the current imbalance is caused by the increase in greenhouse gases, all of the warming (increase in OHC content as well as atmospheric warming) is caused by human activity. Science says that without those human activities there would have been no warming over that timespan.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
SebastianH is a believer in 100% human causation (“all”) for changes in ocean heat content. By necessity, this means he believes that natural factors cause 0% of the changes in ocean heat content.
I’m curious as to how this works statistically. Considering natural factors “used to” cause 100% of the changes in ocean heat content before humans became the 100% cause of ocean heat content changes, was there a gradation period where humans caused 75% and natural factors caused 25%, humans and nature were 50-50, natural factors were 75% and anthropogenic factors caused 25%, etc.? If so, what were the years in which humans caused half and nature caused half…and what were those natural factors that were causing 50% of the forcing? How do you know/determine the percentages?
Or was there never a gradation process involved here at all, and instead we had a “takeover year” or span of years in which the cause flipped from 100% natural to 100% anthorpogenic and 0% natural…such as in the year 1950?
And if humans are in 100% control of changing the oceans’ temperatures now, why is there no difference between today’s ocean temperatures and past temperatures without human control? How are we going to detect an anthropogenic signal in, say, glacier melt on Greenland if, as scientists conclude, an anthropogenic signal isn’t even detectable?
Uh, no, Science does not say that. Real Science is about real-world observational evidence, not climate models that fail to simulate temperature changes 98% of the time and yet are claimed to be accurate anyway. The people who tell us that humans control water temperatures with their CO2 emissions aren’t using real science to reach that conclusion, as we have no real-world evidence or physical measurements that show what anthropogenic CO2 emissions do to water temperatures. It’s all rooted in models and hypotheticals.
“It’s an oversight of the authors of those papers”
ROFLMAO!
You are getting SO DESPERATE that you are now suggesting an oversight by the authors.
So HILARIOUS.
“Since the current imbalance is caused by the increase in greenhouse gases,”
I didn’t know parrots yapped.
Pure unsupportable anti-science garbage, and you know it, seb.
And yet another puerile attempt to try to DISTRACT from the FACT that you are TOTALLY UNABLE to produce one single bit of empirical science showing CO2 warms oceans or atmosphere.
Enhanced atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT warm oceans or the atmosphere.
There is NO realistic scientific or physical mechanism by which it can.
Just disproven, FAILED and baseless hypothetical assumptions.
“Science says that without those human activities there would have been no warming over that timespan.”
ROFLMAO.
A bunch of ASSUMPTION driven models discounting all knowledge of the major variations of the Sun, ARE NOT SCIENCE, seb
You yet again PROVE that you have zero comprehension of what REAL SCIENCE is.
YOu just keep digging deeper and deeper into you ANTI-SCIENCE, ANTI-PHYSICS troll-hole.
And you STILL cannot provide any real science to back up the very basis of the AGW FARCE
CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE WARMING OF OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE OR ANYTHING.
There is ZERO empirical science to say it does.
You remain, as always, EMPTY, seb.
I hate it when you (Kenneth) do that and comment in the middle of a thread disturbing the timeline. Use the comment system like we others have to, with that mobile unfriendly interface which forces us to actually write HTML to quote something.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html is a good starting point. Of course it’s all just fake and made up, right?
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Wow, nice one … making up something I didn’t say while simultaneously evading the question.
Just for clarification, do you think El Ninos cause permanent warming of the atmosphere as AndyG55 does?
Just 0% of the warming, Kenneth. And of course only in the timespan we are talking about. Not the distant past where humans clearly had only little influence.
This is not how it works and I explained it to you like a hundred times. Won’t do that again … you obviously ignore everything that is not confirming to your perception of how reality should be.
The rest … more blabla. You really sound like flat earthers and/or anti-vaxxers. I hope you’ll someday realize the stupidity of your arguments. A good start would be to get outside of your bubble. Go to a university and let them explain you thinks and watch their reactions when you come up with your paper/science quotes and your demands for an experiment needed to prove that CO2 actually does what we know it does for over a century now 😉
@AndyG55: you should do the same as I just suggested to Kenneth. Go meat the real world. Don’t imagine up physics …
You’re “pretty sure” that these [scientific papers quantifying the effect of CO2 on ocean heat content] exist? Then you should have no problem locating them, then.
Uh, SebastianH, that’s not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. That’s a blog post written by “an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years.” There is nothing in that blog post that uses observational evidence to quantify the controlling effect that CO2 variations have on ocean temperatures.
