It Is The Sun

[MSimon]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/26/s ... ariations/

So I still think that the sun does a lot of it and I would still like to know how. Climate scientists would be well advised to spend some time trying to find out.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/26/s ... nt-1694859

So we can go a stretch further and combine what we know. When solar activity falls, energy comes out of the ocean, not just over the period of the decline of a single 11 year solar cycle, but if the Sun stays low in activity terms, for many years. An integration of the sunspot number shows us that the ocean heat content rose all the way from 1934 to 2003. This is the real cause of ‘global warming’. A lot of excess energy is still retained in the upper ocean. We can expect the effect of a couple of low solar cycles to be softened by a proportion of that excess heat returning to space via the atmosphere warming it on the way.

There is way more in the comments.

[tomclarke]

There is a lot of bad science over ocean heat content. The comments on wuwt expose much of this.

Here is some background. Pielke Snr always used to emphasise (correctly) that ocean heat content change, which dominates heat storage by maybe 90%, is a much better indicator of global warming than surface temperature change.

At the time this suited his politics since there was no known change in OHC, but there was a known surface temp change.

Now that surface temp has a hiatus but OHC is being properly and accurately measured, and going up very steadily, those who argue for higher ECS are more inclined to back Pielke's old argument, and he has shut up about it.

In reality OHC gives a better long-term metric, with a time constant of hundreds of years, surface temp gives a better short-term metric. And OHC requires good instrumentation to measure properly which has not been available until recently.

One of the issues is how does change in ocean mixing affect surface temperatures?

With a definite warming trend over a long time we have surface warmer than the ocean it equilibrates with and therefore effective changes in thermal resistance due to more or less mixing will have the effect of raising or lowering the surface temperature.

With no definite warming trend there is no mechanism of this because ocean is in equilibrium with surface and so changes in effective thermal resistance have no overall effect.

However, given a clear warming trend it is true that changes in ocean mixing can have a very complex and potentially large effect, and we don't know what this was in the past. Better ocean heat monitoring means we do know what it is now and in the future.

[tomclarke]

So this post refers to a previous post estimating the ocean surface temp change correlated with 11 years cycle and therefore maybe due to sunspot TSI changes.

To get from TOA radiation change to surface temp change you have to make some conversions:
(1) compute the average radiation over the globe day and night (a reduction)
(2) compute the change in forcing top to bottom due to GHGs
(3) take into account the feedbacks 9which most thinka reoverall positive)

This guy - from a brief reading of his previous psot
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/t ... e-out-how/
seems to have done (1) and (2) but not (3).

He finds that the heat flux change from TSI variation is not enough to account for the surface temperature change. He then hypothesises some unknown long-term fudge factor to make up the difference.

Climate scientists do not get away with fudge factors so easily, and get obvious mistakes corrected from peer-review (sometimes) and corrections after publication (otherwise).

I'm going to suggest that instead of a fudge factor we take into account overall climate feedbacks which if around what IPCC suggest for middle of road 3C/doubling would be well enough to deal with this apparent anomaly.

But I'm probably wrong, this is complex stuff and I'm not an atmospheric physicist, though my general physics is about good enough to detect holes.

What I don't understand is why this guy (and MSimon) are leaping on fudge factors here when there are probably much simpler explanations. I'd want to read round all the literature properly and do some thinking and a lot of work before coming to a judgement. Climate scientistst have the time to do this, of course, but this guy, from his limited list of references and (if i'm right) mistake seems to be a bit NIH about things.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/26/s ... ariations/

So I still think that the sun does a lot of it and I would still like to know how. Climate scientists would be well advised to spend some time trying to find out.

[MSimon]

Systems with net positive feedback are inherently unstable.

So please explain how 1,000 ppm CO2 allowed for a much colder earth than today in the geologic record?

BTW you never did explain why arid deserts get so cold at night with all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Shouldn't all that CO2 keep deserts warm at night?

“Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Thus, Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck

So what is the truth? I think we will know by this winter. Certainly by 2020.

[TDPerk]

Now that surface temp has a hiatus but OHC is being properly and accurately measured, and going up very steadily, those who argue for higher ECS are more inclined to back Pielke's old argument, and he has shut up about it.

