Articles on this Page
- 01/20/19--04:01: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--04:41: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--04:48: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--04:49: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--05:18: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--05:19: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--06:00: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--07:46: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:17: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:26: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:37: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:44: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:46: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:55: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--08:58: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--10:39: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--11:09: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--11:18: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--11:46: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--11:47: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--12:16: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--12:16: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--12:28: _ Comment on Sea...
- 01/20/19--12:28: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--12:36: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--12:40: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--13:14: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--15:33: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--16:39: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--19:24: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/20/19--20:00: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--02:00: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--02:07: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--04:06: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/21/19--04:25: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--05:01: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--05:58: _ Comment on Wee...
- 01/21/19--06:02: _ Comment on Spe...
- 01/21/19--07:15: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--07:41: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--08:22: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--08:32: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--09:10: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--10:10: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--10:27: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--10:47: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--10:55: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--11:05: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/21/19--11:22: _ Comment on Oce...
- 01/21/19--11:23: _ Comment on Is ...
- 01/20/19--04:01: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by nobodysknowledge
- 01/20/19--04:41: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Dr. Strangelove
- 01/20/19--04:48: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by andywest2012
- 01/20/19--04:49: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by JCH
- 01/20/19--05:18: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
- 01/20/19--05:19: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Javier
- 01/20/19--06:00: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by JCH
- 01/20/19--07:46: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by JCH
- 01/20/19--08:17: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by ptolemy2
- 01/20/19--08:26: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
- 01/20/19--08:37: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
- 01/20/19--08:44: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
- 01/20/19--08:46: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
- 01/20/19--08:55: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
- 01/20/19--08:58: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by popesclimatetheory
- 01/20/19--10:39: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by cerescokid
- 01/20/19--11:09: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by cerescokid
- 01/20/19--11:18: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/20/19--11:46: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/20/19--11:47: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/20/19--12:16: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/20/19--12:16: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Javier
- 01/20/19--12:28: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
- 01/20/19--12:36: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ron Graf
- 01/20/19--12:40: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ron Graf
- 01/20/19--13:14: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/20/19--15:33: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
- 01/20/19--16:39: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by angech
- 01/20/19--19:24: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
- 01/20/19--20:00: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Peter Lang
- 01/21/19--04:06: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dr. Strangelove
- 01/21/19--04:25: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
- 01/21/19--05:01: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
- 01/21/19--05:58: Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
- 01/21/19--07:15: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by nobodysknowledge
- 01/21/19--08:22: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Willard
- 01/21/19--08:32: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Willard
- 01/21/19--11:22: Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
Thank you for the referece JCH.
Strange to see climate scientists have so little critical sense. Cloud feedback bigger than CO2 forcing, and water vapor feedback 2,5 times CO2 forcing. "Motivated by the need for a clear reference for this issue, we review the existing literature and use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE radiation module to provide an overview of the role of each absorber at the present‐day and under doubled CO2. With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles. In a doubled CO2 scenario, this allocation is essentially unchanged --"
So, Gavin A Schmidt, Reto A Ruedy, Ron L Miller, Andy A Lacis, are you still defending old failures?
Q1. What are the “important implications for climate sensitivity”? Lower climate sensitivity
Q2. Would ECS and TCR be higher or lower than the consensus central estimates? Lower
What is the revised estimates of TCR and ECS (in degrees C for CO2 doubling) based on the figures you have given? TCR < 1 C
Presumably this thread is relevant here:
It's real simple. They're correct; you are not.
Cheng et al:
"About 93% of the energy imbalance accumulates in the ocean as increased ocean heat content (OHC). The ocean record of this imbalance is much less affected by internal variability and is thus better suited for detecting and attributing human influences than more commonly used surface temperature records."