In fact, the blogger acknowledges that we have no observational evidence or physical measurements when he writes “it’s not possible to manipulate the concentration of CO2 in the air in order to carry out real world experiments, but natural changes in cloud cover provide an opportunity to test the principle.” So it’s a “principle” that CO2 exerts fundamental control over the heating of the ocean, but we don’t have any real-world experiments to verify this — so we have to use clouds (which are fundamentally different than CO2) to illustrate the “principle”.
Science is about real-world, repeatable experiments. Quantification. Physical measurements. You claim that you’re “pretty sure” such papers exist that quantify the effect of CO2 on water temperature. And a blog post written by a well-meaning activist is all you can come up with?
If CO2 controlled the temperatures of the oceans as you believe (since you’ve claimed that 100% of ocean warming is caused by CO2), surely the scientists who detail the factors affecting the ocean-to-atmosphere heat flux would mention, if not feature CO2 as the primary control on ocean heating. And yet, as I have pointed out, when discussing the contributors to heat flux and the oceans’ changing temperatures, clouds, wind, humidity, aerosols, and (of course) the Sun are all mentioned. CO2 is not. You claim this is an “oversight” by scientists publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. How odd that scientists would collectively fail to mention the one factor that is responsible for 100% of ocean warming in their papers. That’s one major “oversight”.
I assume that AndyG55 probably agrees that ENSO events simply redistribute and recirculate heat in step-like fashion, which is what is observed in the temperature record. That’s what scientists say happens too.
Belohpetsky et al., 2017
https://cest.gnest.org/sites/default/files/presentation_file_list/cest2017_00726_oral_paper.pdf
It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation (see: Wang and Fiedler, 2006). During strong El Niño events global average temperature rises by a few tenths Kelvin and reverts back subsequently. … The residual dynamics left after adjusting global surface temperature anomalies (1950-2014) for short-term variability from El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic eruptions have a staircase pattern. Linear trends for three quasi-stable periods 1950-1987, 1988-1997 and 1998-2014 are near zero with nearly all warming occurring during two step-like shifts in the years 1987/1988 and 1997/1998. A notable consequence of the staircase dynamics of recent warming is that observed temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4.5) from 1950 till 2014 could be almost reproduced as the linear sum of only two factors(!) : ENSO variability and the staircase function.
—
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. … [S]tep-like changes are also present in tide gauge observations, rainfall, ocean heat content and related variables.
——————————————–
Modulated by the Sun….
—
Huo and Xiao, 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682617303024
This paper uses the sunspot number (SSN) index and the El Niño modoki index (EMI) to examine the possible modulation of El Niño Modoki events by variations in solar activity. A significant positive correlation was found between SSN and EMI with a lag of two years, and both SSN and EMI have an obvious period of about 11–12 years. … Two possible mechanisms are proposed, one is the direct mechanism that the solar radiation warms up the tropical pacific with a geographical difference, due to the cloud distribution. The warming response in the central Pacific is amplified by the coupled positive feedback between the ocean and atmosphere with 1–2 years lag. Another possible way can be described as follows: the solar heating effect propagating from the upper atmosphere modulates the strength and variation of atmospheric anomaly at high and mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere winter, which results in an anomalous subtropical cyclone over the northeastern Pacific in the winter seasons following the solar peak years. The anomalous cyclone reduces the cloud cover over the northeastern Pacific and enhances the local input of solar radiation. As a result, a positive sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly occurs over the northeastern Pacific and extends towards the central tropical Pacific along the path of anomalous southwesterly winds, which may trigger an El Niño Modoki event in the following years.
So, in looking at, say, the North Atlantic…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-Duchez-2016.jpg
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/North-Atlantic-Cooling-OHC-Piecuch-2017.jpg
… we can say that the warming during 1995-2005 was caused by humans, but the abrupt cooling after 2005 was caused by natural factors?
The substance in these posts of yours have taken a dive in recent weeks. Why?
seb yaps…“Don’t imagine up physics …”
Nope, I will leave that TOTALLY up to you.
Again , the incredibly PATHETIC and PUERILE attempt at distraction.
You cannot produce ONE SINGLE Piece of empirical science to back up the AGW FALLACY that CO2 causes warming.
All your other pathetic caterwauling and ranting and child-minded attention-seeking is IRRELEVANT.
