Roger Sr.,
Are you familiar with this research and the effects on increasing GH gases on the IPWP:
There’s a lot to digest, so take your time, but I’d love to get your take on it. The global effects of a warmer and expanded IPWP is the subject of much research with a large team investigating it right now.
Pekka:
Your description of atmospheric circulation is fraught with so many basic misconceptions that all I can do here is recommend any competent introduction to descriptive meteorology and John Dutton’s “Dynamics of Atmospheric Motion” as a remedy.
“The Planck response applies to a radiating body with a single distinct surface. The Earth’s “radiating surface” is over 50Km thick, much of it full of cloudy air which reflects some always varying fraction of the incoming shortwave.”
Sure. We can also suppose that internal variability drives the TOA further through cloud albedo change. This still fails to explain why the TOA always is positive (sea levels always are rising at roughly the same rate) irrespective of the PDO or AMO phases, or why such an internally driven TOA imbalance would only have suddenly kicked in after the industrial revolution, after having been ineffective for several millennia. But you’re looking for an alternate explanation of an effect that already has a known cause — anthropogenic CO2, methane, etc. — and an already understood physical explanation.
I am beginning to get boring here but the Inter tropical cloud mass, thus albedo is reduced since 1900 sufficient to account for all AGW. Unfortunately without any exception every meteorologist and ‘climate expert’ I have come across has pretended that this factor does not exist – perhaps using sub Saharan African rainfall and river flow as a proxy for ITCZ cloud mass might shed some light on this matter – and bingo there is a direct relation between the mid Atlantic sst variability and those other relevant features. But lets carry on with the pretense while the $CO2 keep rolling in.
Pierre Normand,
How do we know these:
This still fails to explain why the TOA always is positive … or why such an internally driven TOA imbalance would only have suddenly kicked in after the industrial revolution, after having been ineffective for several millennia
1. How do you know the TOA imbalance was always positive (e.g.
a) before the industrial revolution, and
b) before satellite measurements?
2. How do we know TOA imbalance began or changed after the industrial revolution?
3. How do we know TOA imbalance was ineffective for several millennia before the industrial revolution?
@Pierre-Normand…
It then accelerated to an average 1.4mm/year over the 20th century and 3mm/year over the last 20 years. This evolution in sea level is roughly proportionate, within uncertainties, to the variation in anthropogenic forcing (ln(CO2 forcing) – aerosol forcing) over the last two centuries.
From the post above:
Note the high values in the early part of the century, nearly as high or as high as the value for the last two decades. Now there are other factors that contribute to sea level rise changes; from the AR5 chapter 3 (a table included in my recent testimony):
[...]
OHC changes (thermal expansion) accounts for about 1/3 of the total sea level rise. What did this balance look like circa 1930′s to 1950′s? Presumably the land water storage and glacier melt was smaller, so the thermal expansion was more dominant in this early period. Which suggests that ocean heat content was greater in this early period than in the current period, and cannot be attributed to AGW.
The mechanism that accounts for the equatorial ocean temp increase is the same event that killed 200,000 in Sudan in 2011 and the same again in Mali 200,000 in 2012. Although some see this thing as a mild intellectual exercise it has a big tariff in lives and will continue to cause such misery.
The pause needs an explanation, which AGW does not meet. That’s why the pause is killing the cause. But don’t give up, lollie. By the way, how many 60 year climate cycles can you point out that netted out to zero?
“Stratospheric cooling was supposed to continue but it stopped in 1995.”
—
How to reply in the face of such misinformation and ignorance? Well, perhaps actual science:
AC Osborn
“Apples with apples” comparison between the statistically indistinguishable early 20thC and late 20thC warming cycles: 1910-1940 and 1970-2000, using HadCRUT4, Mauna Loa after 1958 and Siegenthaler et al. ice core data prior to 1958.
Linear dT
1910 to 1940 = 0.4C
1970 to 2000 = 0.5C
CO2
1910 = 299 ppmv
1940 = 309 ppmv
1970 = 324 ppmv
2000 = 369 ppmv
ASS-U-ME that IPCC estimate for 2xCO2 TCR of 1.8C is correct
Early 20thC cycle
ln (309 / 299) = 0.0329
ln (2) = 0.6931
dT from CO2 = 1.8 * 0.0329 / 0.6931 = 0.09C
dT from other causes = 0.4 – 0.09 = 0.31C
CO2 “caused” 21% of warming
Late 20thC cycle
ln (369 / 324) = 0.1301
dT from CO2 = 1.8 * 0.1301 / 0.6931 = 0.34C
dT from other causes = 0.5 – 0.34 = 0.16C
CO2 “caused” 68% of warming
Over both warming cycles CO2 “caused” 48% of the warming
If a lower estimate for 2xCO2 TCR of 1.0C is correct:
(Early 20thC cycle) dT from CO2 = 0.05C; dT from others = 0.35C
CO2 “caused” 12% of warming
(Late 20thC cycle) dT from CO2 = 0.19C; dT from others = 0.31C
CO2 “caused” 38% of warming
Over both warming cycles CO2 “caused” 27% of the warming
So it all depends on what you ASS-U-ME for 2xCO2 TCR.
Max
“Our analysis of the latest satellite datasets and model simulations reveals that a model-predicted anthropogenic fingerprint pattern is consistently identifiable, with high statistical confidence, in the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere. Multidecadal tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric cooling are the main features of this fingerprint.”
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that CAGW advocates are as bad at logic as they are at statistics.
Nicely done Max (the smart one). Makes a lot more sense than the definitional dodge that 60 year climate cycles are…hey..cycles. What goes around comes around, they end up right back where they started, at zero. No natural variability there, unless we need it as an excuse for the pause.
Did he get anything else wrong, gatesy?
Chaotic oscillations are aperiodic. They never average out to zero, except occasionally in passing. Cyclic is the wrong concept.
R. Gates, I reckon Ben Santer was relieved to find that “fingerprint” of anthropogenic influence. Some though seem to think that the fingerprint is smudged a touch given the rate of warming/cooling are more consistent with a lower “sensitivity” instead of the alarming rate “forecast” prior to the 1995 shift in the rate of stratospheric cooling.
lolwot, I know that was meant for Manacker but what your saying is NOT news to me:
http://s1275.photobucket.com/user/philipnord/media/GMT1973TREND_zpsb18d7538.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2
http://s1275.photobucket.com/user/philipnord/media/GMT4_zps45cae57f.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1
No Pekka. It doesn’t matter (for a Bayesian) whether the prediction was made before or after the data–that’s one of the selling points the Bayesians use to justify their method. You simply have a mathematical relationship between the prior, the data, and the posterior. Taking any two as given you can derive the third. We can always turn the question around to ask “How strong would your prior have to be to get this posterior, given the data?”
One problem I have with these uber-high sensitivity estimates with postulated natural cooling being counterbalanced by ACO2 is the implication that absent human emissions we would have been plunged into a near Ice-age. It also seems odd to suppose that similar periods of warming pre- and post-ACO2 do not have similar causes.
Nielsen-Gammon then goes into a relatively lengthy argument
…
But here’s the thing. If, over 60 years, natural variability averages out to zero, it doesn’t matter how strong natural variability is compared to man-made climate change, what’s left over is the man-made part. Thus the IPCC can and should consider it to be extremely likely that human influence dominates the net rise in temperature over the past 60 years.
*****
So here, N-G assumes there are no natural cycles greater than 60 years. This seems unlikely given the century-scale length of some ocean cycles.