Greater rates of OHC rise from 1925 and from 1995 dominate the variability, and would be due to declines in low cloud cover associated with the warm AMO phase. But the elephant in the room is that the AMO is normally warm during centennial solar minima, due to an increase in negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions. So why the post 1925 AMO warming? Regardless of the sunspots numbers then, there must have been periods of weaker solar wind to produce the negative NAO anomalies.
That's an interesting thread, thank you.
Stephen McIntyre has one thing wrong, though. Milankovitch did not propose that N Hemisphere ice sheets increased and disintegrated because of orbital-scale variations in high NH latitude summer insolation. Nobody ever reads Milankovitch anymore. That was a corruption of Milankovitch theory introduced after Berger (1978) and Kutzbach (1981) because it was much easier to code into models than Milankovitchs true proposal: <b>caloric summer half year</b>. Milankovitch's brilliant proposal is the integral of the energy received at a certain latitude over the half of the year when every day receives more energy than any day of the other half. This concept that has been reintroduced by Huybers is free from calendar assumptions. Its curve is completely different from 65°N insolation, because due to Kepler's law, the higher the insolation on 21st June, the shorter the summer, as the Earth speeds up through the Perihelion.
Almost nobody ever understands Milankovitch theory. It has been corrupted, and obviously the corruption is wrong. But that wasn't Milutin's fault. He got it right. His caloric summer half year for high northern latitudes is very similar to obliquity, with a 41-kyr cycle.
So what? That happened. It did nothing.
On that subject, that El Niño that several were predicting for this new year didn’t really amount to anything except usual Christmas climatology:
The ocean record of this imbalance is much less affected by internal variability THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG!
Ocean evaporation temperatures do provide the ice core data that is the measure of the internal response, internal variability.
When ocean temperatures are colder, polar oceans freeze and cut off evaporation and ice that is sequestered in cold places depletes and then retreats and causes warmer times to follow.
When ocean temperatures are warmer, warmer thawed oceans evaporate to cool the oceans and use the water vapor and energy creating IR out from forming ice in the high clouds. This increases ice sequestered in cold places until it advances and causes colder times to follow.
This is recorded in ice core data and in history.
Ice ages are colder when there is more ice extent thawing and reflecting. Warmer times when the ice is depleted and retreated allowing the warmer times because ice is not cooling by thawing and reflecting.
It snows more in warm times when more evaporation and IR out increases ice volume until it advances and increases ice extent. This is why warm periods always end with colder periods.
We are ten thousand years into a new normal age with smaller shorter cold and warm periods. The major ice ages have sequestered enough ocean water as ice in cold places to reduce the older major warm and cold cycles to the modern Little ice age and warm cycles. Less ice and water are available to take part in the cycles. The mass of ice and water that takes part in the cycles is the mass in the mass spring cycles. Evaporation and snowfall in cold places and the thawing rate of sequestered ice determine the spring rates for these processes.
MAN DOES NOT CONTROL THESE CYCLES!
CO2 DOES NOT CONTROL THESE CYCLES!
THESE CYCLES ARE NATURAL, NORMAL AND NECESSARY!
These cycles have changed over millions of years because the circulations of warm tropical water to polar regions have changed. More warm water circulating in cold places supports more sequestered ice on land. More sequestered ice over fifty million years did cause bigger and colder cycles until we reached the new paradise of our ten thousand years of Paradise Cycles.
It is well after Christmas and it is still snowing, and it is not going to stop soon.
It took several Milankovitch cycles to start an ice age and it took several Milankovitch cycles to end an ice age.
That is because and ice age does not start until enough sequestered ice volume has accumulated to cause the ice extent to increase. That is because an ice age does not end until enough ice volume has depleted to allow ice extent decrease.
Ice extent controls ice ages and some of the Milankovitch cycles were always close enough and got all the credit.
We put ice in the ice chest to cool it. It warms when the ice is depleted.
Earth does the same thing.
And then there is this. Southern Ocean cool for 20 years. Very warm off New England and Nova Scotia for 15 years.