And I’m sorry your understanding of atmospheric physics is SO MUDDLED and CONFUSED that you don’t understand how El Ninos work and affect the climate..
We have tried to help you, but you are beyond help.
“I explained it to you like a hundred times. “
ROFLMAO.
Your explanations are the problem , seb
They are a load of UNSUPPORTABLE GARBAGE.
Totally devoid of any semblance to reality or any known physics or science
There is ZERO scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming of oceans atmosphere or anything else.
All the slight REAL warming has come from NATURAL causes, those being the ocean oscillations and a series of strong solar cycles.
You CANNOT provide one single piece of empirical scientific evidence that says otherwise.
You remain EMPTY!!
Last reply in this thread … it’s not worth it to waste any more time. I have to compile an FAQ of my own that I can just link to whenever you repeat yourself over and over … of course, it will be written by an amateur to, so you’ll probably ignore it like everything that doesn’t fit in your little bubble world.
I wrote, “it’s a starting point”. Not going to do your homework. Out of curiosity, do you think the Holmes paper in that other post of yours is a “peer-reviewed scientific paper”?
This is getting boring by now … why do you need to make up such things? Why do you prefer fighting straw men? Do you think nobody notices?
Again, I am not doing your homework. If you think posting papers and arguing with their omission of something, go ahead. It’s a pretty hollow argument.
Do you really think all the papers on the topic of ocean warming/cooling just mention factors that influence the incoming radiation, but not those that affect the outgoing radiation? Or omit the pretty obvious thing called greenhouse gases that affects outgoing radiation (even if their concentration would currently not increase, that’s a pretty huge oversight).
Yeah, really odd. Maybe you perceive it this way, because you found the few that did confirm your bias?
Here are some scientists that didn’t omit this (damn, I ended up doing your homework again):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021592/full – Levitus 2005
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09043 – Lyman 2009
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07080 – Domingues 2007
You can’t bend physics this way. An event the redistributes heat (from OHC towards the atmosphere) can’t cause a lasting increase in atmospheric heat content without an imbalance exiting. Otherwise it would create an imbalance with the opposite sign and energy loss towards space would increase, and thus the surface temperature decrease again.
As for scientists saying something, I am sure the ones you cherry picked say exactly what you want to hear. Well done!
Either you don’t want to understand or you are incapable of understanding. Which is it?
Again, look at this paper:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
If you can overcome your model allergy, what do you see? A timespan encompassing the end of the 19th century until the beginning of the 21st century. When science says that all the warming in this timespan comes from human emissions, then it doesn’t mean that every temperature increase during that timespan is caused by human emissions and every cooling caused by nature. Is that so hard to understand?
I don’t know what you mean by that, but I am growing tired of the continued nonsense on this blog with the audacity to claim it’s science that claims this nonsense. AndyG55’s ignorance of physics and hightened level of insults. You taking things out of context, making up what others said and failing to understand even the most basic things I am writing. Which could be caused by my not perfect English language skills of course, but I doubt that for the majority of cases.
Anyway, tired of the BS here. Will reduce my reply frequency over the coming days and let you feel like you have no opposition. Back to your bubble. Continue to not be the least bit skeptic about anything that agrees with your point of view.
How odd that scientists would collectively fail to mention the one factor that is responsible for 100% of ocean warming in their papers. That’s one major “oversight”.
Oh, this is priceless. SebastianH, those papers don’t do anything close to what you have claimed they do. They don’t provide physical measurements from real-world experiments quantifying the effects of CO2 concentration changes on water temperatures. They don’t discuss the actually observed physical process involved in how CO2 cools and heat the oceans when lowered and raised. They don’t identify the extent to which CO2 causes temperature changes relative to clouds, wind, aerosols, humidity, solar forcing, etc. All they do is repeat the claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect water temperatures. This is your version of “homework”?
Again, Science does not say that 100% of ocean heating comes from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Activists and scientists with an agenda say that. Science is about REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS. There are no physical measurements from the real world that show how much heating or cooling is caused in water bodies by varying the concentrations of CO2 above them. None. You keep claiming you have this evidence, these physical measurements, but when asked to produce it all you can come up with is papers that say anthropogenic CO2 emissions affect ocean heat content changes. No quantification. No observational evidence of process. No real-world physical measurements. It’s all just assertions and models. How much cooling does reducing CO2 concentrations by 10 ppm (0.00001) cause in bodies of water, SebastianH? Do you know? Of course you don’t. There is no data available that you can point to.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
“The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux.” [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]
—
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0041:OOTIRP>2.0.CO;2
Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting transmittance, or anywhere in the paper.]
