It was just reported that Greenland set a new all-time July cold record, where the mercury plummeted to -33°C. Read details here.
What follows are excerpts from the most recent analysis of global temperature at wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com.
A Greenland record low shouldn’t come as a surprise since in the wake of the recent El Nino global temperatures measured by satellite now continue their freefall. UAH saw it’s lowest measurement in two years, with June coming in with an anomaly of 0.21°K, which was considerably lower than the 0.45°C anomaly recorded in May.
Source: UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2017: +0.21 deg. C
Especially the southern hemisphere, which comprises 81% of the globe’s water surface, has been cold recently. The surface temperature plummeted by 0.4°K over the course of June, coming in at an anomaly of just +0.09°C. Antarctica, according to NCEP, was especially cold in June 2017:
A reanalysis of the WMO 1981-2010 2mtemperature anomaly for June, 2017, shows widespread Antarctic cooling. Source: www.karstenhaustein.com/climate.php.
Also RSS satellite data is showing a clear downward trend since early 2016:
Global temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere at 1500 meters since early 2016, measured by RSS. Source: www.woodfortrees.org/2016/to:2017.5/trend.
Warming hiatus to reach 20 years
As does UAH, RSS shows little or no warming occurring over the past 20 years:
As RSS temperature continues its retreat from the natural ENSO-caused spike, the warming hiatus will resume and extend. By the end of this year, the hiatus will reach 20 years. Source: www.woodfortrees.org/from:1997.7/to:2016.08/trend.
Another interesting pint is that mid troposphere temperatures also fell sharply over June and are at the lower range of the spectrum seen over the past 16 years.
Plot of the UAH-AMSU temperatures at the middle troposphere, 400 hPA (approx. 7.5 km altitude), from January 2002 to July 2017. Source: https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/.
Greenland surface ice mass balance has also reached a record high, defying the often heard claims that it’s melting. Greenland’s ice mass so far is showing a surplus of some 700 billion tonnes – a record!
Arctic surprises the experts
Arctic sea ice has also surprised many experts, who previously had been predicting record lows, or even its outright disappearance.
Ironically Arctic sea ice has shown a record May-to-May growth from 2016 to 2017. It was the strongest growth for that period since measurements began in 1979.
There has also been a sharp drop in troposphere temperatures above the oceans, which explain the global temperatures. Ocean cycles in large part drive the global temperature over year and decadal scales. Last month they fell to just 0.09°K above the WMO 1981-2010 mean, falling from 0.29°C a month earlier.
Ocean cycles driving global temperature, not trace gas CO2. Source: www.climate4you.com/ here: Sea surface temperature estimates: UAH.
RSS also shows a similar drop in temperature above the world’s oceans, with the anomaly falling from 0.38°K to 0.18°K.
188 responses to “The ‘Pause’ Returns As Global Temperatures Plummet, Warming Hiatus To Extend To 20 Years!”
It is finally happening,the long predicted cooling phase that has been made by various people in recent years.
Yes, it’s official. Even Nature has now reported that Greenland has been cooling slightly since 2005. The Arctic warming trend only lasted about 12 to 15 years (roughly 1993 to 2005), and since then it’s plateaued and cooled.
Kobashi et al., 2017
“For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling. The Summit temperatures are well correlated with southwest coastal records (Ilulissat, Kangerlussuaq, Nuuk, and Qaqortoq).”
The last 12- to 15-year warming trend in Arctic Greenland was 1919-1932. After that, it cooled for 50 years. Expect a repeat. The North Atlantic has had a head start with the rapid cooling: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-OHC-Duchez-16.jpg
Box et al., 2009
“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming. … The 1955–82 cooling phase was most significant during autumn in east and southern Greenland.”
And considering the Southern Ocean has cooled by about a full degree C since 1979, one wonders how one gets to “global” warming.
“Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately 0.2–0.4°C per decade or 0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”
In reality, the oceans have been steadily warming.
Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content
In the published article, the reference to the “Southern Ocean” was just the close proximity to Antarctica. Since the original article was published, this local cooling in waters near Antarctica has been reversed, with Antarctic sea ice extent hitting an all time, all season low this year.
Based on assumption driven MODELS, very little data. Before 2003 the data coverage was basically less than 5-10% of the ocean depths and most of that in the AMO affected northern Atlantic sea routes.
Phil Jones even admitted that they had no data for the Southern Ocean, and that it was all “made up”
One should also note that any sane person would be very thankful for some warming out of the LIA, which was the coldest period in 10,000 years.. Move to Siberia if you want to go back to those bitterly cold time.
But I bet you also prefer “warm”.
Ocean temperature observations improved dramatically starting in 2000 with the deployment of the Argo Buoy system. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html Please note (from the link) that coverage now includes the “Southern Ocean” south of latitude 60 degrees. S. Prior to the Argo Buoy system, there were virtually no reliable observations from this area.
These ocean measurements are probably a better guide than even ordinary surface temperatures as they are not near any city influences, and are much less variable.
Since the Argo observations started, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been increasing at a rate equal to the heat from 3.3 trillion 100-watt light bulbs running 24/7. The “good news” is that it takes a lot of heat to warm the huge mass of the oceans.
The huge mass of the oceans slows the overall warming rate of the earth’s surface. Land areas are warming more rapidly than the frequently quoted “Land/Sea” numbers. Since 1975, land areas in the northern hemisphere have been warming at 0.33 deg C. (nearly 0.6 deg F.) per decade. (Least squares trend line calculation based on the data accessible via https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php – Click on “Anomalies and Index Data” and then select “Northern Hemisphere” & “Land”)
When the ARGO data showed the ocean cooling from 2003-2009, the overseers adjusted the data to show warming. They called it “correcting” the cooling.
According to Levitus et al., 2012, cited heavily by the IPCC (AR5) the 0-2000 m layer warmed by a whopping 0.09°C between 1955-2010. That’s less than 1/10th of 1 degree of ocean warming in 55 years (0.27 W m-2)
The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface.
Below 2000 meters, the oceans have been cooling overall since 1992.
Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014
Defining the physics of those changes in terms of boundary currents, wave propagation, eddy diffusion, and the myriad of other oceanic physical processes, region by region, remains a major unfinished piece of business. In those same regions [western Atalantic basin and Southern Oceans], a longer-term general warming pattern occurs below 2000 m. A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth, including the entirety of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic basin.
A visual of the below-2000 m cooling can be seen here: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Atlantic-Indian-Oceans-Wunsch-Heimbach-2014.jpg
Only 11% of the ocean below 2000 meters has even been measured, and 52% of the ocean lies below 2000 meters. Therefore, only a small fraction of the ocean has even been subjected to measurement – ever.
Wunsch and Heimbach, 2014
About 52% of the ocean lies below 2000 m and about 18% below 3600 m. … [A]bout ⅓ (11% of the total volume) of water below 2000 m was sampled during that time [1992-2011]. Of the 16% lying below 3600 m, about 17% was measured.
Even more damning, the ARGO dataset has error ranges/uncertainty in measurement from 0.5°C up to 2.0°C (temperature) and 10 to 50 W m-2 (heat). This means that errors/uncertainty in measurement is several times greater than the total amount of warming/heat change estimated for 1955-2010 (0.09°C/0.27 W m-2) in the 0-2000 m layer (not including the cooling in the sub-2000 meter layer). In other words, the data we have for the oceans are little more than modeled guesses…that are heavily subjected to the biases of the humans who oversee/adjust the data.
“In this study we have investigated the accuracy of North Atlantic temperature and heat storage fields from the Argo profiling float dataset. In particular we have considered the limitations placed by the number of available floats on the accuracy with which Argo can be used to estimate these fields. … Agreement between the hydrographic and Argo-based temperature fields to within 0.5° C was typically found in the eastern basin with higher differences in the western basin, particularly within the boundary current where errors exceed 2° C. … Our analysis of subsampled temperature fields from the OCCAM model has shown that in the subtropical North Atlantic, the Argo project provides temperature data at a spatial and temporal resolution that results in a sampling uncertainty in mixed layer heat storage of order 10 – 20 Wm-2 . … [T]he expected sampling error increases to more than 50 Wm−2 in the Gulf Stream region and north of 40°N, limiting the use of Argo in these areas.”
So no, ocean measurements are not “a better guide” than atmospheric temperature datasets. The errors and uncertainty range alone thoroughly call into question their accuracy and reliability.
You haven’t read the whole paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JC003825/abstract), have you, Kenneth?
You comparing this uncertainty to the 0.27 W/m² figure is just – again – showing that you either don’t understand or that you do this on purpose hoping nobody notices.
P.S.: 0.09 °C warming in a column of 1x1x2000 m equals an increase in heat content by [0.09 K * 2,000,000 kg * 4185.5 J/(kg K)] 0.75339 * 10^9 Joules. That’s 0.4344 W/m² over 55 years, not 0.27 W/m².
Big numbers seriously SCARE you, don’t they seb-troll.!
That’s because of your ignorance and lack of perspective against reality. You seem to think all the ocean is 2000m deep. DOH, you keep getting DUMB and DUMBER….. heading rapidly to becoming DUMBEST. !!!!
btw… Show us where the measurements were made in 1955 seb. Show us a 1955 thermometer that measured to 2 dp !
show us your data.
Or is that 0.09C just from models?
Do you even know ??
I did read the whole paper. And nothing in the two paragraphs you cited in any way alleviates the problem of the errors and uncertainty in measurement being several times larger than the claimed change since 1955.
As the IPCC even notes, the level of uncertainty in measuring heat changes is 10 times greater than the entirety of the forcing attributed to human CO2 emissions since 1750. Obviously, you don’t have a problem with uncertainty or error bars. As long as the figures agree with your point of view, they’re “right”.
IPCC AR4 (2007)
“Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre [20 W m-2] for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.”
IPCC AR5 (2013)
“The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean for each term is expected to be in the range 10 to 20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2 (Pierce et al., 2006).”
The 0.27 W m-2 is a quote figure from Levitus et al. (2012). Perhaps you should let those authors know that you know better than they.
“The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface.”
I’ll emphasize then … apparently it is indeed Chinese what I and they are writing:
“The 0.27 W m-2 is a quote figure from Levitus et al. (2012). Perhaps you should let those authors know that you know better than they.”
You used that figure in a different way than the author who clearly states that this figure is the corresponding rate per unit of earth’s surface. You should be more clear in what you write.
@AndyG55: I didn’t bring up the 0.09°C and 0.27 W/m² figures. And Kenneth clearly wrote that’s the temperature change of the 0-2000m layer.
I love it when you double down on your IGNORANCE.
Comic relief. 🙂
Not Chinese.. just arrant NONSENSE. !
or should that be NON-science.
It seems obviously to me the geopolitical Env. Greens/Socialists (call then what your want) realized based on historical data the global cooling scam of the 1970’s was not going to work since historical information/data began to show the cycle was about to switch to the warm phase similar to the early part of the last century before switching to the cooling phase in the 1950’s and through the 1960’s and 1970’s Ice Age scare (as a kid I remember really be frightened about that problem recognizing Ice Ages are far worse than a little warmer climate). The group of elitist started realizing a was occurring in the 1980’s with the PDO’s, AMO’s, ENSO’s, El Nino’s and LaNina’s etc so they quickly jumped on the Global Warming band wagon. Knowing they had about 30ish years starting in the mid 80’s to the first part of the 21st Century the began to aggressively sell the global warming theme. Jim Hanson was the starting point during the 1988 hearing when they turned down the AC and opened the windows to exaggerate his point. Everything after that was on word ending prophesy after the other. Lets not forget these nuts Paul Ehrlich John Holdren and there population and eugenics ideas. The left would prefer a mass extinction of humans. They are just that crazy.
Unfortunately for them It is now switching back to the cool phase and they did not (thank god) get everything done they had hoped to accomplish although Obama, the EU and the UN but they certainly tried by having Obama sign us up to a Treaty via and executive order. Sorry your global elitists Marist commie’s that is not how our system works and what can be done via the pen and executive action can be undone.
I believe as the sun enters it weaker phase (lower sunspots, TSI, etc – and I am no scientist so excuse the misuse of any references) we will be headed to another 1960’s-1970’s cooling period or worse. A part of me wants worse (like the little Ice Age of the 1700 and 1800) if that happen it would put a nail in the AGW coffin of the scammers. I also want those scammers locked up.