I was researching the Minoan Warm Period and I came across this paper. By coincidence shortly thereafter I read one of your comments on WUWT from July, 2016 regarding temperatures at some point being 4C warmer than present, to which you took exception. The 4C is mentioned in the linked paper as well. It is pay walled.
The paper mentions MM3 and LM1 as being the period with the 4C.
My interest is not whether the 4C is correct. I would just like to understand the reference to MM3 and LM 1, both terms with which I am not familiar. Do you know what time frame MM3 and LM1 include?
I was talking about the next La Nina - which will cool both oceans and atmosphere.
Longer term? More salt is La Nina.
It depends on the volume of upwelling in the eastern Pacific - that modulates TOA radiant energy and climate. Cloud changes this century caused most ocean warming - as in the post hiatus study cited. Strong SW warming largely in response to warmer SST in the Pacific.
Hypotheses that don't explain data should be modified or discarded.
This may be of interest then.
And Tsonis - despite silly misrepresentations from the climate peanut gallery - remains a pioneering climate theorist.
As for water vapor - it is difficult to see it condensing out of the system any time soon. So the real question remains. What would you do about multiple gas emissions?
And here we should include black carbon.
‘The best estimate of industrial-era climate forcing of black carbon through all forcing mechanisms, including clouds and cryosphere forcing, is +1.1 W/m 2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of +0.17 to +2.1 W/m 2. Thus, there is a very high probability that black carbon emissions, independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate. We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W/m 2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing…’ Bond, T. C. et al, 2013, Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: ATMOSPHERES, VOL. 118, 5380–5552, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171
From multiple sectors.
While retaining and increasing global economic productivity?
Cerescokid, I took exception to global average being 4°C warmer. I have no problem at all with regional temperatures in the northern hemisphere being that high or even higher, particularly if they are summer temperatures as most biological proxies record. Seasonality was much higher in the northern hemisphere during the early Holocene.
The people that wrote that article are archeologists in Crete. The MM3 and LM1 are archeological levels in Crete belonging to the Minoan civilization around 3350 yr BP, but they don't talk about it, as they are writing for other archeologists that should know.
This paper indicates that the atmospheric pressure decreases during deglaciation, therefore it increases during glaciation.
Here is the abstract:
``The change in the global mean atmospheric pressure between glacial and interglacial periods is evaluated at sea level. This change originates in a modification of topography and in a possible variation in the atmospheric mass. In this calculation the atmosphere is at hydrostatic equilibrium, and the parameters describing the glacial period are varied in a plausible range. The result, with constant atmospheric mass, is a mean sea level pressure decrease of 9–15 hPa linked with the deglaciation. The corresponding pressure change at the reference level corresponding to the present day sea level does not exceed one hPa. When considering only the change in the atmospheric mass, an increase which does not exceed 2 hPa is found, linked with the deglaciation.``
Robert, which region are those sea salt values from? And what point are you trying to make with the AMO chart?
Willard: <i>I rather think that you’re trying to help yourself with your switch-and-baiting, RonG, as none of my points rest on a specific theory regarding ice age. </i>
I understood your point was to dispute Javier's assertion that CO2 is not a primary control knob for global temperature.
<blockquote>Tony:<blockquote>At some point those calling themselves skeptics have to start admitting that CO2 is the primary forcing.</blockquote>Javier:
I am fully prepared to do it as soon as the evidence shows it. No conclusive evidence has been produced. Not even strong evidence. I am not believing in the absence of evidence because that isn’t different from religion.