—
ftp://mana.soest.hawaii.edu/pub/rlukas/OCN-MET665/fluxes/radiative/Ohlmann%20etal%20Part%20II%202000%20JPO.pdf
“Results from radiative transfer calculations indicate that in-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount“ [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting heat flux, or anywhere in the paper]
–-
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.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting heat flux, or anywhere in the paper]
“I don’t get why a cooling by natural cycles would mean “bad times” for global warming alarmists? “
ROFLMAO.
Then why the DESPERATION and manic attention-seeking, seb !!
Great to see you now admitting to NATURAL CYCLES. 🙂
“Looking forward to a longer winter “
You’ll be ok so long as that fossil fuel heating keeps going.
“Regarding El Nina conditions…. yap … yap”
Are you trying to say that during an El Nino, energy is NOT released from the ocean into the atmosphere.
ROFLMAO..
The non-famous seb ANTI-facts are on show.. yet again.
Comment above comes from seb’s use of the wrong terminology.
“NOAA……OHC is decreasing”
Its going to take quite a bit of cooling to overcome the NOAA “adjustments” and assumption driven OHC modelling.
“El Nina “
And at least learn to use the correct term !!
It “La Nina”.
La Nina, is the recharge phase of the ENSO pseudo-oscillation.
That recharge comes from THE SUN. !!
The Sun is currently having a bit of a snooze.
You wrote: “Regarding El Nina conditions”
Sebastian, this is a bit of a disappointment. I thought you knew your stuff but anybody that garbles up el niño & la niña has not been reading up on the subject very well.
Maybe you were joking? or testing the readership?
Shit happens, but I find it hilarious that this is what you need to comment about.
Yet you found it necessary to comment back.. so funny.
You STUFFED UP, displaying your IGNORANCE AS ALWAYS, seb
Oh sorry, I thought this reply thread was about replies with no substance. As you’ve just shown again …
All your replies have ZERO substance,
and ZERO science.
Just your child-minded attention seeking.
Can’t even admit to yourself that you STUFFED-UP.
SebastianH: ‘I don’t get why a cooling by natural cycles would mean “bad times” for global warming alarmists?’
Because alarmists said there were no short term natural cycles connected with the sun. That 90% of climate change was CO2-induced warming. If they are wrong on that, what else are they wrong on?
Actually, they believe that warming is 110% human caused. Really. Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who wrote the following, is a mathematician by training.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/
“The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%”
I blame the education system that you can’t understand how greater than 100% causal attribution can exist.
Imagine you have no money and I give you 110€. Someone takes away 10€ from your account. You are left with 100€. Now what is the percentage my 110€ contributed to your new account balance?
Oh I definitely understand how Gavin concocts the 110% value, as he is including the humans-simultaneously-caused-the-cooling-too (aerosols) factor. I just find it ridiculous to claim that climate change was 100% natural prior to humans coming along and emitting CO2 and aerosols, and then, beginning in 1950, the natural attribution just…disappeared. Zero percent. (Or -10%.) Nowhere else in real science does the 100% cause for a physical phenomenon disappear and become a 0% cause in a matter of years. But that’s what we’re asked to believe by Gavin the mathematician.
“I blame the education system that you can’t…. ”
…. produce one single bit of empirical science to back up CO2 warming, yet you still “believe”
Whatever education system you spent your time at the back of the class in, seb…..
…..it FAILED MISERABLY to impart to you, any signs of scientific rationality.
” greater than 100%”
And yet seb cannot produce one bit of empirical evidence that the effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2 produces anything greater than 0% of the warming.
He remains stubbornly and wilfully EMPTY on backing up THE BIGGEST LIE of the AGW scam.
Well, nowhere in real science you have people that are incapable of understanding what this is about. The natural factors didn’t disappear, why would they? They just didn’t contribute to warming in that timespan. And no, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t cause warming during the timespan.
Apparently, this is too hard to understand for a skeptic …
Only INCAPABLE around here is YOU, seb
You are INCAPABLE of understanding that real science requires empirical measurements for verification of fantasy theories.
You have ZERO such empirical verification
The AGW CO2-warming ass-umption is a FAILURE,
No signature of CO2 warming in 40 years of satellite data.
No signature of CO2 warming of oceans.
No physically rational mechanism for CO2 warming.