I realize it is about the money now (Gov’t, Corp, NGO’s, Academia, etc) so unwinding this will be difficult. But when the temps drop and they will keep dropping as I have already seen this with my own eyes the past several years these scammer will be exposed. Then it is time for the trails to begin… The amount of fraud is frankly unbelievable. Cooling the past and warming the present… Please it is so obvious… (ps excuse the typo’s please)
Greenland’s ice mass continues to set new record lows.
Greenland ice mass loss continued in 2016
Greenland ice mass is very near its peak level in 8000 years
Are you IGNORANT, or LYING, Bill ?
Grace measure gravity. Greenland sits over a major active volcanic region. Work it out yourself, bozo.
SMB has increased massively this year.
Meanwhile enjoy this graph of the Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900.
Which shows exactly the magnitude of the ice loss. 1 * 10^15 tonnes equal 102 pixels and the line goes down 2 pixels over that period. That’s an ice loss of 1.96 * 10^13 tonnes over 100 years, or a yearly loss of ~200 Gt.
Basically NOTHING, wouldn’t you agree seb-troll
How many years until it all melt, you poor little mathematical inebriate.?
Go and find the actual number, idiot.
Notice that last little tick downward, seb-troll
Its coming down from the COLDEST period in the last 10000 years.
Do you really want COLD like that to come back?
Why not move to Siberia where CO2 warming is not a problem?
You could even drive your Mercedes there.. (no don’t take you mythical EV).
Off you trot, show us that you are not a base-level hypocritical little yapping trollette.
And of course, Greenland actually GAINED Ice mass from 1940-2016
and that the lowest SMB was actually in the 1930s-40s.
Or is seb-troll going to DENY the science, yet again !!
No CO2 signal there, little seb-troll.
“That’s an ice loss of 1.96 * 10^13 tonnes over 100 years, or a yearly loss of ~200 Gt.”
As you can see, MEANINGLESS and TRIVIAL
Like all your comments, seb-troll.
The declining ice loss is actually an artifact caused by the glacial isostatic adjustment they apply. NASA has decided they know what the crust under Greenland is doing and it just so happens that Greenland is losing a lot of ice in compliance with global warming.
But the jig will be up soon when the updated GRACE data will show Greenland barely gaining any mass in 16/17 when the DMI ground-based system showed huge ice gain.
Government funded climate agency tweaks to sea level rise, temperatures and Greenland ice loss always skew in the direction of the AGW scare narrative.
The reason Bill Butler accepts NASA adjustments without question is that liberals will always tolerate fraud so long as that fraud supports their narrative.
And extremist skeptics will always suspect fraud since it’s the only way denying global warming can work. Those that have to rely on claiming the other side uses fake data and reality looks different are not far away from being conspiracy theorists.
“And extremist skeptics will always suspect fraud since it’s the only way denying global warming can work.”
In 1987, there was +0.5 C of warming between 1880 and 1950. https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-0.5C-1880-1950-768×751.jpg
By 2014, all 0.5 C of that 1880-2015 warming had been removed from the global datasets. https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NOAA-Data-Manipulation-No-Warming-1880-1950.jpg
The raw data didn’t change. We didn’t get any new measurements. But they removed 0.5 C of warming anyway. Why do you suspect that they removed a half of degree of warming SebastianH?
In the Climategate e-mails, Phil Jones admitted that the SH sea surface temperatures are “mostly made up”, and he and another data manipulator openly discussed just removing 0.15 C of warming from the “1940s blip”. They talked about Mann’s “Nature Trick” to hide the temperature decline. Michael Mann is now in contempt of court because he refuses to release his data from the hockey stick graph he concocted.
It’s sad to see science head down this path.
Since the fraud is well documented, no “suspicion” is involved, Chatbot-SebH. It’s not a matter of IF they did it, but to what extent, and can it ever be repaired?!
There’s just way too much evidence against them for it to be speculation, especially when other and far more ethical (and qualified) scientists say they are wrong.
A lying piece of AGW cultist will always DENY data manipulation.
Data manipulation is the ONLY way AGW works,
As you have shown, seb-troll, there isn’t one bit of actual science to back you CO2 warming of oceans or a convective atmosphere.
Your little AGW scam is a FANTASY and a LIE.
And I suspect you KNOW that, and the only excitement you have in your pitiful existence is to keep on troll the AGW JUNK-SCIENCE and LIES.
Nearly all warming is from data adjustments . PROVEN many time..
Stop being an Anthropogenic warming DENIER, seb-troll.
What particular correction do you dislike or think that it is fraudulent/unnecessary?
Sorry, but that is not what those e-mails showed. You are falling for the skeptics narrative that AGW must be a fraud here.
The “Nature trick” didn’t “hide the decline” the way you think. It’s just an augmentation of proxy data with real instrumental data. Why? Because the tree ring proxies diverged from the temperature record and other proxies beginning in the 1960s.
That’s fake news.
It’s sad to see skeptics having to resort to these kinds of tactics …
“It is ready calibrated in deg C wrt. 1961-90, against the average Apr-Sep land temperature north of 20N. It goes from 1402 to 1994 – but you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed temperatures due to the decline.”
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were” …. “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible! ”
Climate scientists Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
“the measurements are coming in from places where we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.”
Mann refers to publishing reconstructions that help “the cause”. – “By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc… “. Also 3940.txt: ” so that should help the cause a bit. ” and 0810.txt: ” I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause ”
Tom Wigley says to Mann, regarding the editor of GRL, James Saiers: ” If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted “
” Copies of the emails are available seb-troll.
If someone can be bothered dredging them up , you will be shown to be LYING yet again. Not that lying, even to yourself, is something you care about.
Your whole pathetic existence seems to be one big LIE !
Heck you can’t even admit to yourself that your soulless purpose here is a base-level troll.
And you cant admit to yourself that you have ZERO proof that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere or of oceans
Nor can you admit to yourself that you can’t find any downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2
Sad, self-delusion, little seb-troll.
Chatbot-SebH writes: “What particular correction do you dislike or think that it is fraudulent/unnecessary?”
Pretty much all of them.
The coming of a new ice age! Finally! Skeptics rejoice 😉
Seriously … that’s how you interpret the data after an El Nino event? Temperature goes back down and you “declare victory”? I mean, what did you guys do after the last big one? Were you surprised when the temperatures continued to increase just as before? Will you be in 2020 when you look back at a similar timeline?
Skeptics predictions don’t have a good track record.
No one has “declared victory.” No one is rejoicing. Cooling is bad.
The temperatures did not continue to increase after the last “big one” (ENSO event). They cooled…until the next big ENSO event:
You two seem to be happy. It looks like you feel you are “winning” 😉
They increased, right after the “big one”!
They decreased right after the “big one”:
Similar to what is happening in 2017 now … I bet you can find the same “it’s cooling” nonsense in skeptics discussion forums of that time.
Glad you finally ADMIT that the El Ninos are the ONLY cause of warming.
As you have illustrated MANY times, there is no way in which those El Ninos can be caused by CO2 ocean warming.
All NATURAL.. and YOU KNOW IT, so stop your mindless yapping.
Why do you HATE CO2 so much, seb-troll.?
It provides basically everything that sustain life..
Do you hate your life THAT MUCH !!!!!
I could totally understand it if you did, you seem to exist pretty much in a mind-sewer.
ENSO events include an El Nino/La NIna. 1997-’98 were the warm El Nino years. 1999-’00 were the cool La Nina years. That’s an ENSO event you started with by beginning your trend in ’99.. That’s why the trend line I linked to started in 2001 and ended in 2015. No “big one” ENSO events there.
So you’re denying that it cooled for 15 years between 2001 and 2015?
It’s the best starting point for a trend of this length to show that warming isn’t that large. Why not go all the way and chose a 10 year trend starting point from that time? http://imgur.com/TdqKImJ … the trend would actually be negative then.
You didn’t answer the question. Did temperatures cool in the 15 years between major ENSO events?
Poor seb-troll yet again shows he know nothing about climate events
So seb, so dumb.
The 1998 ENSO event ended in 2001, bozo.
If you want to find any CO2 signal in temperature data , you have to look away from ENSO events. These are NOT caused by CO2 in any way shape or form. They are a TOTALLY NATURAL response to solar heating.
When you look between major El Nino evenst, you find that in UAH, and in RSS v3.3 AND RSS v4….
THER IS NO WARMING
Just two trendless periods each about 15 years long. Effectively a 30 year trendless period broken by an ENSO event.
and the second period in RSSv4, to show that the zero trend even exist in the Mearised data.
What this means is very simple, seb-troll.
THERE IS NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE IN THE WHOLE OF THE SATELLITE DATA.
Why do you HATE CO2 so much seb-trol
What has it ever done to you, except feed you and keep you alive ???
ps.. great to see your graphs ALWAYS having to rely on EL Ninos for warming seb..
Every time you do it, you PROVE me correct,
…and you are probably too dumb to realise this fact. 🙂
Your second graph really does show your moronic ignorance of anything to do with mathematical understanding.
Well done.. but we already knew !!!
btw , seb
Did you ever find any PROVABLE downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2?
Or are we still waiting…
…….. yawn !!!!!
“Did you ever find any PROVABLE downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2?”
Your continued INABILITY to answer this question is duly noted… by everyone.
They do? I believe we had this discussion before. That’s the graph I made for you back then:
Yep, and you just proved me correct, yet again.
….. and don’t even realise it..
DUMB seb-troll !!!
I’ll give you a last hint, although I have zero expectation you actually learning anything.
The ENSO event lasted from mid-1997 to 2001
It caused a step change of about 0.26ºC.
Your graph relies TOTALLY on the step change to create warming.
That warming came ONLY from the ENSO event which was NOTHING to do with CO2, since CO2 does NOT warm oceans, the sun does.
Clear enough for you, seb-troll.
Or will you CHOOSE to remain an ignorant little seb-troll.
And step-changes are how the Earth system warms/cools.
Jones and Ricketts, 2017
[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. [A]cross a selection of tests, a simple stepladder model better represents the internal structures of warming than a simple trend, providing strong evidence that the climate system is exhibiting complex system behaviour on decadal timescales. This model indicates that in 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. [Climate models predicated on CO2 forcing indicate a gradual, not step-like warming.]
A onetime event provides warming for the entire decade following it? What have you been smoking?
Yet again, seb-troll lack of understanding of how the ocean/climate system operates is diplayed for all to see.
Keep displaying your child-like ignorance, seb-troll.
Its funny…. in a sick, pitiful sort of way.
Read and try to comprehend, seb-troll
“instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed”
And since CO2 CANNOT warm ocean water, the slight warming the last 100 or so years is PURELY down to solar effects from the Grand Solar Maximum.
Warming = GOOD.
Enhanced atmosphere CO2 = EXCELLENT
Mild cooling = awkward for food crop
Strong cooling = DISASTER for food crop
Death if CO2-hatred scam.. = YIPPPPEEEE !
typo last line … if = of.
One obvious question to ask is why has the 400ppm of CO2 not retained the heat of the 2015/16 El Nino?
Don’t forget that there has not yet been a La Nina, and the ENSO scale has been sitting at around the +0.5degC mark for sometime with an on off El Nino forecast in 2017 (presently the likelihood according to BOM is low, but ENSO is still tracking warm).
If CO2 truly effectively traps heat why has there been such a dissipation of heat when there has not been a La Nina that might have balanced matters?
In the whole of history, particularly obvious in the Vostok ice data, maximum CO2 peaks have NEVER been able to maintain temperature peaks.
“If CO2 truly effectively traps heat… ”
The phrase ‘radiatively active gas’ is a term used to describe a gas that interacts with radiation by absorption and emission.
Beyond that, things are very complicated.
A closed auto traps heat and children and pets die.
This has nothing to do with CO2.
Earth’s atmosphere does not work this way.
Why would the greenhouse effect retain heat? Does it stay equally warm at night as it has been at day because of the greenhouse effect? It doesn’t work that way.
Yes seb-troll, we KNOW that the so-called greenhouse effect doesn’t retain heat in a convective atmosphere.
We have been trying to tell you that for a long, long time !!
And no, the so-called greenhouse effect doesn’t work…
…. not even in a greenhouse.
“Does it stay equally warm at night as it has been at day because of the greenhouse effect?”
I see, I guess there is less CO2 at night, hey seb-troll.
You probably don’t realize it, but your behavior is that of a troll, not mine.