The evidence that we have is that CO2 and temperature are anti-correlated during the past 10,000 years, and during the past 50 million years. They only correlate during the past 800,000 years when we know that CO2 is not responsible for the observed climate change, because it takes place at orbital frequencies.</blockquote>
Willard: <i>Even if I accept your explanation, it simply doesn’t undermine Richard Alley’s control knob, i.e. the idea that if you keep CO2 out of the many billion years of the Earth’s history, little makes sense, and if you add CO2 in everything does. You could as well have mentioned the extinction of the dinosaurs, which isn’t related to CO2.</i>
I missed where Richard Alley said that in your linked videos, but I'm sure he believes that. I simply asked you to articulate why or find where Alley does. You said you don't fall into traps of doing work. I said I would help you and I supplied their commonly used evidence of CO2 being involved in warming the SH during the Holocene transition. I pointed out that CO2 could well have helped warming but there is no evidence that it was needed in any way to drive climactic changes. It might but there is no evidence, so for you or Alley to say there is evidence calls for its production.
Willard my reply is here https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/#comment-887996 Apologies for missing the thread.
It is Law Dome ice salt in an ENSO proxy - and the link is given above. It was posted again here in error.
Smeed et al 2014 seems much more relevant for you. I noted here that you realized that your hypothesis hasn't any explanatory power and you invent a new narrative about solar wind. You did the same thing above when I mentioned that north Atlantic SST and cloud feedback have a minor influence on global energy. You then decided it did with teleconnections to the Pacific.
AMO does not cause ENSO. So perhaps Vance et al 2013 is relevant after all.
There is certainly an AMO signal in the southern hemisphere, the AMO influences the PDO, the effects are not confined to the North Atlantic region.
I have not invented a new narrative about the solar wind, it is a rational deduction, and is supported by this study:
'Responses of sea-surface temperature to solar wind speed on
the seasonal timescale have been found, and in the North Atlantic
region in winter they resemble the North Atlantic Oscillation. At
the locations of the peak (negative) response in the North Atlantic
the SST decreases by approximately 1°C for 100 km/s increase
in solar wind speed.'
Off topic. Despite the next 7 days of 40 C in Victoria, Australia the rest of the world is showing signs of cooling.
Arctic and Antarctic about to make recoveries.
Tropics perhaps cooling down [the oceans, on topic].
The Arctic swings have been incredible this last 3 months, staggering, worth an article or 3 as totally at odds with all standard deviation changes.
If one had all 3 coalesce at the same time what a wonderful world it would be.
So the AMO would be warm in negative Northern Annular Modes (NAM) - the alternate and improved nomenclature for the AO - it it were not for solar winds?
Surface pressure fields at both poles the waviness of the polar annular modes (SAM and Nam) - and these drive winds and currents in all the world's oceans. Negative modes drive storms and winds into lower latitudes and spin up ocean gyres. Wavier annular modes may be associated with low solar activity. AMOC and AMO are expressions of changed heat transport patterns as a result - the latter not all that significant climatically. It's a climate dog and you focus on the tail and not the dog.
Thank you. I hope Nic Lewis' coming post will give an update on the ECS and TCR figures.
[…] https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/#more-24627 […]
[…] https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/14/ocean-heat-content-surprises/#more-24627 […]
Galileo's work is included in Newton's laws of motion. Rutherford is a great physicist but I put him in the top chemists since his work overlaps with chemistry. Bohr model of the atom had been replaced by quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Dirac, and I'm not a fan of Copenhagen interpretation.
Since the Standard Model in the 1970s, unfortunately no fundamental discovery yet. We still don't know the true nature of dark energy and dark matter. I have a theory that explains both but I have yet to convince other physicists :-)
Initially incoherent, then wrong about the significance of the AMO. Take the example of the mid latitudes, positive NAO/AO episodes drive short term reductions in cloud cover, but the multidecadal signal with the warm AMO phase associated with less cloud cover, is driven by negative NAO/AO. Elephants trump dogs.
AMO cloud feedback:
This is an AMO related signal:
Not much for the Kennedy Monument in DC. Other than his grave at Arlington National Cemetery, there isn't one.
[…] Ga je enkele jaren later terugkijken naar de modellen dan blijkt geen enkele het ook maar bij benadering te hebben voorspeld en blijken de angstaanjagende doemscenario’s verre van realistisch. Het wrange is dat zelfs […]
As I read it over again, I saw that they were writing about LW absorption, and not short wave interactions. So it is not about feedback.