Just your unproven fantasy fizzics.
The whole FARCE is TOTALLY EMPTY.
I know you have intense problems grasping any other part of basic science or physics…
…but WHY is it SO DARN HARD for you to grasp the basic concept of EMPIRICAL DATA?
“They just didn’t contribute to warming in that timespan.”
Arrant, unprovable BS. !!
There is ZERO PROOF that the slight but highly beneficial ocean-based warming is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL.
Check out this from Euan Mearns, with some amazing snow photos, lasting much more than one day.
http://euanmearns.com/the-death-of-sunspot-cycle-24-huge-snow-and-record-cold/
Yeah, it would be strange if there weren’t any snow. I am talking about us living at more close to sea level.
P.S.: The image from that article you linked to is lifted from the web, not “sent in by a friend”. A quick search should have ended all the speculations the author makes. The image is from an avalanche in Bessans/Savoyen far far away from the Mont Blanc: https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/savoie/photos-mur-neige-4-7-metres-apres-avalanche-impressionnante-bessans-savoie-1398673.html … you decide if you want to classify such posts fake news or not, but it is surely made up.
Yeah seb, snow is now a “thing of the past” in the French Alps.
Your desperation is showing.
Is that what you read from my comment?
Who knows what to make of your child-minded empty attention-seeking comments!
Well, a good start would be to actually read what others write and then understand what they write. Not making stuff up and defending made up “my friend from Europe” articles.
From you, that is the height of irony.
Especially the “understanding” part.
[…] H/T to No Tricks Zone […]
[…] H/T to No Tricks Zone […]
ROFLMAO….
Seems there is a “hole” in “global warming”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article200169249.html
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/02/the-mysterious-global-warming-hole/
Cooling would be bad times for alarmists because like all millenarian kooks they covertly long for the climate catastrophe that will change everything and bring about their utopia.
That’s why they eagerly look forward to every claimed confirmation of their belief in the data and relish every destructive weather event.
bad times for alarmists
Rumor is they sold their insulated boots! Ouch!
Just noticed this paper :
Clim. Past, 13, 1199–1212, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1199-2017
Influence of solar variability on the occurrence of central
European weather types from 1763 to 2009
The abstract looks relevant to the discussion above :
Abstract.
The impact of solar variability on weather and cli-
mate in central Europe is still not well understood. In this pa-
per we use a new time series of daily weather types to analyse
the influence of the 11-year solar cycle on the tropospheric
weather of central Europe. We employ a novel, daily weather
type classification over the period 1763–2009 and investigate
the occurrence frequency of weather types under low, moder-
ate, and high solar activity level. Results show a tendency to-
wards fewer days with westerly and west-southwesterly flow
over central Europe under low solar activity. In parallel, the
occurrence of northerly and easterly types increases. For the
1958–2009 period, a more detailed view can be gained from
reanalysis data. Mean sea level pressure composites under
low solar activity also show a reduced zonal flow, with an in-
crease of the mean blocking frequency between Iceland and
Scandinavia. Weather types and reanalysis data show that the
11-year solar cycle influences the late winter atmospheric cir-
culation over central Europe with colder (warmer) conditions
under low (high) solar activity.
The paper is open access, but I have not been through it completely myself yet . It does seem that the rejection of natural cycles by some climatologists may not be justified in all climatic zones.
Yes, this paper is included in our compilation of 121 papers (link below) that support a strong solar link to climate changes, past and present. It’s about a third of the way down.
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/
What is the definition of a cycle, Mike? Is it something that happens periodically? Do cycles contribute to any warming or cooling over long timespans when they just go up and down?
It will be much colder than normal for most of the US during March also. Great set up for severe winter weather in the Midwest and east starting about Feb. 27th. It’s looking like there is a real possibility it will snow in N. Florida for the third time this year sometime after that date. Just depends on how far south the blocking high in Canada will come.
Friday before last I was in Laredo, TX watching people walk around in heavy winter gear when it was 28 F with a little wind. Kind of funny really. It was so cold relative to what they’re used to the usual panhandlers one finds at certain intersections were not in evidence.
This is a rant.
Western/Central Europe shouldn’t be colder than Midwest and Eastern US this time of year.And certainly not colder than Ottawa,Montreal,Toronto and Quebec in Canada.And what’s up with the East coast of the US being way above avg again.I’m fed up with this cold,and stratospheric warmings that only seem to affect Europe.And now La Nina is affecting Europe too.Seems like the US midwest and East is gonna get the “warmth” again.And “mild”climates moderated by the sea are put in the freezer.I don’t believe an ice age will affect the US,it will affect Europe mostly.