You can’t be seriously having no idea of how the greenhouse effect works and simultaneously be against its existence … oh wait, a troll could 😉
SebastianH. You’re 35 years old. (Sigh)
You are the one bring ignorant AGW NON-science yapping to a realist site.
Only troll here is you, seb-troll.
You just don’t like it when someone gives you some back.
Poor little seb-troll. Get over yourself and face your inner farce.
Your knowledge of the greenhouse effect is DEFECTIVE, seb-troll, just like your knowledge of basically every facet of physics and science and maths.
You do know that the greenhouse effect as defined in AGW, doesn’t even exist in a greenhouse… right , seb-troll??
Why would it exist in a greenhouse? Because you get confused by the similar name?
Poor seb.. you really area very confused little troll, aren’t you.
You would be funny if you weren’t so sickening.
It was called the greenhouse effect because of erroneous science. A misnomer from the very start.
Didn’t you even know that ??
What it is, is actually a gravity based thermal retention effect.
You should know that be now, if you followed science rather than the science fantasy of your baseless AGW religion
From your linked paper, AndyG55:
No, it was the sun, moron !!
Surface temperature governed by surface pressure and incoming energy.
Or do you think CO2 caused warming from 1880, now., even though you have NO PROOF it causes warming at all. … DOH !!!!!
I know comprehension of science is not your strong point at all, but please FFS.. WAKE UP…
… your manic ignorance is becoming tediously boring. !!!
@AndyG55 11. July 2017 at 6:45 AM
I’m sorry Andy but I feel I have to stand-up for seb here, his comments are not ..becoming tediously boring. !!!.
Often deranged and often off topic, many times containing banal ‘straw man’ arguments but ‘becoming tediously boring’?
No, they passed that point months ago.
In the other thread, you said that there is more than TOA total solar irradiance and now it’s just that and the pressure? Yeah right …
I’d suggest you read this analysis of that Nikolov and Zeller paper: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/10511/is-the-unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-zeller-compatible-with-the-agw-ghg
It’s basically the same thing that Kenneth is trying to do most of the time. Trying to find (or refute) a correlation without understanding or consideration of the physics involved.
“In the other thread, you said that there is more than TOA total solar irradiance and now it’s just that and the pressure”
OMG its like talking to a complete moron.
Energy come in many forms , seb-troll.
PLEASE go back to junior high where you belong, and PAY ATTENTION this time !!!
And STOP TROLLING for ATTENTION.
Its PATHETIC. !!
“I’d suggest you read this analysis of that ”
From one of your fellow CO2-haters no doubt.
“In the other thread, you said that there is more than TOA total solar irradiance ”
Are you REALLY highlighting your abject IGNORANCE, yet again. !!!
YOU REALLY think that TSI is the only variable in solar energy ??????
WOW,, just WOW.
Your ignorance even astounds me.
UAH version 6.0 is just Roy Spencer’s “custom” version. Note that the link is to just Roy Spencer’s personal website.
The scientifically accepted version is v. 5.6 with the data posted at UAH and NOAA. Here is a graph that shows the scientifically accepted version.
Data source: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt (“Globe” column)
Alternate Data Source: “UAH: Lower troposphere”
Note: There never has been a “pause”.
Here is the graph for the RSS version of lower tropospheric temperature anomalies.
Linux LibreOffice Calc Graph: http://www.durangobill.com/TempPictures/RSSanomalies.png
Data source: ftp://ftp.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
RSS Graph: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html ( Channel TLT )
There isn’t, and never was, a “pause”.
Looks like fraud to me, Bill.
The “realclimatescience” blog is written by a financial failure/malcontent (Steven Goddard – real name Tony Heller) who can only afford to live in a 704 sq. ft. HUD subsidized apartment. His “data source” is “Wood for Trees” which is a free online graphing service,. Anyone can enter any “home made” series of numbers, and “Wood for Trees” will generate a graph. “Wood for Trees” has no resources for checking the integrity and/or source of the numbers.
Tony Heller is an environmental activist with degrees in geology and electrical engineering. He has worked as a “contract software developer on climate and weather models for the US government”.
He published a peer-reviewed paper in Elsevier/ScienceDirect last year. He has been invited speak to Australian governmental bodies about climate science/dataset integrity.
Historical data has been systematically altered over the past 15 years to cool past temperatures and increase more recent temperatures. The amount of warming from 1880 to 2000 is now shown by NASA as double what was shown in 2001. Going back further to the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report, we see a completely different story—where all 1900–40 warming was lost by 1970.
But even if Tony Heller was all that nasty things you wrote about him, that alone doesn’t in any way contradict what he has to say. In fact, you, Bill, have engaged in the classic version of an ad hominem attack.
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.
My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea — this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!
If the chatbots didn’t have logical fallacies, they’d have no logic at all.
And you Bill, are a MANIC AGW cultist,
who spends his time LYING HIS ARSE OFF..
…. or being perpetually IGNORANT
… and TROLLING with BASELESS propaganda slime.
Thanks for showing he has no BIG OIL funding, bozo.
Which climate trough do you swill at, Bill.?
What?! He uses Wood For Trees? Such an indictment! Seriously? That’s your best shot, Bill?
Tony’s “talking points,” in his own words.
Now if you really wanted to attack someone, why not a low achieving activist whose errors are so transparent that you could only miss them if you wanted to?
Bill Butler, you are a known liar.
Your argument as highlighted with just a few words
“The “realclimatescience” blog is written by a financial failure/malcontent (Steven Goddard – real name Tony Heller) who can only afford to live in a 704 sq…”
That amounts to mere snobbery, and probably some envy at the number of readers his website can get.
Please note — the caliber of a anyone’s scientific understanding and outreach in informing others about science has nothing (absolutely NOTHING) to do with their income level. It is only dependent on their education, communication skills, and talent. Tony Heller is very able in all those capacities.
But as personal attacks are not the subject of this post I shall resist further comment about you and your scurrilous remarks.
If you have a problem with Tony’s graphs or data please take it up with him. Personally I have never had much problem with them, and I have examined his code (which he generously gives away for anyone to inspect), the data he uses is from known ‘official’ sources.
Here’s the peer-reviewed and accepted paper for 6.0:
We will trust that your own “durangobill” graphs are not acceptable compared to the actual scientific paper.
I wonder why it is, then, that so many scientists — including the IPCC — disagree with you.
Hedemann et al., 2017
“Here we show that the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance. Energy budgeting for the ocean surface layer over a 100-member historical ensemble reveals that hiatuses are caused by energy-flux deviations as small as 0.08 W m−2, which can originate at the top of the atmosphere, in the ocean, or both. Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified. … The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
Xian and Fu, 2017
Despite continually increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas, there has been a hiatus in rising global temperatures during the 21st century.
Xie et al., 2017
As the recent global warming hiatus has attracted worldwide attention, we examined the robustness of the warming hiatus in China
Liu and Zhou, 2017
Here, we divided recent decades into the recent hiatus period [1998-2013] and the preceding warming period (1983–1998) to investigate the atmospheric footprint.
Barcikowska et al., 2017
How global temperature will evolve over the next decade or so remains unclear (Knutson et al. 2016), although the most recent warming hiatus, observed in surface temperature records over the period 1998–2014, has challenged the scientific community in terms of consistency of models versus observations and in the attribution of the phenomena (Kosaka and Xie 2013; England et al. 2014; McGregor et al. 2014; Fyfe et al. 2012).
Song, Wang & Tang, 2016
A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect
In the last subperiod [2003-2014], the global averaged SULR [surface upwelling longwave radiation/greenhouse effect] anomaly remains trendless (0.02 W m−2 yr−1) because Ts [global temperatures] stop rising.
Fyfe et al., 2016
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414 (press release)
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.” … Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.
Introduction: Global temperature evolution during the 20th century has been described and summarized in the IPCC-2013 AR5 Report (Stocker et al., 2013)from databases compiled in different institutions by Hansen et al. (2010), Lawrimore et al. (2011), Jones et al. (2012), and Rohde et al. (2013). The first warming phase was followed by a cooling period during 1940–1970, and then rapid warming occurred until the end of the century. During the most recent years, warming appears to have stopped or decreased in intensity, with this period being called a hiatus (Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Fyfe et al., 2013; Kosaka and Xie, 2013). The hiatus, as defined by the lack of a statistically significant warming trend line (Meehl, 2015), is receiving increasing attention because it was not correctly predicted in model outputs (Soon et al., 2004; Rahmstorf et al., 2007; Stockwell, 2009; Lüdecke et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2013; Fyfe et al., 2013).
And let’s recall the 50+ excuses made before El Nino to explain it.
Even in the “mal-adjusted” RSS 4 , there is still a zero trend from 1980 – 1997 and from 2001 -2015. (that’s zero trend for 31 out of the 39 years)
The highly beneficial warming has come from the two major El Ninos, which are nothing to do with anthropogenic factors.
There is absolutely ZERO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE IN THE WHOLE SATELLITE DATA, even after RSS Mearisation.
Here are some graphs to get a feeling how skeptics chose starting dates for varying trend lengths: http://imgur.com/a/ctkRg
A 17 year trend starting in 1980 has the smallest slope possible next to starting in the late 90s. A 14 year trend starting in 2001 results in the smallest slope possible. The other graphs are just there to illustrate that there is no pause.
P.S.: The slope for 10 year trends can even become negative when you start at the beginning of the century. No surprise that this is often chosen by skeptics 😉
P.P.S.: Source spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XUWDZPMTY_0KPD2NJqcJbhnHd-jRhMa_QOByafriDuw/edit?usp=sharing
“A 17 year trend starting in 1980 has the smallest slope possible next to starting in the late 90s”
Purely a remnant of the where the cycles start and finish, but you wouldn’t realise that.
Your mathematical ineptitude shines through yet again.
The other graphs are just a load of anti-science monkey calculation, showing zero comprehension of climate events and systems.
Arts maths + plus climate propaganda 001 ???
There are actually TWO 15 year long pauses in warming.
The ONLY warming comes from the step change at the 1998 El Nino and the El Nino transient in 2015 which you HAVE to use in your calculations if you want to show warming. But they are NOT due to CO2, and are purely NATURAL from solar energy.
Before and between those events.. THERE IS NO WARMING
Do you honestly believe that a one time release of ocean heat content is capable of supporting an increase of the temperature of the atmosphere and sustaining that higher level for a decade and more? And additionally ocean heat content continues to increase?
Where is all that energy coming from? The sun? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:2001 (TSI decreased during that time)
SebastianH, TSI variations are not the only means by which the Sun implants more or less heat energy into the oceans. If there is a reduction in cloud cover or aerosol depth, for example, more solar radiation will be able to penetrate into the ocean, warming it. This will occur with or without TSI changes and the forcing (W m-2) easily exceeds any suggested forcing from TSI or CO2 (i.e., 0.2 W m-2 per decade). Here are some examples of how this cloud/aerosol reduction–>ocean warming process works, with forcing values that reach into the double-digits (+10 W m-2 and up) for the 21st century.
The contribution of clouds and aerosols to the decadal variations of downward surface shortwave radiation (SSR) is a current controversial topic. This study proposes a method, which is based on surface-based SSR measurements, aerosol observations, and radiative transfer simulations (in cloud-free and cloud- and aerosol-free scenarios), to evaluate cloud-aerosol (CARE), cloud (CRE), and aerosol (ARE) radiative effects. This method is applied to quantify the role played by, separately, clouds and aerosols on the intense brightening of the SSR observed in the Iberian Peninsula. Clouds and Earth’s Radiation Energy Budget System (CERES) and surface-based data exhibit an increase in SSR between 2003 and 2012, exceeding +10 W m−2 over this period for some areas of the peninsula…. The average trends for the analyzed period of CARE, CRE, and ARE are +7, +5, and +2 W m−2 per decade, respectively. Overall, three fourths of the SSR trend is explained by clouds, while the other one fourth is related to aerosol changes. The SSR trends explained by the clouds and aerosol radiative effects are in line with the observed reductions in total cloud cover and aerosol load (both at the surface and in the whole atmospheric column). Furthermore, the CRE values are compared against CERES data showing good agreement between both data series, although some discrepancies are observed in their trends.