Well done, Nic Lewis.
An additional point concerning OHC in the ARGO era. I recently guest posted an article at WUWT, “ARGO fit for purpose?” Concerning OHC, the design intent accuracy (given randon ~3 degree lat/lon spacing and the minute water temperature diffences caused by large heat storage differences) was ~10W/square meter. At any of the annual heat deltas Nic references, it takes substantialy more than a decade after full 2005 deployment for ARGO to provide any rigor (the precise design intent term).
And, it will take well more than two decades to reach any rigorous conclusions about the ‘true’ rate of OHC change, since the 2005 baseline from earlier OHC estimation methods is so uncertain.
Therefor ALL the OHC papers cited, not just Cheng, woefully understate the uncertainty in their estimates.
> Apologies for missing the thread.
You missed more than the thread, RonG.
You missed the whole concept of thermostat.
> I simply asked you to articulate why or find where Alley does.
I rather see lots of bait-and-switches, RonG:
[RG1] this reality is the opposite of what was presented as the science by Al Gore’s movie [...] This important point is omitted from the SKS M-cycles post.
[RG2] if it were true Alley and SKS would have no problem spelling out why
[RG3] you of all people should be aware that one of the primary rules of climateball is: all analogies fail.
[RG4] You, Alley and SkS need to be more specific
[RG5] I will help you.
By dodging my thought experiment, you're begging a question that might be more important than you seem to presume. This thought experiment is related to the point I made. Your failure to address it has stretched justified disingenuousness beyond its breaking point.
Alternatively, if you can find Javier's anti-correlation test, that'd be great.
ristvan ==> It is possibly the most significant problem in Science today -- the over-confidence in numerical values produced from huge data sets, while ignoring the very basic problems of the original accuracy and precision of measurements. For long term trends, the fact that older data in the data set is inadequately accurate (has huge uncertainty bars) is simply ignored (sometimes only downplayed) and the "mean" used as if it were both accurate and precise.
It is similar to "The Epidemiologists' Fallacy" in which medical/health studies claim to have "corrected for" large numbers of confounders in the data.
Thanks Nic. Moreover a development of "qualtity management" in science is remarkable: in earlier days a peer reviewed response in the publishing journal was necessary to get a response from the authors. These days are gone IMO. Your critique relating Resplandy et.al was followed by a quick response by the author(s) and also in this case the exchange was rather quick and well on target. This makes hope: (I)The discussion transferes to the public and doesen't remain in the comfort zone of pay walled journals and (II) some PR-addicted editor takes more care :-)
Judith, could you comment on the following article? I found it very informative and concise.
I would add this to your excellent comment: often there is only one original measurement anyway, so we can't average out say seven different readings and in the process discarding the highest and lowest.
We also need to know the circumstandes under which they were taken and the accuracy of the instrument, let alone the mind set of the observer. This all means we need to be cautious in according magical status to data, as whilst We can often get a 'generality' getting a specific figure accurate to tenths of a degree is problematic.
Whilst modern automatic readings may be more accurate than readings made by people, they still have their problems and in any case, like satellite readings, provide us data covering only the blink of an eye, from which it is dangerous to assert any definitive trends
I think Judith needs to introduce the 'extrapolation' monster to her herds of climate beasts, it is a very large one.
Why do these papers continue to cite RP ? for changes in warming when there is no correlation of emissions to atmospheric CO2 nor temperature? (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/)
[…] No, it’s probably not accelerating faster than we thought. […]
So positive NAM causes a warm north Atlantic at interannual scales and a negative NAM a warm north Atlantic at decadal scales? And that impacts tropical cloud and global sunshine?
It may be more a case of the parable of blind men and the elephant.
My thanks to Nic Lewis and to the authors ( Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather and Kevin Trenberth) for this contribution to the discussion.