Posted on February 11, 2012 by Steven Goddard

[See RC models vs obs plot]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10475

Gavin finally admits that models suck. But it is worse than it seems. Below is the same plot with HadCRUT monthly overlaid.Temperatures are currently below the lowest IPCC model, and almost a full degree below their highest.

[See RC plot with overlay]

http://www.real-science.com/real-climate-worse

Actually, Gavin doesn’t “admit” anything, just says this:-

Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues.

So what? There’s nothing to conclude that ANTHROPOGENIC global warming continues (if it actually ever started).

The models mimic 0 – 2000 OHC spot on. Problem being that 0 – 2000 OHC is inconsistent with SST and SSL.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0162ffde21fa970d-pi

Forget about decades, the last 50 years is “the coolest half-century since records began”.

If we average the past 100 years, the graph suggests the warming rate has been only 0.47°C/century. Is that correct?

(radiation absorbed by pure water)

Looking at Segelstein, Hale and Querry or Wieliczka, one would be inclined to think intuitively that the highest absorption is at the surface where the absorption coefficient (left scale) is highest – one would be wrong.

Once again we must defer to medical science for the definition:-

absorption coefficient,

the factor by which the intensity of electromagnetic energy decreases as it interacts with a unit thickness of an absorbing material. It is usually expressed per unit thickness.

Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/absorption+coefficient

So using Hale and Querry, the absorption coefficient at 10mm depth and 1 micron wavelength (in the solar spectrum hare), is 1 – i.e. no decrease in EM energy.

But at the effective GHG+clouds LWIR depth 10 microns and wavelength 4 – 16 microns, the EM intensity decreases by a factor of 1000.

by Scott Prahl, Oregon Medical Laser Center [OMLC]

As I was reviewing the data and papers gathered together for the optical properties of water [link below], I discovered that the people who have reported the optical absorption of water fall into two groups: those who actually do measurements and those who compile all the currently available data and choose a reasonable set. In general, the former group are compelled to do their measurements because they are disappointed by the current status of compiled data. The discussion section of these papers always makes it clear that their data is in agreement with published work and yet slightly better. Of course, the group that compiles existing data are then compelled to create yet another compilation so that there will be a nice accepted water spectrum.

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/index.html

Optical Absorption of Water Compendium

This particular page is a summary of information found on on

* Warren Wiscombe also maintains a FTP site to get FORTRAN code for calculating the absorption coefficient of water.
* PhytoLib by Piotr J. Flatau has a nice page on the optical properties of water.
* Some information that I have assembled over the years
* and a dissection of the data that used to be at the marine optics site compiled by Scott Pegau

The only significant discrepancies in the data below are in the visible (300-600nm) where the absorption is so low. Recent work by Pope and Sogandares on the absorption coefficient of water in this regime indicates that it is significantly lower than that found by most previous investigators. Moreover, the minimum absorption wavelength is now at about 420nm instead of in the green. Practically, this makes very little difference in biomedical applications, since the water used by Fry’s group was extremely pure.

The data is surprisingly consistent. Plot a couple for yourself, or you can just look at (Segelstein) or (Hale and Querry) or (Wieliczka).

The Compendium

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/abs/index.html

Segelstein

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/segelstein81.gif

Hale and Querry

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

Wieliczka

http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/wieliczka89.gif

Medical laser physics Rob: a realm where rigour and reproducibility rule.

by James M. Taylor on January 13, 2012

Gleick says he cannot understand the “parallel universe” of facts and data that I presented that he says makes his “head explode.” Perhaps this is because the “parallel universe” in which I live is one where objective data trumps subjective opinion presented by uninformed or biased sources.

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/01/taylor-vs-gleick-battle-royale-that-gleick-will-be-sorry-he-started/

– Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS, unhinged

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/

The ocean penetration (track-length) limitations of downwelling LWIR from GHGs+clouds were obviously known by Fairall et al in 1996: ‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’ ftp://ftp.etl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf (cited at #165).

Fairall et all say, at the bottom of page 2, in 2.1 Cool-Skin Background: “the longwave penetration depth is about 10 [microns]” (0.01mm). This is a nominal EFFECTIVE track-length at the surface of the ocean. I have said that (stating a nominal limit),.GHG LWIR does not penetrate BEYOND 100 microns (0.1mm).

Clearly, a 0.01mm GHG insulation effect at the (turbulent) ocean surface that inhibits conductive energy escape is stupendously bogus. And for GHGs to have any effect on the net upwelling/downwelling longwave radiation sum you will have to prove that downwelling LWIR radiation is increasing – good luck with that BTW [not happening, citation available]. And don’t forget ocean energy escape by latent heat of evaporation.

The relevant plot from Hale and Querry 1973 (cited #154) is here (note log scale and copyright) http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

Conventionally, the LWIR from GHGs+clouds (it’s not just GHGs Rob) is 4 – 16 microns. There will be some flux below 4 microns but the intensity is negligible in observations. Recent climate model cool-skin parameterization papers (to which you allude but lightweight) do not acknowledge the GHG LWIR track-length limitation and attempts by certain AGCC proponents (e.g. Real Climate) to spin the cool-skin physics into a GHG effect, don’t either.

Rob, sadly you’ve fallen hook-line-and-sinker for a concocted story.
*******************************************************************************************************
Rob Painting #166, you say “Does is not worry you that not one skeptic, not one, has put forth an alternative hypothesis that explains all the observations like mainstream climate science does?”

[I submitted a response that didn't get posted, went like this]

Rubbish. Scroll down to #40 #97 and you will find: ‘Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation models’, Nicola Scafetta, 2012.

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf

The IPCC models using CO2 “forced” RF methodology cannot model climate but Scafetta’s model not only can but does.

Quoting:-

“….the proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62 year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850 to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to 2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa”

Can’t do that with an IPCC CO2 forced RF model.

[Note for here at CCG that Scafetta advocates incorporation of natural cycles in IPCC models]

16E22 J 0-700 from Domiguez et al 2008 pg 1

43E22 J 700-3000 from Church et al 2011 2.2 pg 4 (1E21 J/yr)

43E22 J Below 3000 from Church et al 2011 2.2 pg 4 (1E21 J/yr)

1.0E24 J

1.6E33 J approx as per skepticalscience.com Fig 1. (possibly SuperMandia origin)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

Unless someone corrects me, I pronounce Fig 1 bogus.

3.8E24 J my rough-as-guts estimate of hydrothermal heat PER YEAR.

Please, Global Warming Alarmists, Stop Denying Climate Change – And Science

James Taylor, Senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/01/12/please-global-warming-alarmists-stop-denying-climate-change-and-science/

The counter argument is that 10 years is too short a time frame, and that the data are too noisy to draw statistical conclusions. These arguments have merit.

However, the longer we have “lack of warming”, the further the real world deviates from the IPCC projections, and the less validity the models have. The models have to be adjusted. This is how science works, or used to anyway.

Of course, we could get an uptick in temperatures. Who knows?