Rant over.
Thanks, I certainly wouldn’t rate it as anything more than a rant.
A message to the idiots.
Man made warming is a chimera western politicians always need something to keep the populace worried and as an excuse to tax the bejabbers out of us – Agenda 21 and the relocation of resources to the ‘south’ and ‘developing countries’ is also the end game.
In Brtain, as we shut down our only reliable source of fossil fueled power generation, yes steam and fired by coal and closed down thanks to those cretins named ‘politicians’ and by citing the chimera of ‘global warming’ as the mindbogglingly limp excuse. As, the Sun goes quiet, Fracking could save us but the greentards and their ‘friends’ in the labour ranks, elite, KSA and Qatar won’t allow it.
Cold is what we get, cold kills and note that, we’re in an ice age, we need to get on our knees and thank the heavens for some warmth as the sun goes into hibernation and mankind still doesn’t know what is the trigger for a new ice advance. Indeed, lets fervently hope that it ( a return to ice) doesn’t happen for another couple of hundred years but guaranteed, is that, the ice will return with a vengeance.
There is only one truth that needs to be substantiated and that should be obvious, however the waters have been muddied so much using irrelevant factors that most of the public and all of the politicians just don’t know.
The basic concept of CAGW, put out by the warming community, is that CO2 is a heat trapping gas, that an increase will warm the atmosphere.
The whole scam is based on one mechanism: the idea that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping, “greenhouse” gas.
I have said that twice for a reason: it is the core concept on which CAGW stands or falls.
BUT CO2 IS NOT A HEAT TRAPPING GAS and must resolve to equilibrate with gases surrounding it: Instantly.
It is known and accepted by all scientists with at least basic university degrees, there is no mechanism by which CO2 can adversely affect the atmospheric temperature.
If this point was examined in court, there would be ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE and the case would be dismissed immediately..
CO2 cannot act in the way they claim.
This is the scientific truth of the matter.
There never was and never will be any human caused Global Warming.
We need to start attacking this point.
Real science is quite clear: CO2 is NOT a heat trapping gas and cannot be responsible for changes in Earth’s atmospheric temperature.
All other debate around global warming is irrelevant, pointless and deceitful when this fact is ignored.
Why is this fact not used as the basis of a court action against all of the “misdirection” of public funds justified by association with the CAGW scam.
AGW sympathisers have avoided facing the question on the basic mechanism by endlessly debating non-issues and have given the illusion of debate while hiding from the real science.
We see our local brain-hosed AGW parrot, totally unable to produce any empirical science to back up this most basic of AGW LIES, while always trying to divert attention onto irrelevant non-science on other topics.
This is the what these brain-numbed idea-logs HAVE to do.
They CANNOT support the central tenet of the whole AGW scam.
Enhanced atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE WARMING of our oceans or atmosphere, OR ANYTHING. !
Pierre, any chance of fixing the bolding ?
The only parts that were meant to be bold were
“CO2 is NOT a heat trapping gas and cannot be responsible for changes in Earth’s atmospheric temperature.”
and
“Enhanced atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE WARMING of our oceans or atmosphere, OR ANYTHING. !”
Absolutely, the whole global warming shebang is based on a supposition which is proven to be: total bollox.
all the rest is lies, based on lies and more lies.
Sebastian, you say that the imbalance is due to the increase in greenhouse gases. If it could be demonstrated, that the increase in DWLIR was due to something else, say a change in absorbed solar, would you be open to such a discussion?
Sure. How would that be compatible with the measured spectrograms of the downwelling longwave radiation (from the surface looking up) and the development of spectra measured by satellites? Both show an increase in the wavelengths dominated by GHGs.
I wonder why it is, then, that there was a pause in the extent to which the greenhouse effect influenced temperature changes during 1992-2014, or during the same period of time that CO2 emissions from humans exploded from 6 GtC/yr to 10 GtC/yr. If the GHGs “dominate”, why was there a pause in greenhouse forcing?
New Paper Documents Imperceptible CO2 Influence On The Greenhouse Effect Since 1992
Song et al., 2016
“The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] exhibits a notable increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m−2 yr−1 in 1979–1991, whereas its rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.”