Trends in downwelling global solar irradiance were evaluated at high elevation sites on the island of Maui, Hawai‘i. Departures from monthly means were assessed for the 6-month Hawaiian wet and dry seasons over the period 1988 to 2012. Linear regression analysis was used to characterize trends in each season. For the dry season (May-October), statistically significant (p ≤0.05) positive trends of 9–18 W m-2 (3–6%) per decade were found at all four high elevation stations tested. Wet season trends were not significant, except at the highest elevation station, which had a significant negative trend. No consistent trends in aerosol concentrations have been observed at high elevations in Hawai‘i, therefore, the observed dry-season brightening is most likely the result of decreasing cloud cover. Supporting this hypothesis, analysis of 15 years (1997-2012) of high temporal resolution Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imagery over the Hawaiian Islands showed a statistically significant decrease in leeward cloud cover amounting to 5–11% per decade over the stations.
“Where is all that energy coming from? The sun? ”
OMG, its as if you haven’t paid any attention to anything since you have been here.
WILFUL IGNORANCE, or just incredibly brain-washed DUMB ???.
1998 was at the end of a 50 year period called a Grand Solar Maximum by several distinguished solar scientists.
Do you really expect the ocean to respond immediately to that extra solar input.?
Are you really that scientifically nil-educated. ?
And do really think TSI is the only variable of solar output.
You have a lot of anti-knowledge to unlearn, before you can even start to learn.
But you don’t want to learn, do you seb-troll.
No intention of facing reality at all, because reality would destroy your baseless belief in your ugly AGW religion.
1) So the ENSO event at the end of the 20th century caused cloud cover and aerosols to change so more energy could remain/get to the surface? Interesting theory …
2) You should include quotes from the full text of those papers. Your quotes from the abstracts are misleading if you don’t know anything about the subject.
From the first paper:
Regional double digits, not global average ones (as I’ve tried to show you too many times now to keep track of the count).
The second paper is also about a small region, and unfortunately not what happens at global scale.
It’s amazing, sometimes, the extent to which you will make up stuff.and then dishonestly claim that what you’ve made up is what was actually written. ENSO events didn’t cause clouds to form or not to form.
The Sun heats the ocean. This ocean heat is redistributed during ENSO events and on multidecadal and centennial timescales (AMO/PDO, AMOC). CO2 has not been shown to influence ENSO events (warming or cooling) or ocean heat content variations in the real world. Only in models and hypothetically.
The globally averaged surface solar radiation from the reduction in cloud cover/aerosols was between 1 to 4 W m-2 per decade (2.5 W m-2 per decade) from the 1980s to 2000s. This value is more than 10 times greater than the alleged per-decade forcing for CO2 (0.2 W m-2 per decade via +22 ppm) during 2000-2010 (Feldman et al., 2015).
Goode and Palle, 2007
The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.
Conclusion: In this paper we have reviewed the physical mechanisms behind solar irradiance variation, and we have reviewed how on the timescale of solar evolution, the Sun cannot have been any dimmer than it is at the most recent activity minima. We have also shown how concurrent changes in the Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger climate impact over relatively short time scales. Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the potential to produce large climate effects without the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance. These could provide an explanation for the apparently large climate response to apparently small solar changes, as well as how the 11/22 year solar cycle is imprinted on Earth. Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen how the Earth’s large scale reflectance—and the short wavelength part of the Earth’s radiation budget—is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun’s output or changes in the Earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.
A similar reversal to brightening in the 1990s has been found on a global scale in a recent study that estimates surface solar radiation from satellite data. This indicates that the surface measurements may indeed pick up a largescale signal. The changes in both satellite derived and measured surface insolation data are also in line with changes in global cloudiness provided by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which show an increase until the late 1980s and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from the late 1980s to 2002. A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe. The overall change observed at the BSRN sites, estimated as an average of the slopes at the sites in Fig. 2A, is 0.66 W m-2 per year (6.6 W m-2 over the entire BSRN period).
[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface [between 1979 and 2011].
Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.
A few more global SSR papers for you to dismiss…
Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2016
The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period [1981-2012]. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of absolute (relative) change during summer (autumn). These results are in line with the widespread increase of global solar radiation, also known as the brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites (e.g. Wild, 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013b).
[T]here is general consistency of a reduction in total cloud cover as temperature anomaly increases, with cloud cover decreasing from about 1984 until year 2000 followed by a flattening out to 2009, which is the end of the available cloud cover data. 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 [between 1984-2009] is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al., 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 [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2.
The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present]. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.
Kenneth, I am not a fan of your strategy to just dump a load of paper with selected quotes on people. I don’t have the time to read all of them, but the range of numbers presented is clearly pretty large … so what is it? The 0.4 W/m² per decade from the paper in the last comment I replied to? Or 2.5 W/m² per decade?
The last paper listed here completely dismisses the LW effect of clouds: “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.”
I didn’t make that up. It was claimed here that there was a step warming after the ENSO event at the end of the 1990s. Caused by the ENSO event.
Yes, I understand that you don’t like it when scientific support for what I have written is provided.
Depends on the range of years. The 2.5 W m-2 per decade is the average estimate for the mid-’80s to the early 2000s – which is when nearly all the warming in the satellite record took place. Since the early 2000s, positive SSR has slowed.
Yes. And then you wrote “So the ENSO event at the end of the 20th century caused cloud cover and aerosols to change so more energy could remain/get to the surface? Interesting theory …”
And so why did you make up the claim that ENSO events cause cloud cover and volcanic aerosol changes? The heat distribution from strong El Nino events can lead to step-changes in ocean temperatures. Cloud cover changes affect both short wave and long wave radiation, with the short wave forcing overcoming the long wave, allowing SSR to increase when cloud cover decreases, especially in the tropics. Here is a visualization of this process:
ENSO events are heat distribution processes associated with wind forcing. Cloud cover and volcanic aerosol depth changes affect the absorption of solar radiation on decadal time-scales. These are not one-in-the-same processes.
“Kenneth..I am not a fan of your strategy… yap, yap….”
….Of producing ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF
Yes, that is very obvious, seb-troll
ZERO proof about the very basis of the AGW scam..
Empty , as always.
And your totally unrelated LIES and Fabrications are again obvious to all
Do you now agree that “The ONLY warming comes from the step change at the 1998 El Nino and the El Nino transient in 2015 which you HAVE to use in your calculations if you want to show warming. But they are NOT due to CO2, and are purely NATURAL from solar energy.”
Where were cloud mentioned, seb-troll??
You have a very fevered mind, little trollette. !!
Exactly … my point. Kenneth brought that up (to help you?).
Either the ENSO event caused the step warming and somehow is able to maintain both, the higher temperature of the atmosphere and the heat content of the ocean. Or something else caused the temperature to increase. That something being decreased cloud cover, decreased aerosols and/or increase in greenhouse gas concentration.
I didn’t bring up the claim that ENSO events caused changes in cloud cover and aerosols. You did.
I brought up cloud forcing in another series of comments in which I pointed out to you that TSI changes are not the only means by which solar forcing can influence temperatures. Albedo changes strongly effect SW heat absorption. And then I provided scientific backup (9 papers) for what I had written.
So, again, you brought up the “ENSO caused cloud cover and aerosols to change” claim. You have, once again, been caught making up stuff — because no one here wrote that. You obviously have a very serious problem with dishonesty.
Are we back in Kindergarten?
“You did, no you did, no you did it …”
Notice the question mark at the end of “So the ENSO event at the end of the 20th century caused cloud cover and aerosols to change so more energy could remain/get to the surface?”
That is not a claim! Why would you even see it as a claim? AndG55 wrote something about the ENSO event causing the warming, I asked about the source of energy and you brought up cloud forcing, etc. So I asked back if the ENSO event would be responsible for those changes … I assumed you were helping AndyG55’s argument and not bring up some random thing just for the sake of being part of the discussion … so it needed clarification.
You obviously have a serious problem understanding written language. I’ll try to be more clear in the future, but sometimes I can’t shake the feeling that you are doing this on purpose.
Notice the next two words that you intentionally excluded. “Interesting theory.” Obviously you are claiming that I have written the above claim, calling it a “theory” that I have. I did not write that. You just made it up. That’s what you do: make up thoughts we didn’t write. It’s habitual.
No, you didn’t just ask about the source of the energy and leave it at that. You wrote that the source of the energy was the TSI, which was trending down.
I correctly pointed out that TSI variation is not the only means by which solar radiation heats the oceans, variations in albedo (clouds, aerosols) significantly affect ocean temperatures too. And then I supported this conclusion with 9 papers.
Then you misunderstood (intentionally?) that I was replying to your TSI-is-down-so-it-couldn’t-be-the-source claim when I brought up SSR.
You are constantly just INVENTING things that weren’t said and twisting them into your own irrational thoughts.. is weird, for sure.
So sort of mental sickness. ???
“Are we back in Kindergarten?”
You certainly need to have your mind rewired, and start again.
And the reply here got deleted to …
Well then, stay in wonderland where questions get declared as claims and everything get misunderstood intentionally to drive opponents crazy with endless repetition.
Poor seb, yet again the plaintive, pathetic, plea for ATTENTION.
Nobody misunderstand you, we can all see you are yapping NON-science gibberish.
You just go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on…..
…. repeating the same UNPROVEN GARBAGE from the rear end of the AGW scam religion.
Like a demented parrot who has eaten a cracked record.
It must hurt you to have to use NON-anthropogenic El Ninos to show warming
In UAH there are actually 2 long ZERO-TREND periods with a step at the 1998 El Nino.
That is 32 years out of 38 that there was NO WARMING
The ONLY warming in either satellite record comes from those El Ninos., and only seb is dumb enough to attribute them to human CO2.
That means theta there is NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of either satellite record.
This makes sense, because there is no mechanism whereby CO2 can cause warming of oceans or of a convective atmosphere. and there is no actual scientific proof that it does either.
@ Bill Butler,
“UAH version 6.0 is just Roy Spencer’s “custom” version. “
What a peculiar and quaint idea of the actuality you have!
I noticed this several times now, but you are drawing wrong conclusions from the SMB graphs (https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/dmigrc3b6nlandeisschmelzflc3a4cheniedrigbearbeitet30062017-e1499172866893.jpg). Those graphs don’t show the whole picture, it’s just the accumulated surface mass balance and doesn’t include ice loss due to calving.
See paragraph right before those graphs on the dmi.dk website:
How so? Will the accumulated SMB be high enough at the end of August to counter the usual 200 Gt/yr loss?
Correct. Relative to the 1961-1990 reference period, when Greenland gained mass, and relative to 1992-2002, when Greenland also gained ice, the period between about 2002 and 2012 saw substantial mass losses.
Since then, the SMB has shown considerable deceleration in loss rates, with a mass loss of only -6 Gt/yr in 2013-’14, for example. This year the ice sheet will very likely show a mass gain in ice, consistent with the recent trend reversals. The -200 Gt/year losses held true for the 2002-2012 period. But that appears to be over now.
A comprehensive peer-reviewed study recently revealed that the Greenland ice sheet gained mass between 1940 and 2000, and that the overall contribution to sea level rise has been a negligible 1.5 centimeters since 1900. That doesn’t appear to be consistent with a rapid and concerning trend.
Chatbot-SebH comes to “wrong conclusions” about everything.
Back when scientific integrity was a lot more common than now, their track record was considerably better.
See also the GISS Rasool and Schneider paper Science Volume 173 published July 1971 which gave a very low climate sensitivity for CO2. It concluded
By that logic we should go back to the 19th-century scientific understanding then. Because apparently we didn’t get a better understanding with time going forward … right?
Your understand is still stuck back in the 19th century seb-troll.
You have learnt NOTHING except arrant nonsense.
You really should take your manic trolling elsewhere.
Once again Chatbot-SebH reflexively resorts to the fallacious “reasoning” common to the ethically challenged activist.
“By that logic we should go back to the 19th-century scientific understanding then.”
No, SebH. It isn’t the data or understanding of the past, but the high ethical standards of those collecting and analyzing the data that is essential to doing good science.
But since you have none yourself, it’s not surprising you missed that point, and opted to attempt to pretend I was advocating something I hadn’t.
Poor seb.. ignorance personified….
… you do know what the word “glacier” means and what they do, don’t you?
and scribbler, ROFLAMO, using modelled data (or is it gravity based data over an active volcanic region.?) to try to scare poor little seb-troll.. and you fell for it , yet again.. GULLIBLE.
Greenland ice is very near its peak in 8000 years.. you must have missed that fact the first 20 time (wilful ignorance, as usual?)
And maybe you might actually remember this graph of Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900, which you actually agreed was correct.
