Comments on: Miraculous: computer game finds missing heat

By: Australis

Australis — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:47:46 +0000

Its great to get some hard facts from Willem.

Just how approximate the GCMs are is highlighted by an article by Patrick Frank in the (normally warmist) Sceptic magazine. http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief/

Richard, you have been critical of NIWA for not measuring the confidence intervals of their temperature adjustments and discarding them if they are statistically insignificant. Compare that with the IPCC projections –

“after only 20 years, the uncertainty from cloud error is ±22° and for forcing, it’s ±3°. The effect of the ~1% forcing uncertainty alone tells us that a 99% accurate GCM couldn’t discern a new Little Ice Age from a major tropical advance from even 20
years out.”

You should do a post on this paper – the IPCC uncertainties are massive!

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:51:59 +0000

Hansens GISS Model projection vs OHC reality (as measured and calculated from ARGO) plotted here:-

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/argo-ocean-heat.gif

From this post:-

Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence

Submission to the Inquiry into Carbon Tax Pricing Mechanisms

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/

Here are four bits of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed

1 First, they have a track record of greatly exaggerating temperature increases. The global warming scare was started by James Hansen in his presentation to the US Congress in 1988, and comparing his predictions then to what actually occurred, the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted…………….

[See plot]

2 Second, the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. ……………

[See plot]

3 Third, the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called “hotspot”…………..

[See plot]

4 Fourth, satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off LESS heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback). Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality……………….

[See plot]

So now I am calling for a debate……..

By: Willem de Lange

Willem de Lange — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 01:57:30 +0000

Just note that there is evidence of warming of the deeper waters of the oceans. Of particular relevance for New Zealand, there has been a slight warming of the intermediate waters in the Tasman Sea (1000-2000 m roughly), and deep waters of the so-called “Southern Ocean” from 1500-5000 m.
There is a problem in that the data are sparse in both space and time, which makes any trends difficult to quantify with any degree of confidence.
Further, the few data sets with relatively high resolution indicate that there are water masses with warm anomalies and others with cold anomalies. In other words, the warming is patchy and associated with cooling as well. This has led researchers to suggest that there is no significant global trend supported by the evidence.
Personally, I would expect there to have been some warming since the Little Ice Age,
Finally, the data that does exist indicates that any warming has resulted from the subduction (sinking) and advection (transport by currents) of surface temperature anomalies as part of the thermohaline circulation (also called meridional overturning circulation – MOC). This is a relatively slow process for the deeper ocean, and would not result in a dramatic heat gain over a decade.
The data do not support the rapid transfer of heat supplied by back radiation to the ocean skin (top tens of microns) to depths greater of 1000 m without registering on any of the ocean buoys, ARGO drifters or oceanographic hydrocasts.
A simpler mechanism is either the missing heat never existed or it is convected/radiated to space.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:15:11 +0000

From what i can gather Mike, the strongest advocate is Roger Pielke Sr. (a luke-warmer). He’s a bit grumpy at the moment going by this post:-

Torpedoing Of The Use Of The Global Average Surface Temperature Trend As The Diagnostic For Global Warming

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/torpedoing-of-the-use-of-the-global-average-surface-temperature-trend-as-the-diagnostic-for-global-warming/

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:33:55 +0000

Once again I am reminded of Willis Eschenbach’s wryly humorous posting on WUWT some time ago, titled ‘Models all the Way Down’, which built on the mid-Eastern idea of a great turtle holding the world on it’s back and the great turtle in it’s turn being supported by ‘turtles all the way down’. Any so-called science based entirely on models has, in my view, the exact level of veracity as the aforementioned mid-Eastern myth featuring turtles. And I am also reminded that computer simulations not based on real-world measurement remain mere computer simulations.

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:50:18 +0000

Yep Richard C – that’s how I read those figures. It’s a Trenberth travesty.

(Some would say that we shouldn’t even bother focusing on temperature on land – it is too volatile and subject to too many environmental vagaries such as UHI. The ocean, covering nearly 70% of the global surface, is a much more stable and reliable indicator of temperature trends.)

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:52:55 +0000

That's the thing, it's "observed best estimates" vs "Hansen et al prediction". Basically - "real-world observations" (as you say) vs Hansen model. That's why it's my favourite post and the Ministry for the Environment, Climate Change Office have been alerted once (they ignored it) so I'm in the process of getting it in their faces again (I'm not letting them off the hook). This is the most important divergence in climate science bar none, because the ocean is where the the most global warming (heat) is stored.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:09:45 +0000

My favourite post ever I think (sorry Richart T but it just is).

Nice of you to apologise, Richard C, but there’s no need. This is encouraging news, for sure, but it still troubles me that it, too, derives its conclusions from examining models. We absolutely need real-world observations at some point to determine reality.

By: Clarence Kay

Clarence Kay — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:41:20 +0000

Interesting that the NCAR computers are now saying that the sun’s heat was absorbed at the surface of the oceans, and travelled downwards by convection (managing to dodge Argos buoys on the way) to a depth not monitored by scientists.

But if the heat went straight down, then it didn’t attempt to radiate back to space. It never encountered any greenhouse gases, so was not affected by human activities in any way.

So any missing CO2-caused heat is still missing.

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:29:44 +0000

Worth keeping in mind that:-

“………some of the global warming heat that’s “missing” from land and sea surface temperature readings.”

“………some of the sun’s incoming heat”

I.e. the “global warming” is solar sourced in this case.

As is all the ocean heat.