Song et al make some observations, but both parameters Ga and Gs have a component of the absorbed radiation and are not a true measure of the greenhouse effect. But Ken, you insist that sea cannot be heated by long wave radiation, which the greenhouse model assumes? How can you agree with Song et al?
No, I have not insisted that. Instead, I have not been provided with (nor has anyone claimed to have) any real-world evidence that shows varying CO2 concentrations over water bodies in volumes of parts per million cause heat changes (warming when raised, cooling when lowered) in those water bodies. LW radiation and CO2 concentration changes are not one in the same. In fact, as that Song paper indicates, clouds dominate the effects of “greenhouse” forcing (~100 W m-2 vs. 1.8 W m-2 for CO2 forcing [alleged] since 1750) and override the alleged forcing capabilities of the GHGs (water vapor, CO2).
“[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.”
Clouds dominate in both LW and SW. That’s why…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
“Thus, clouds had a net cooling effect on the earth. This cooling effect is large over the mid-and high-latitude oceans, with values reaching -100 W/m(2) … 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 CO(2). The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO(2) doubling.”
I’m still waiting for real-world evidence to be provided that shows CO2 concentration changes affect water temperatures, and if so, by how much. We have no physical measurements. That’s a major scientific problem for the CO2-controls-the-ocean-heat-content crowd. Hopefully this clears up where I stand on the issue.
And you still buy into that Hiatus thing … it’s unbelievable.
And no, cloud forcing is not in the range of 100 W/m2 vs. 1.8 W/m2 CO2 forcing. Where will you finally understand that those two values are not comparable?
But it sounds good as a sound bite, doesn’t it?
“And you still buy into that Hiatus thing “
Two hiatus actually
No warming from 1980-1997
No warming from 2001-2015
33 years out of 40 in the satellite data have been HIATUS.
That is what the REAL DATA .. you know ..
…actually UNADJUSTED , UNTAMPERED measurements ie REAL SCIENCE tells us.
Actually, YOU don’t know. real data and REAL SCIENCE are totally foreign to you, seb.
Absolutely ZERO REAL DATA showing any warming of atmosphere, ocean or anything by CO2
So sad that your brain-hosing is so complete that you absolutely REFUISE to look at real data and REAL SCIENCE
What a substantive rebuttal.
Perhaps you should inform Dr. Peter Minnett (in his blogpost explanation on RealClimate for how GHGs heat the oceans) that he should not be comparing the forcing range for clouds with the CO2 forcing since 1750 (1.8 W m-2) or doubled (4 W m-2), then.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
“Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”
McLean, 2014
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/ACS_2014102414474452.pdf
“The decrease in total cloud cover anomaly is approximately 4.5 percent of sky, against the long-term average (all months 1984-2009 inclusive) of 66.4 percent of sky, which means a reduction of 6.8% of the cover. The reduction in total cloud cover is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] , which indicates that cloud reflect 23% of the 341 Wm−2 (i.e. 79 Wm−2) of incoming solar radiation. The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere, some of which will be lost when it adds to the longwave
radiation to space. Of course clouds have many other effects on the earth’s radiation budget many of which are not fully understood, but a change of 5.4 Wm−2 is potentially of considerable significance.”
“To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1], section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2”
Seb ,
There is NO EMPRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes any warming.
Put up, or GET OVER IT.
“and the development of spectra measured by satellites? Both show an increase in the wavelengths dominated by GHGs.”
Satellite look downward.. so are you saying there is an INCREASE in LW radiation outwards. 😉
Increase of the effect Greenhouse gases have.
The spectra from satellites show a decrease in the relevant wavelengths over time. The spectra looking up from the surface show an increase.
parroting your mantra isn’t proof of CO2 warming, seb.
EMPTY as always.
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/16/europe-facing-coldest-march-in-years-global-surface-temperatures-… […]
Thanks for your response. Well, of course the increase in atmospheric temperature will be expressed through back radiation in those parts of the spectra – how could it be otherwise? But that does not necessarily imply an increase in emissivity, it could, but it doesn’t have to. Back radiation has a dependency on emissivity and absorbed solar. By that, I mean the surface flux also has a dependency on both as well. If atmospheric temperature and therefore back radiation were dependent only on emissivity, you could never change atmospheric temperature by changing albedo! I think you would agree in principle that a change in albedo would lead to a change in back radiation?
I would agree.
However, wouldn’t a change in backradiation that was caused by a change in solar output (or albedo change) be more uniform over the spectrum than what we observe?