The post refers to air temps above the oceans. Here is the breakdown of SSTs from HadSST3.
I wonder if ocean cooling (if any) is caused by increasing meltwater flow ?
No, there isn’t an increase in meltwater flow.
LOL.. Bill is AGW shill on duty this week is he. 🙂
That will be nearly as funny as seb’s constant anti-science, CO2-hating ranting and yapping.
Why do these low-level clowns HATE CO2 so much ???
Is it because it is providing food that keeps them alive, and it is actually their lives that they hate so much ?
New Chatbot, same nonsense.
If the Global temperature eventually begin to fall, what would the response be.
There you see, our efforts helped, we have to keep on.
It is only a pause, we must never stop to heale the climate.
Change the goal and keep on reducing fossil use.
Scientists discover that less CO2 still helps to stabilize the climate and keep the same temperature. There is an optimum CO2 that we just passed.
The optimum CO2 level for plant growth is 1000ppm -1500ppm.
We have been able to lift the level out of the “barely sustainable” region, but more is needed.
And as there is zero scientific proof of any down-side at all to enhanced atmospheric CO2, the whole anti-CO2 scam needs to be send to the big circular GARBAGE bin as soon as possible, for the sake of the planet.
As I keep saying if CO2 is so good at causing warming then what happened to the heat from the peak in 2016? According to the theory there should be no reduction but a positive feedback loop that constantly increases the temperature.
seems like there is a hole in their theory somewhere……
“seems like there is a hole
Swiss cheese comes to mind.
See my comment at 7:42 AM
“seems like there is a hole in their theory somewhere……”
One massive big echo chamber !!!
Only a hole in your understanding of the greenhouse effect. It’s no self-sustaining effect, e.g. turn off the Sun and the temperature stays the same is not how it works.
Greenhouse effect as define by the AGW scam, doesn’t even work in a greenhouse.
You do understand that, don’t you seb-troll.
Why the continued TROLLING , seb-troll.
You add nothing of relevance or importance to any discussion, just mind-numbed yapping.
You can’t even support the very basis of your AGW religion.
ZERO proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere,
ZERO proof CO2 causes ocean warming
ZERO proof of any downside to a CO2 enhanced atmosphere.
You just keep yapping like a demented seb-troll.
(I won’t demean a Chihuahua any more, you are far worse.)
Says the one replying to everything I write with 2-4 comments with no substance 😉
Has been fun to “chat” with you this afternoon, I’ll let you rant away alone now. Here is a fish for you: >
Poor seb-troll, you just can’t stop can you..
You are like a demented flapping mullet.
It is noted that you YET AGAIN cowardly avoid addressing the three points.
ZERO proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere,
ZERO proof CO2 causes ocean warming
ZERO proof of any downside to a CO2 enhanced atmosphere.
Poor empty, little seb-troll.
You bravely avoid and ignore all my requests and instead rant and insult while saying nothing. I have no obligation to address your three points … did that and your only reply is something along the line of “Nah, that’s fake” or “Nah, it ain’t so”.
Also: it’s you who always wants to have the last word. I bet you can’t resist replying with at least two comments.
And your puerile attempts to portray me as the troll….. roflmao
Look at yourself in a mirror, if you can bear the sight of a pathetic low-life scientifically ignorant TROLL.
You KNOW that is the ONLY reason you are here, is as a TROLL, why not ADMIT IT to yourself.
Are you that much of a COWARD ?????
Prove you are NOT a TROLL, and POQ !!
Oh wait, PROOF is something you are INCAPABLE OF.
“it’s you who always wants to have the last word.”
My policy against AGW trolls is to TOTALLY EXPOSE their ignorance and mental deficiencies.
You have been a classic case of my success.
Thanks seb-troll. 🙂
PLEASE keep going… I bet you CANNOT stop yourself. 😉
You do immense harm to the AGW religion by your abject inability to support the very basis of this anti-science farce cult.
The very heart of the AGW scam,
and you CAN’T DEFEND IT.
Do you know just how SAD and PATHEIC that is ???
And I bet you can’t shut up your yapping for an instance.
unfortunately SebastianH as far as I am aware no one turned the sun off so your counter argument has a rather large gaping hole in it.
So where did the heat go if CO2 is supposed to cause run-away warming?????
CO2 and its feedbacks can’t cause run-away warming. That would only happen if there is a temperature at which the oceans become a net source of CO2 and we reaching that temperature … or something similar.
Turning the Sun off wasn’t a “counter argument”. The greenhouse effect doesn’t create magic energy/heat from nothing. It works like insulation and therefore needs a source of energy
So if the oceans are not and have not been a net source of CO2, what caused CO2 concentrations to rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm from glacials to interglacials? Or what mechanism caused concentrations to drop from 300 ppm to 180 ppm? And if those were periods of time when the oceans were a net source, why wasn’t there runaway warming then…if that’s what would cause runaway warming now?
Can you scientifically back up your claim that there is a temperature at which oceans become net sources vs. net sinks of CO2? What is the scientifically accepted temperature value that causes oceans to become net sources of CO2? What does the science say? Or are you just guessing about what you think might happen someday?
Considering sea levels were about 2 meters higher than now ~5,000 years ago and that paleoclimate reconstructions have ocean temperatures multiple degrees warmer than now not only during this interglacial but during the Pliocene (when the Arctic was 18 degrees C warmer than now), why didn’t we have runaway warming due to CO2 concentrations in the past?
“It works like insulation”
NO, it doesn’t, except water vapour once its already transferred the energy upwards.
CO2 is no sort of insulation at all.
In fact, its been shown scientifically to be a WORSE insulator than normal air, because it transfers radiation more readily.
The greenhouse effect is a misnomer due to bad science.
It is actually a gravity based energy retention effect.
“CO2 and its feedbacks can’t cause run-away warming”
CO2 can’t cause ANY proven warming…
… as seb-troll has constantly shown.
I forgot to write “at the then current partial pressure differential”. The current differential causes the ocean to be a net sink, despite rising temperatures.
Of course, but you haven’t understood that the last time I explained it … will you understand it this time around?
You take the amount of CO2 disolved in the oceans and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That ratio together with the temperature defines an equilibrium CO2 concentration that the system will try to reach. Let’s say it is 280 ppm. The current concentration is ~400 ppm and so the ocean acts as net sink (which slighty changes the CO2 ratio between the ocean and the atmosphere).
Literature says the equilibrium CO2 concentration increases by 7.5 ppm per K change. Let’s assume that to be correct. So if 400 ppm could increase the temperature by more than 16 K the ocean would begin to act as net source, further increasing CO2 concentration. Of course that number could be wrong or not linear (couldn’t find anything better just now), but that’s the math behind that statement.
I think it is unlikely that something like this could happen. It’s more likely that methane trapped in permafrost could cause a sudden increase in GHGs when temperature reaches a certain point.
Actually I was just trying to explain what would need to happen for CO2 and it’s feedbacks causing run-away warming. It didn’t say that this would happen someday … that’s something you just made up.
Where has this been shown? I asked you for a source several times now!
You explanation for why it’s a worse insulator is also pretty wild. More CO2 means more absorption and more emissions in all directions (also back to the source). That’s not “transfering radiation more readily” …
Can you scientifically back up your claim that there is a temperature at which oceans become net sources vs. net sinks of CO2?
Then why do I not see anything here but your own commentaries? By “scientific” backup, it should be obvious that I am asking you to provide something other than your own opinions. Real science, real observation, real empirical evidence that there is an ocean temperature at which CO2 is absorbed by oceans less than sourced. You offer nothing of the kind. Again.
“equilibrium CO2 concentration” is a made-up conceptualization.
According to Ferdinand Engelbeen, it’s 16 ppm per K. Isn’t it odd that in the last 10,000 years, temperature has declined by several K and yet CO2 has risen? CO2 even rose during the LIA…as the temperatures plummeted. So again your CO2 “science” doesn’t work.
Sorry, but I’m not nearly as naive as to just assume something to be true without (a) evidence and (b) consistency with other parameters. During the 8.2 K event, temperatures fell and then rose again by 3 degrees C each way. This occurred over the course of about 150 years. CO2 concentrations didn’t change. So that event alone demonstrates that either the 7 ppm/K or paleo CO2 concentration values are wrong…or both. I suspect its both.
There is nothing more here than a hypothetical, I-think-this-might-be-true speculation here…which is obviously all you have anyway. 400 ppm does not increase temperature by 16 K. Doubling CO2 concentrations by 280 ppm or 560 ppm or 1,120 ppm only (according to models) increases air temperatures by a little over 1 K each.
You never answered the fundamental question. I asked you why CO2 concentrations rose from 180 ppm to 300 ppm if the oceans weren’t a net source driving up the concentration during those years since you’ve claimed, without anything but beliefs and speculation, that oceans aren’t a net source until they reach a certain temperature. So if the oceans didn’t increase or lower the CO2 concentrations by 120 ppm during glacials to interglacials to glacials, what mechanism did? And you never answered the other fundamental question: what temperature value is the breaking point such that reaching that temperature causes oceans to become net sources of CO2?
When I ask you to back up your statements scientifically, I mean support them with actual scientific evidence. You haven’t done so. Again.
“Where has this been shown? I asked you for a source several times now!”
I gave you the source ages ago.. If you refuse to learn the first time, not my fault..
FIND IT yourself, seb-troll,
… and stop being DELIBERATELY IGNORANT.
Kenneth, it’s amazing how someone can (willfully) misunderstand even simple stuff like what I posted above. You misread my comment and make up stuff I haven’t written … why?
1) You posted several papers explaining how the CO2 cycle works right here on the blog. Apparently, you never read those sections or just don’t understand. I don’t know. Do you need me to find the links for you? That’s the scientific background.
how so? It’s established science … here is a link to a book about that subject
Then it’s 16 ppm. That’s not important to explaining you the basics. And of course the science works for the holocene. Why wouldn’t it? A higher temperature causes the equilibrium ppm to be higher, the concentration increases. Temperature falls, but concentration is still below equilibrium means that the concentration just increases more slowly.
Think of the temperature being the acceleration and CO2 concentration the speed, maybe that helps. Less acceleration still increases speed, only a negative acceleration slows you down. So temperatures didn’t decrease low enough to cause CO2 to decline … and then came the industrialization.
Of course they changed: Wagner et al, 2002 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/?log$=activity)
WTH? Did you read the sentence you quoted? “could … would”. This is just an example of what would be needed to cause runaway warming, not a statement that this is what will cause it. Are you doing this on purpose?
I answered you question with the very first sentence I wrote. “That would only happen if there is a temperature at which the oceans become a net source of CO2 and we reaching that temperature [insert: at the then current partial pressure differential]”
The oceans are a net source or sink depending on temperature AND ratio of ocean CO2 to atmospheric CO2 (law of mass action). They always were and they always will be.
I did … with the 400 ppm example: “the math behind that statement”. Now is there a combination of temperature and CO2 concentration that could continue to increase CO2 indefinitely? Most certainly not. The increase of the equillibrium CO2 concentration is linear while the increase in temperature due to CO2 concentration increase is just logarithmic. The only way the ocean could become a net source now is if either the 7.5 ppm (or 16 ppm) value is not correct, meaning the increase is not linear, or if the CO2 concentration decreases enough to be below the equilibrium concentration for the current temperature.
– the law of mass action
– basic physics
– a link about ocean chemistry
Uh, no. Your claim is that there is an ocean temperature at which the oceans become a net source of CO2 rather than a net sink. I asked you to provide scientific backing for this claim. And you, of course, didn’t.
I likewise asked you to identify the mechanism whereby the CO2 concentration rose from 180 ppm to 300 ppm during glacials to interglacials if it wasn’t because oceans were a net source of CO2. I’ve asked you this twice. Now 3 times. You still don’t/can’t answer. This, along with the fact that you cannot provide scientific backing for your claim that the oceans become a net source of CO2 once they reach a (yet-to-be-identified) temperature is clear indication that you are, once again, just making stuff up.
“equilibrium CO2 concentration” is a made-up conceptualization.
It’s established modeling and theory and assumption. What’s the equilibrium CO2 concentration for the Pliocene? What’s the figure?
Because, for example, temperatures plummeted by about 2 K during the Little Ice Age, and instead of having the CO2 concentration dropping by 32 ppm per the 16 ppm/K formula/conceptualization, the CO2 concentration actually rose.
During the 8.2 K event, temperatures fell and then rose again by 3 degrees C each way. This occurred over the course of about 150 years. CO2 concentrations didn’t change.
Sorry, but a CO2 increase of 1 to 2 ppm during a temperature change (cooling, then warming) of multiple degrees is not consistent with your 16 ppm/K conceptualization, which would imply that CO2 rose and fell by about 50 ppm in a span of 150 years (the duration of the 8.2 K cooling-warming event). Unless, of course, our CO2 concentration values for the Holocene are grossly in error…which is likely.
Ahn et al., 2014
“We observe a small, about 1–2 ppm, increase of atmospheric CO2 during the 8.2 ka event. The increase is not significant when compared to other centennial variations in the Holocene that are not linked to large temperature changes. Our results do not agree with leaf stomata records that suggest a CO2 decrease of up to ~25 ppm and imply that the sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 to the primarily Northern Hemisphere cooling of the 8.2 ka event was limited.”
So your claim that “So if 400 ppm could increase the temperature by more than 16 K the ocean would begin to act as net source, further increasing CO2 concentration” is just…hypothetical? How much do you believe 400 ppm could increase the temperature if it’s not 16 K? Since a 280 ppm or 560 ppm or 1,120 ppm increase is alleged to only cause 1 K of warming, why would you here postulate 16 K of warming with 400 ppm?
Questions not yet answered:
What mechanism caused CO2 concentrations to rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm (and fall from 300 ppm to 180 ppm) if it wasn’t the oceans functioning as a net source?
At what temperature (a number value) will the oceans become a net source of CO2? Back up your answer (a number value) with cited scientific evidence.
“CO2 and its feedbacks can’t cause run-away warming.
From the ever unreliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect#Earth
Earth’s climate has swung repeatedly between warm periods and ice ages during its history. In the current climate the gain of the positive feedback effect from increased atmospheric water vapor, as well as Earth being too far away from the Sun at its current luminosity for such to occur is well below that which is required to boil away the oceans.
Climate scientist John Houghton has written that “[there] is no possibility of [Venus’s] runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth”.(Houghton, J. (May 4, 2005). “Global Warming”. Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (6): 1343–1403. Bibcode:2005RPPh…68.1343H. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/6/R02. Retrieved August 26, 2009.)
However, climatologist James Hansen disagrees. In his Storms of My Grandchildren he says that burning coal and mining shale oil will result in runaway greenhouse on Earth. (“How Likely Is a Runaway Greenhouse Effect on Earth?”. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 1 June 2015.) A re-evaluation in 2013 of the effect of water vapor in the climate models showed that James Hansen’s outcome might be possible, but requires ten times the amount of CO2 we could release from burning all the oil, coal, and natural gas in Earth’s crust. (Kunzig, Robert. “Will Earth’s Ocean Boil Away?” National Geographic Daily News (July 29, 2013))
Further, Benton and Twitchett have a different definition of a runaway greenhouse; (Benton, M. J.; Twitchet, R. J. (2003). “How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event” (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 18 (7): 358–365. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00093-4. ) events meeting this definition have been suggested as a cause for the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the great dying.
Bottom line is that it is all just imaginative hypothesizing. CO2 can’t even warm the lower troposphere.
someone deleted my reply here.
In short: Kenneth, you misunderstand what I am writing … on purpose or not. You questions have been answered. Do you need help?
And of course the CO2 concentration changed during the LIA.
stop your anti-science “CO2 can’t even warm the lower troposphere” claims …
How could a runaway greenhouse effect be possible if the feedbacks are lower than 1? If initial forcing is 1.0 and feedback causes forcing of 0.5, feedback again causes 0.25, etc … it will converge and doesn’t “run away”. Not possible in the temperature ranges we are in.
No, they haven’t been answered. I’ll ask in a yes or no so you can’t wriggle out of it again: Did ocean outgassing of CO2 cause the CO2 concentrations to rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm because the oceans were a net source during glacial-interglacial transitions? Yes or no? If yes, why did that not lead to runaway warming…since you claimed that runaway warming will occur when oceans become a net source, which will occur when the oceans reach a certain unspecified temperature. That’s what your statement reads:
I then asked you…
Can you scientifically back up your claim that there is a temperature at which oceans become net sources vs. net sinks of CO2?
But there was not a single paper or citation that backed up what you were claiming: that the oceans will become a net source of CO2 once they reach a certain (yet-to-be-identified) temperature. What is that temperature? And if oceans were at one time a net source during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition at whatever temperature that was, at what point did oceans become a net sink instead of a net source?
Of course, we can’t even be assured that oceans are now, or have been, a net sink. It’s modeled guesswork. We can’t even detect whether there is an anthropogenic signal in carbon uptake. So say scientists:
McKinley et al., 2017
[C]ritical mysteries remain and weigh heavily on our ability to quantify relationships between the perturbed global carbon cycle and climate change. … The current inability to accurately quantify the mean CO2 sink regionally or locally also suggests that present-day observational constraints are inadequate to support a detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works and how it is responding to intensifying climate change. This lack of mechanistic understanding implies that our ability to model (Roy et al. 2011, Ciais et al. 2013, Frolicher et al. 2015, Randerson et al. ¨ 2015), and thus to project the future ocean carbon sink, including feedbacks caused by warming and other climate change, is seriously limited. … The sum of the available evidence indicates that variability in the ocean carbon sink is significant and is driven primarily by physical processes of upwelling, convection, and advection. Despite evidence for a growing sink when globally integrated (Khatiwala et al. 2009, 2013; Ciais et al. 2013; DeVries 2014), this variability, combined with sparse sampling, means that it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring. … [T]his CESM-LE analysis further illustrates that variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.
Yes, it “changed.” CO2 rose as temperatures plummeted, which is the opposite of what your +7 ppm/K or +16 ppm/K “formula” says should happen. From 1400 to 1900 (the LIA range), CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 295 ppm.
Nobody is misunderstanding you seb
You are just writing anti-science GIBBERISH !!
You STILL have ZERO proof for the very basis of the AGW scam religion.
CO2 DOES NOT warm a convective atmosphere, and you have ZERO PROOF that it does.
You are just flapping around mindlessly with NON-science BS from your fevered AGW brain-washed imagination.
Feedback of what??
There IS NO CO2 forcing to add feedback to.
I won’t bother trying to reply with a long answer to you again when those comments will get deleted (for whatever reason).
This is all happening in your imagination. What you think I said and your replies going forward. I clarified that hypothetical (notice the use of would, could) in the comment “SebastianH 11. July 2017 at 1:11 PM” … and explained to you – extensively – how the ocean being a sink or source is dependent on the CO2 mass ratio and temperature. Do you want to see a paper that explains this? Why? It’s as if you were asking for a paper to explain F = m * a … buy a physics/chemistry textbook. Or read a few pages in this one: https://books.google.de/books?id=g3j3Zn4kEscC&lpg=PA1&ots=laZzO3qfwO&dq=basics%20of%20co2%20ocean%20cycle&lr&hl=de&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
LIA CO2 levels: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n9/full/ngeo2769.html
Well, that was a great load of irrelevant, incoherent GIBBERISH, seb [-snip…please refrain from name-calling -PG].
Your explanations are NONSENSE, and NON-science.
Did you notice all the famines during the LIA seb?
Cold and low CO2, is that what you are saying?
Warmer and higher CO2 is totally beneficial to all life on Earth.. wouldn’t you agree, seb!
You STILL haven’t answered Kenneth’s question..
You STILL cannot support the very basis of your arcane, CO2-hatred religion….
Zero proof of CO2 warming in a convective atmosphere
Zero proof of CO2 warming of ocean
Zero proven downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2
You just keep of flapping about like a demented mullet.
One more time then … for both of you:
The ocean being a source or sink depends on the CO2 mass ratio between the ocean and the atmosphere and the temperature.
What mechanism caused CO2 concentrations to rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm (and fall from 300 ppm to 180 ppm)
I’ll ask for a FIFTH time, since you keep on avoiding answering. YES or NO. Did the oceans function as a net source as the CO2 concentration rose from 180 ppm to 300 ppm from glacials to interglacials? YES or NO? Answer the question instead of ducking it for a FIFTH time.
And here’s why you’re refusing to answer:
If yes, what temperature was it that allowed the oceans to function as a net source, and why didn’t that lead to “runaway warming” as you’ve said would happen?
If no (the oceans functioned as a net sink during the Pleistocene), what mechanism did cause CO2 concentrations to rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm?
Answer the questions, SebastianH.
The science involved is called modeling. The partial pressure differential conceptualization that says the oceans are currently functioning as a net sink is rooted in modeling. Models of what we think might be possibly maybe happening are not one-in-the-same with the laws of physics…no matter how desperately you would like them to be.
The partial pressure model doesn’t even apply to climate variability or change; it has only been assumed to apply to past (pre-industrial) CO2 changes (see below).
We don’t even know whether or not the oceans are functioning as a net sink right now.
We can’t even detect an anthropogenic signal in ocean carbon uptake because the natural variability is so much larger.
So again, all we have are modeled assumptions. You call them “physics and math”. Perhaps you want them to be, but they are not.
McKinley et al., 2017
That the growth of the partial pressure of CO2 gas in the atmosphere ( pCO2 atm) drives a growing oceanic sink is consistent with our basic understanding that, as the globally averaged atmosphere-to-ocean pCO2 gradient increases, carbon accumulation in the ocean will occur at an increasing rate (Section 3). This behavior has been illustrated clearly with models forced with only historically observed increases in pCO2 atm and no climate variability or change (Graven et al. 2012, Ciais et al. 2013). Nonetheless, critical mysteries remain and weigh heavily on our ability to quantify relationships between the perturbed global carbon cycle and climate change.
The current inability to accurately quantify the mean CO2 sink regionally or locally also suggests that present-day observational constraints are inadequate to support a detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works and how it is responding to intensifying climate change. This lack of mechanistic understanding implies that our ability to model (Roy et al. 2011, Ciais et al. 2013, Frolicher et al. 2015, Randerson et al. ¨ 2015), and thus to project the future ocean carbon sink, including feedbacks caused by warming and other climate change, is seriously limited. … The sum of the available evidence indicates that variability in the ocean carbon sink is significant and is driven primarily by physical processes of upwelling, convection, and advection. Despite evidence for a growing sink when globally integrated (Khatiwala et al. 2009, 2013; Ciais et al. 2013; DeVries 2014), this variability, combined with sparse sampling, means that it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring. … [T]his CESM-LE analysis further illustrates that variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.
Which explains why seb [snip – please refrain from name-calling] is having so many issues answering simple questions.
We have seen his “physucs” and his “miths”
…. and they are obviously from a different planet…. where reality is twisted and distorted.
This is becoming aggravating …
The answer is there before your eyes and you just can’t make the connection. You want to hear me say it for you, is that it?
A higher temperature as the temperature necessary to be in equilibrium. Or in other words “The ocean being a source or sink depends on the CO2 mass ratio between the ocean and the atmosphere and the temperature.”
For the last time, I didn’t say that! You are making this up in your imagination! I get that it wasn’t clear enough for you at the start of this sub-thread, but we are now going back and forth for almost 20 comments and you still act like this … I don’t get it. Are you trying to drive me crazy with your pointless repetitions?
If only you would ever answer my questions right away instead of avoiding it by posting quotes … I explained the mechanism right when I clarified my statement at the beginning of this sub-thread. You could have easily gotten your answer from that.
Oh and regarding quotes … McKinley et al., 2017? You realize that this paper is saying that the ocean is currently a net sink, right? And please read and understand chapter 3 in that paper … will you?
Did the oceans function as a net source as the CO2 concentration rose from 180 ppm to 300 ppm from glacials to interglacials?
Finally! You answered the question! Good for you, SebastianH.
If yes, what temperature was it that allowed the oceans to function as a net source
“A higher temperature” is not an answer. It’s like asking how much warming will CO2 cause in the oceans and you answering “a lot”. That’s not an answer. You called this basic “physics and math”. Great. So be specific. How much higher temperature? Quantify with a numerical value (degrees C). Surely you can answer this specific question, right? What temperatures allowed the oceans to function as a net source during glacials-interglacials, and then to stop acting as a net source sometime afterwards? And when was that “sometime afterwards”? What year or span of years? Do you know? Why did CO2 rise from 280 ppm to 295 ppm during the Little Ice Age (1400-1900 AD) during the same time as temperatures were cooling—if the oceans were a net sink (or is it source?) during those 500 years?