Wouldn’t there be some MEASUREABLE PROOF of increased CO2 warming the atmosphere or ocean if it was actually happening.
I mean, 30+ years of this AGW FARCE, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!
You are still TOTALLY EMPTY in support the very basis of your brain-hosed fantasy AGW religion , seb.
A TOTAL FAILURE.
Perhaps they should find someone not SO TOTALLY INEPT at physics and science to try to support their garbage??
You have NOTHING.
To be more precise: atmospheric and surface temperature can be changed without a change in bulk atmospheric emissivity with respect to surface emitted radiatio. Do you agree?
“n La Nina years more cold water is pushed to the surface.”
If the heat is hiding in the ocean, presumably somewhere below the surface, then where is the cold water coming from that is being pushed to the surface? The deeper ocean should be warmer than the surface, not colder.
In fact, for heat to get below the surface it first has to pass through the surface, meaning the surface should *always* be warmer than the deeper ocean. I.e. there is *less* heat in the ocean as you go deeper.
You can’t argue both that heat is “hiding” in the deep ocean while also arguing that the deep ocean is colder than the surface.
See post: Global SST data confirms cooling is on the way.
THE COMING COOLING.
The latest hadsst3 data shows global SST temperatures are now below the pre El Nino trend.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/01/global-sst-data-confirms-cooling-is-on.html
Remember 2008? When skeptics proclaimed the coming ice age because temperature made a short dip? Let’s all ignore OHC again and do it the same as last time. As if this has ever worked …
“Let’s all ignore OHC again “
OHC.. you mean the TINY amount of NATURAL ocean warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years?
NOTHING to do with human CO2 or any other human influence at all, is it chicken-little.
If you think that CO2 can cause any ocean or atmospheric warming, then PRODUCE THE MEASUREMENTS..
.. you know, SCIENCE, rather than EMPTY PARROTED MANTRA..
Or remain, as always, an EMPTY VASSAL.
AndyG55,
Willful dismissal of the evidence of cooling by the cAGW congregation is because they dare not entertain the idea seriously, as that would destroy their whole religious belief.
Dr Norman Page’s paper offers a fair and balanced assessment, and his dates are consistent with other published research on this matter.
With populations in the USA, Europe, Japan, Australia, North Africa (even), Russia etc., feeling the lack of ‘global warming’, sooner or later the political hot air will leave this misguided UN inspired money and power grab.
Removing all the dross this nonsense has generated may take a long time but it can be done.
For some people, there really is no point trying to tell them CO2 is a non-issue (I don’t need to name names). They never got the memo the first time around when it was revealed that the Globalists (via the Club of Rome) basically picked CO2 as a convenient enemy. Why? Because carbon was common to all things and if they could tax it, they could wreck industrialized society (break it down to consolidate power). That’s what all this boils down to. “The power to tax is the power to destroy!” One not even need be a scientist to understand the “global warming” debate. It’s all about control and taxation. Nothing to do with saving the planet.
So, if you’re an “alarmist” and you believe CO2 is the bane of the planet, you’ve been had. The question is, can you admit to it? Don’t feel ashamed. Just do your homework. We’ll keep the lights on for you and you can join the team (Team Humanity), when you’re ready.
There should be a test for someone like you that you can take to find out whether or not you are a conspiracy theorist (if that is not obvious to you already).
Good luck with living in that paranoid world where everyone is out to get you 😉
Only person mentioning conspiracies around here is YOU, seb.
You are also one of the most PARANOID chicken-littles I have ever seen.
MANIC, brain-hosed belief in the scientifically unsupportable FARCE of CO2 warming.
PANIC, PANIC….
Do you own a sandwich board with “THE END IS NIGH” splashed on it uncoordinated hysteria?
http://29odkrngwwiml6xqsb8nbfh.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lead64.jpg
Oh, you mean the word “conspiracy”? That is true, but now you mentioned it too. Damn it.
Funny that seb DENIES the STATED OBJECTIVE of the AGW hierarchy.
https://s19.postimg.org/s5eqnxsfn/endenhofer.png
And lets not forget the actual comments from the Ork, Club of Rome etc etc about bringing down western society.
You are obviously not quite an AGW “true believer”,
You haven’t been faithfully listening to your left-wing fascist masters, have you chicken-little.
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Informations here: notrickszone.com/2018/02/16/europe-facing-coldest-march-in-years-global-surface-temperatures-cool-bad-times-for-warming-alarmists/ […]