If you notice, I don’t buy your attempts at explanation. If this is basic physics and math, surely you should have the basic physics and math (numbers) identified. So what ocean temperature allows the oceans to become a net sink vs. a net source? Why can’t you be more specific than “a higher temperature” – which isn’t even an answer?
Yes, that’s what McKinley and colleagues agree is the common understanding, based on modeling. On the other hand, they really don’t know if the ocean is a source or sink. An anthropogenic signal can’t even be detected. After all, the entire partial pressure conceptualization is based upon models of a climate that doesn’t change, not the currently changing one (well, climate always changes…but that’s what makes it a model). In other words, once again, just about every aspect of your beliefs about the oceans functioning as a net sink are rooted not in observations, but models. And then you turn around and insist models are “basic physics”.
“[I]t is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring. … [T]his CESM-LE analysis further illustrates that variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.”
So apparently it needs another “one last time comment” …
It is the only answer I can give you. The ocean being a sink or source is related to temperature and CO2 mass ratio. Get both values and you roughly know what it is. I am not your calculator, I am just pointing out the math that you chose to ignore in order to be able to say “On the other hand, they really don’t know if the ocean is a source or sink.”. We do know. We just don’t seem to know – according to that paper – if long-term growth is occurring (as suggested by the more or less stable airborne fraction). It certainly grew in the last decades though.
You really need that spelled out for you? An equilibrium is reached and then temperature increases. Depending on the temperature the target CO2 concentration to be in equilibrium changes. In the case of an increase the target increases. During that time the oceans are a net source. Once the target is reached they stop being a net source. When temperature decreases, the target decreases and the oceans become a net sink until the target is reached (I am using “target” for lack of a better word). The whole EPICA temperature and CO2 reconstruction data is a result of that mechanic: http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/EPICA-Luthi-Nature-2008-CROP.jpg
Depending on the size of the temperature increase it takes some time to reach the new CO2 concentration target. You can calculate that from the formulas describing the mechanism. For our current CO2 concentration to reach the “target” it would take centuries.
I am not aware of an increase in CO2 concentration, neither the EPICA ice core data nor the Law Dome data show an increase. They both show a decrease from around 282 ppm to around 272/276 ppm during the time the temperature decreased (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026152/full)
I am not your calculator. I am just trying to get you to understand the mechanisms involved so you’ll eventually realize that your many claims regarding CO2 concentration changes are based on wrong assumptions.
You are using the term “model” as if models were some product of imagination. Models are used to describe mechanisms and that’s it. And of course that model works for changing climate … why wouldn’t it? It even works for a climate where humans artificially increase the CO2 concentration.
The models are based on observations … they are not products of the fantasy of some scientists. Stop calling it a belief, just because you don’t understand the mechanism.
You are the one with the strange beliefs here. You believe that model can’t be right, because you don’t understand how it works (evident by your questions). You believe that the current CO2 increase is mostly natural, despite also noticing that the airborne fraction is in the 40-50% region. You believe water has special properties not yet discovered by science that enables it to not change heat content when incoming and outgoing energy flows are not balanced (or rather, only if that imbalance is caused by CO2 forcing changes).
That’s some weird understanding of the science involved and almost like a religious person claiming “it was god” when he/she doesn’t understand how something works.
Then why not just admit from the beginning that you don’t know the answer instead of making me ask you the same question 5 times while you gave me the runaround?
To do math and to use a calculator, real numbers are required. The words “a higher temperature” is not something that can be entered into a calculator. So, again, why not just admit that you don’t know what temperatures the oceans have to be to morph from net sources to net sinks? Why pretend like you know when you don’t?
“On the other hand, they really don’t know if the ocean is a source or sink.”.
This is so amusing. So we know sinks are growing, but we don’t know if they’ve grown over the long-term. That’s like saying we know that it’s warmer now than it was in 1000 AD, but we don’t know what the temperatures were in 1000 AD. The logic of champions!
This is so fun to watch. So the target is undefined because you don’t know what it is. The equilibrium value is undefined because you don’t know what that is. The temperature increase and decrease from an unknown baseline is necessarily meaningless, and therefore you use the word “target” because you have no other word you could possibly use…and because “something” sounds less than scientific. So you know you’re right about a value but you don’t know what that value is. Brilliant!
As I have told you 3 times now, the Law Dome ice core record shows an increase from 280 ppm in 1400 AD to 296 ppm in 1900. (I wrote 295 ppm earlier, but it’s actually 296 ppm now that I’ve checked again.) According to the formula/model of 7 ppm/K that you claim is “basic physics”, temperatures should have risen by 2 degrees during 1400 to 1900. This is why I have continued to point out that there is both (a) something wrong with the ice core CO2 records and (b) something ridiculously wrong about your 7 ppm/K formula/model/beliefs.
Yes. Models are imagined explanations for how we think the world works. You have nothing more than that to back up your beliefs about CO2 concentrations as the dominant cause of net ocean heat changes, for example. No physical measurements. No real-world experiments. No actual observations. Just imagined explanations.
That is total and utter BS as far as climate models are concerned.
And yes they ARE a product of science fantasy.
It is BECAUSE we understand how they work that we know they are shear fantasy that could only ever get near reality by dumb luck.
(One out of 130 or something, is even close to reality, and it just happens to be the only one without any CO2 “farcing”)
They are heavily based on the same UNPROVEN non-science that the AGW religion is based on.
You know, the anti-CO2 assumptions you have been TOTALLY UNABLE to provide a single paper as proof.
Zero proof of CO2 warming of convective atmosphere
Zero proof of CO2 warming oceans
A MANIC and WILFUL lack of understanding of the basic physics of evaporation.
Zero proven downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2
You are STILL FIRING BLANKS seb.
You are LYING and being DECEITFUL , as always seb.
Aggravating was the wrong word … stupid is more fitting now.
You don’t understand the mechanism, have no desire to ever understand it and construct wild claims based upon that non-knowledge.
Huh? I can look up the numbers and if we trust reconstructions enough I can calculate the result for you. So can you. That’s different from “not knowing the answer”. I am not interested in educating you about numbers, I am interested in you understanding the mechanisms, so you don’t make ignorant claims or at least know that they are not based on reality.
You calculate the temperature from the mentioned variables, you don’t enter a temperature into your calculator.
It’s not one single temperature! How often does this need repeating?
No it’s like saying that a pile of garbage is growing, but we don’t know if that is a long-term growth.
No and no. Read chapter 3 in your linked paper: https://instaar.colorado.edu/uploads/publications/ARMS_proofs.pdf
There are more variables, but temperature and CO2 mass ratio are the most important ones. Nothing is undefined …
I use “target” because that’s normally used when describing control loops. You can also call it “setpoint”, but that would imply that someone has chosen the value … so “target” it is.
That’s not how it works. Apparently it is hard to get you to read and understand descriptions of the mechanism. Do you understand program code? Would it help you if you could see how the model works internally?
And don’t you think that human influence started before 1900? A good part of that increase at the end is not coming from temperature changes, but from human emissions.
Of course we have that. You can’t come up with descriptions of the mechansims that govern those processes without observing what happens. I don’t know why you think it is not possible to infer from observations made in other contexts.
From knowing that water has more thermal energy when hot and ice melting when in contact with something warmer than the melting point, you can infer that ice melts when hot water is poured over it. Without actually doing the experiment.
From knowing how gravity and propulsion forces work you can infer how a spacecraft will travel through space without having done the experiment. That’s what models/formulas do.
There might be uncertainty because some little things are not well understood in a complex climate system (that’s why ranges are given when calculating how much Earth will warm for certain CO2 concentrations), but the basics – CO2 disolves in or outgases from the oceans – are pretty well known. Read chapter 3 of that McKinley paper!
I suggest you search for more current information. CMIP5 model predictions isn’t far away from reality and the corrected models (for solar and aerosol influence) are spot on.
You are a victim of another deniers myth. Don’t be a victim.
Then why not just admit from the beginning that you don’t know the answer
Well then, do so. I asked you to provide an answer to my question 5 times, now 6. You have not done so. Look up the numbers. Identify at what point (year or span of years) and at what temperature the oceans morphed from being a net source to a net sink. Then identify what temperature the ocean will need to be before they become a net source now. Of course, if you claim that oceans became a net sink after reaching a certain temperature, then you should be able to identify what that temperature is. You’re the one making the claim. Back it up.
Great. So calculate the temperature that the oceans became a net sink from the variables you have mentioned. Why keep on evading?
Well I would think they wouldn’t be a single temperature considering the temperature of the oceans can vary by many degrees C from cold to warm season above/below the tropics. So identify the range of temperatures that cause the oceans to become net sinks. Use the mentioned variables in your calculations.
Does it look like it did so here? http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17501875.png
You have nothing more than that to back up your beliefs about CO2 concentrations as the dominant cause of net ocean heat changes, for example. No physical measurements. No real-world experiments. No actual observations.
So you’ve discovered a real world experiment that shows us how much a water body cools when CO2 concentrations in the air above it are reduced by -10 ppm? Great! So what are those real-world physical measurements, SebastianH? Provide the citation from this empirical (non-modeled) observation. We’ve been asking you for this for so long…and now you finally have the answer! Let’s see your numbers from this real-world controlled scientific experiment.
“seb has some weird understandings of the science and is exactly like a religious person claiming “it was CO2” because he/she doesn’t understand how anything works.”
STILL ZERO EVIDENCE to back up the very basis of the AGW scam, seb
Just your unflinching, anti-science, CO2 HATRED.
Models run much higher than REALITY. FACT.
They are a farce. Adjusting the models and the data, after the fact, is a JOKE, all it does create even more meaningless garbage.
If they knew what was actually happening, they would only need one model, not a scattergun of WRONG models.
Pure luck if one comes within cooee of reality, unless, of course, reality is “adjusted” to make the models look better.
You cannot average 100 or so WRONG models and say you have anything but JUNK SCIENCE.
I’ll prepare something for you. There is no point in calculating some single data point for you, doing your work. If you need everything spoonfed to you, I’ll prepare a website for you demonstrating the mechanism in hope that you will understand.
From mentioning it is not a single temperature you conclude it must be a range? It’s amazing to see your mind work … it isn’t a range either.
Imagine stable temperatures and a CO2 concentration of around 250 ppm existed for some time. Now the temperature changes and increases by 2 degrees. With Engelbeen’s value of 16 ppm/K the new target would be 282 ppm and CO2 concentration would slowly increase because the ocean has become a net source now. A bit later we have a new equilibrium at 2 degrees warmer temperatures and 282 ppm. Now the temperature drops by degree. New target would be 266 ppm and the ocean is a net sink during the time it takes to reach that target. Now the temperature increases again by 2 degrees. New target (298 ppm), the ocean is a net source until reached … and so on.
It’s never the same temperature and it is not a range.
Continuing the example:
Now someone emits a massive amount of CO2 into the system. The CO2 concentration increases to 400 ppm, but the target is still 298 ppm. The ocean will be a net sink until that target is reached again.
But wait … the increase to 400 ppm also changes the temperature a bit (on a logarithmic scale, so a certain amount for each doubling of the concentration). This causes the target to shift. Let’s say the increase caused by 400 ppm is 1-4 degrees (this one is a range) and the 400 ppm level is maintained until that increase happened. After that moment no external CO2 will be added to the system.
The new target would be 314 – 362 ppm. When the temperature decreases with the decrease of CO2 concentration the target will change accordingly. It won’t go back down to 298 ppm for quite some time because the mass ratio was changed by the external CO2. Eventually, that absorbed CO2 will arrive at the sea floor and things will be back to “normal”.
That’s the basic mechanism.
As you know, doubling the CO2 concentration to 560 ppm is only alleged to increase the temperature by a little more than 1 degree. Any temperature increase beyond that (up to 6 degrees C) is allegedly (models) caused by increases in water vapor and cloud. In other words, water vapor and cloud are alleged (models) to cause most of the warming – not the CO2 concentration.
So to do your calculations (i.e., 16 ppm/K or 7 ppm/K, whichever value is “basic physics” this month) in your mechanism explanation, you’re going to need to figure out exactly how much temperature change is due to water vapor and/or cloud changes (necessarily most of it) relative to the 16 ppm/K or 7 ppm/K conceptualization. Water vapor and cloud cover are, of course, far from constant. So to calculate the temperature change from water vapor and cloud, you’re going to need to know what the water vapor and cloud values were for the Holocene and during the periods up to 1979 so you can rule out those factors as contributing to warming/CO2 ppm change. Do you have the cloud and water vapor values included in your calculation, SebastianH? If not, why?
Speaking of, since the IPCC says that water vapor and cloud cause 2 to 5 times as much warming as doubled CO2 does, how much of the 0.8 of a degree warming since the LIA has been caused by water vapor and cloud cover increases? Support your answer with observational science, not fanciful explanations of what you believe might maybe possibly be the truth.
Why do you need to distract from the topic? Do you at least understand the mechanism now? Even if you don’t agree that this is what is going on?
Feedbacks are included in the range given (1-4 degrees) … use a different range if you think the likely feedbacks are different. For the Holocene it’s not relevant. Whatever changed the temperatures did change the temperatures. It certainly wasn’t because of the rather small CO2 concentration changes and the resulting feedbacks.
P.S.: I won’t reply to this thread anymore. See you on the next one.
It’s not a distraction from the topic to point out that your claim that 400 ppm CO2 causes 1-4 degrees of warming since even the IPCC acknowledges that the alleged (models only) temperature change from 560 ppm CO2 only amounts to 1.16 K. You can’t even use the IPCC’s own values because you know that they undermine your case.
It’s also not a distraction to point out to you the wild inconsistency in you assuming that water vapor and cloud forcing will cause up to 6 K of warming once we reach 560 ppm (according to models), but temperature changes from CO2 will only lead to 1.16 K of that warming (according to models), and yet none of the warming since 1900 (or 1850) is yet due to water vapor and cloud forcing. I’ve pointed out this wild inconsistency to you about 7 or 8 times now, and each time I do you run away from it and refuse to respond to the challenge. “Don’t distract” is embarassingly weak for someone who is convinced of his rightness.
Good for you. You admitted that CO2 didn’t cause past temperature changes. So when CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 300 ppm during the Pleistocene, that was a result of ocean outgassing more CO2 than could be reabsorbed.
For reasons we understand (you’re a believer), the oceans stopped functioning as a net source somewhere between the year ranges of 1800 and 1900 (see, that wasn’t so hard to identify the timing – I’ve known you believe that from the start). CO2 became the cause of temperature changes rather than the effect of temperature changes in about the year 1900 (temperatures in 1900 were lower than 1850 according to HadCRUT even though CO2 rose during those 50 LIA years), and clouds and water vapor were the 0% cause of temperature changes from about 1900 on. Sometime in the future clouds and water vapor increases will cause about 67% or more of the warming because CO2 only causes 1.16 K when we get to 560 ppm and we’re expecting 4 to 6 K.
Your beliefs have serious holes in them, SebastianH. Running away from the craters by calling them irrelevant distractions isn’t going to make them go away.
“That’s the basic mechanism.”
NO, that a load of child-minded, fantasy-driven, anti-science, balderdash and twaddle.
You are the only one “distracting” things here, seb.
Its what you do.
Its who you are. A dull side-alley distraction.
A clown-face waiting for someone to toss a coin… pleading for some sort of attention.
We can certainly agree with that. It isn’t now, either.
And those concentrations are still very small , and as you have shown time and time again, they cause ZERO provable warming of the atmosphere or of oceans.
How do you know that “whatever changed the temperatures back then”, didn’t cause the tiny, highly beneficial warming which has occurred coming out of the LIA?
You really are sticking both feet well and truly in your mouth now, seb.
…. but you still manage your mindless yapping.
I did not claim that. The sentence reads “Let’s say …”. This was an example to show you how the mechanism works and it is a distraction when you try to make up straw man arguments like this.
It is very distracting. This has nothing to do with the mechanism. You don’t need to agree with the rest of the science world in order to understand the mechanism.
So you don’t understand. Very well then …
It’s not a distraction from the topic to point out that your claim that 400 ppm CO2 causes 1-4 degrees of warming
So by writing “Let’s say the increase caused by 400 ppm is 1-4 degrees” you were just imagining a hypothetical? Could you imagine a hypothetical where 400 ppm caused 0.02 degrees of warming? Or would that not be possible? How much warming does 400 ppm cause, if it’s not your claim that it is 1-4 degrees?
It’s also not a distraction to point out to you the wild inconsistency in you assuming that water vapor and cloud forcing will cause up to 6 K of warming once we reach 560 ppm (according to models), but temperature changes from CO2 will only lead to 1.16 K of that warming (according to models)
I find it odd that you call it a distraction or fail to respond at all every time I bring up the point that the IPCC “believes” (they use that word) that the feedbacks from increased clouds and water vapor cause far more of the warming than the doubled CO2 forced value of 1.16 K (models). You just run away every time I bring it up that models say cloud and water vapor will cause up to 5 K of warming by the time we reach 560 ppm, but CO2 alone only causes 1.16 K. So the natural question is: how much of the 0.8 K of warming was caused by water vapor and cloud cover increases since 1900…since they’ll cause up to 5 K of warming by the time we reach 560 ppm CO2? Do you know? Of course you don’t. So keep on dodging, SebastianH. Perhaps you can make it go away that way.
Can you provide evidence that “the rest of the science world” agrees with you that increasing cloud cover is a net positive forcing? Because I have probably about 200 references from the scientific literature that would call this attempt at employing the argument from authority (logical fallacy) into question. But you are warmly invited to support your statement that increases in clouds are a net positive forcing with what “the science world” has to say.
“P.S.: I won’t reply to this thread anymore”
LYING to yourself, yet again, hey seb-t.
Seriously the last time …
1) It doesn’t matter what kind of warming 400 ppm causes over 298 ppm. The point was giving you an example of the mechanism. You are fixated on irrelevant things and you are distracting not only me but yourself with this behavior. Don’t you want to know how the mechanism works?
2) Then you bring up the IPCC range of possible temperature change for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Not relevant to the mechanism at all. And you continue to show that you don’t understand it at all. Do you think that 400 ppm of CO2 would just cause 0.8°C of warming? If we somehow could ensure that the concentration would stay at that level you’ll see the temperatures further increase. In fact, a level of around 400 ppm is the target to limit the temperature increase to 2°C (you can find that in the AR5 report). You haven’t understood the mechanism, otherwise you would probably know this.
3) And another distraction “cloud cover is a net positive forcing” appears. Just wow …
Kenneth, you make yourself look ignorant if you continue on this path. At least try to understand the mechanisms before you claim that those mechanisms can not possibly have caused what’s happening. Read chapter 3 of that paper you quotes 20 comments back. Over and out.
You’re not convincing anyone here that climate sensitivity to CO2 concentrations – the absolute crux of the debate and the reason why we’re even here – is something that is “not relevant”…even here, with regard to CO2 concentration changes and their relation to temperature (cause-effect). Obviously, the reason why you keep on pivoting to saying that climate sensitivity “doesn’t matter what kind of warming 400 ppm causes over 298 ppm” or that it’s “not relevant” and therefore it’s not allowed to be addressed here is because you know the whole equilibrium climate sensitivity question does not help your cause, because it acknowledges that water vapor and cloud forcing completely overwhelm CO2 forcing even in the IPCC models, as doubling CO2 to 560 ppm only leads to a temperature change of 1.16 K. You don’t want to talk about this, so you just use the “It’s not relevant!” and “Don’t distract!” defense as a means of avoidance.
If it doesn’t matter how much warming is caused by CO2, why are you even here?
I thought “it doesn’t matter” how much warming is caused by CO2. So does it matter now? By saying 400 ppm would “just” cause 0.8°C of warming, does that not imply that you think it should be more than just that? If so, how much? What are your beliefs? Oh…this question is irrelevant. But, on the other hand, saying this…
So now it’s relevant again. Great. So you believe 400 ppm will increase temperatures by at least 2°C. How is this consistent with the calculations (model) that says 560 ppm only causes a temperature change of 1.16 K, and it’s the positive forcing from water vapor and cloud that increase temperatures beyond that (up to 6°C)? How is that consistent? And if +280 ppm causes a temperature change of only +1.16 K, and CO2 has only risen by 125 ppm so far, and most greenhouse warming (according to IPCC models) beyond the 1.16 K is caused by clouds and water vapor, how much of the 0.8°C of warmth has been due to water vapor and clouds? Or is this question irrelevant? Of course it’s irrelevant. That’s what you write every time you know you can’t answer the question.
Does it need to be mentioned that equilibrium climate sensitivity includes net positive cloud and water vapor forcing (per the IPCC)? You did know that, right?
“Do you think that 400 ppm of CO2 would just cause 0.8°C of warming?”
You mean a change from 298 to 400ppm.
NO, IT WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY WARMING AT ALL
You have already shown VERY CONVINCINGLY that there is NO proof of CO2 warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.
The only brain-washed ignoramus here, is YOU, seb-t. !
There is NO MECHANISM by which CO2 can cause warming of a convective atmosphere or of the ocean, (except in your bizarre little AGW fantasy land.)
“More CO2 means more absorption and more emissions in all directions ”
Emissions do not happen except very rarely in the lower atmosphere.
The relax time is magnitudes higher than the collision time, so the absolutely TINY amount of energy absorbed is thermalised to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere as a very slightly lower height
Mean free path alters from some 10m to around 9.6m .
It makes absolutely ZERO difference to atmospheric warming in a convective atmosphere.
End of story.
Sorry that you are too NON-educated to comprehend the basic physics. Not my problem.
But please stop doing yourself a dis-service by appearing so constantly ignorant, about everything. !!
And STOP TROLLING for ATTENTION !.. Its PITIFUL !!!
Source? We can measure that radiation, does that mean we are measuring a ghost?
We even discussed it at the time.
Why your constant plea for attention..
…. you really should pay more attention, seb-troll.
No wonder your scientific ignorance is so deeply embedded.
Thanks Kenneth, AndyG and Tomomason,
It is fun watch the acolytes try to answer simple questions without tripping themselves up at every twist and turn.
The old quote
“Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive”
comes to mind so readily.
The following might be of some interest to those tired of reading the ice-is-growing versus the ice-is-decreasing story line.
A Heinrich event is a natural phenomenon in which large armadas of icebergs break off from glaciers and traverse the North Atlantic.
OT. This is what happens to EV sales when subsidies are removed
”Tis but a scratch!
OT. Just looking at South Australia wind output.
Installed 1700MW… currently producing…
wait for it…
.. a glorious, magnificent……3MW
and its peak power use time, early evening.
OT.. remember sob-sob going on about El Hierro and its 100% renewables ?
“The island of El Hierro in the Canary Islands was to be a show-case of 100% wind power for electricity. Excess electricity would be used for pumped hydro storage, to be used when the wind failed to meet demand. After two full years of operation, the system provided just 39.1% of the electricity needed. The balance came from diesel generators. ”
OOPS !!!! 🙂
WOW, where has all the heat gone ??
Solar up to 2005 despite it becoming lower since mid last century was still high and it should have caused warming which is what happened. Only since 2005 has solar activity been in an inactive mode which will promote global cooling.
I expect global cooling to begin (I think it has ) this year not 5 years from now.
Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another. This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.
global cloud cover global
snow cover/sea ice cover
volcanic activity major
sea surface temperatures
LOW AVERAGE VALUE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED TO CAUSE GLOBAL COOLING
SOLAR FLUX SUB 90 IS IN PLACE
SOLAR WIND SUB 350 KM/SEC GETTING TOWARD THIS
COSMIC RAY COUNTS 6500 UNITS + IS IN PLACE
AP INDEX 5 OR LOWER COMING DOWN OF LATE
EUV/UV LIGHT- EUV 100 UNITS OR LOWER IS IN PLACE- UV LIGHT DOWN
IMF 4.2 NT NOT REACHED YET ON A REGULAR BASIS.
SOLAR IRRADAINCE OFF .15% not reached yet.
All given solar effects enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.
My solar /climatic play is very low sustained solar activity will result in an increase in the earth’s albedo ,while at the same time lowering sea surface temperatures the result is global cooling.
Doesn’t this TSI graph from SORCE suggest that solar activity is no going to increase again? http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
And you still see cooling in your future?
It would be nice to have Bob Tisdale’s thoughts on the ocean’s behaviour but I see his blog has been inactive since February. Anybody any idea why?
I miss Bob’s posts.
[…] one picture can tell a thousand words here it is. Temperatures are down global warming lies up. Global temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere at 1500 meters since […]