" OHC is being properly and accurately measured" -- By the same group of people who brought us AGW? The ones who molested the data into hiding the decline, disappearing the Midieval Warm Period?

No sale.

[tomclarke]

Now that surface temp has a hiatus but OHC is being properly and accurately measured, and going up very steadily, those who argue for higher ECS are more inclined to back Pielke's old argument, and he has shut up about it.

" OHC is being properly and accurately measured" -- By the same group of people who brought us AGW? The ones who molested the data into hiding the decline, disappearing the Midieval Warm Period?

No sale.

No, unless "your group of people" is a set of 10,000 scientists in diverse fields. You are at liberty to view all scientists as fraudulent, of course. Looks like you have to, to maintain your current mindset.

Would you like to state your evidence for "hiding the decline"? What decline? In what? and evidence?

[TDPerk]

So, I read tomclarke's last post, and I'm dumbfounded.

How can I have an intelligent, informed discussion about AGW with anyone who doesn't know that "hiding the decline" was the meme inadvertently introduced into the AGW discourse by Phil Jones as he discussed how to prevent the discovery of global temps not keeping up with the AGW fraudsters predictions, he also part of the effort to delete the history of the Medieval Warm Period from history*.

*Others merely claimed on the basis of nothing that it was a small regional phenomenon, and hence ignorable in reconstructions of past global temps.

[TDPerk]

No, unless "your group of people" is a set of 10,000 scientists in diverse fields. You are at liberty to view all scientists as fraudulent, of course. Looks like you have to, to maintain your current mindset.

Would you like to state your evidence for "hiding the decline"? What decline? In what? and evidence?

The 10,000 didn't bring us the fraud, they just mindlessly signed on to it. The same way it took, what, a 60-100 years for Millikan's oil drop experiment to be replicated faithfully and accurately? Hansen, Mann, Jones, they created the fraud, fostered it. The rest just want to be in with the cool kids.

The decline was how as long ago as 5 and 6 six years ago, the AGW warmists realized reality was not keeping up to their predictions at all, so the decline in global temps away from their catastrophist predictions had to be hidden for them to keep the political relevance required to keep the grant money coming in. The IPCC has nothing without the tang of preventing disaster depending on it's being uncritically accepted at it's worst predicitons.

[MSimon]

And let us not forget the tree ring data. When it diverged from the expected, Mann spliced on some thermometer data to make the graph look like it should. And what was this tree ring data? An ensemble of trees? Why no. It was one specially selected tree that made the graph look like it "should".

That graph was called the Hockey Stick.

The whole IPCC effort is so corrupt it is difficult to believe that any rational person would have any faith in anything coming out of the warmist camp.

So what was the whole enterprise about? Well you can ask Maurice Strong. But he might not say. So I will tell you. It was to reduce the human population of the Earth to its natural carrying capacity. The generous thought that might be a billion. The not so generous thought 500 million. The parsimonious thought 100 million would be good.

And for good measure look up - John Holdren population control - you remember John? The current President's science advisor.

Kinda makes you wonder who really won WW2 don't it?

[TDPerk]

"When it diverged from the expected, Mann spliced on some thermometer data to make the graph look like it should. "

Like I said, like you've said. The concept of AGW is supported by nothing but fraud.

"Kinda makes you wonder who really won WW2 don't it?"

Oh I don't know. I think I have a good feel for who lost WWII.

I'm not sure who's winning now.

I don't think tomclarke is stupid, and I don't think he personally is evil.

I am certain that when he heard CO2 was a greenhouse gas, and that we were raising it's concentration substantially, and that "10,000 scientist agree with AGW" he took his brain out of his head and put it in jar.

A half a dozen things from lake bottom pollen samples, to contiguous time tree ring data, to ice cores, to the historical record of what grew where and who did what to whom in what weather--to the actual temperature record for the last 17 years--all show AGW is crock of shit from stem to stern.

[choff]

The alarmists, confronted with atmospheric data that does not fit the theory, are rejecting the data and trying to replace it with ocean temperature data/sea level rise. It will be interesting to see what new data set they use when the oceans fail them.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/g ... nsus-hoax/

[tomclarke]

No, unless "your group of people" is a set of 10,000 scientists in diverse fields. You are at liberty to view all scientists as fraudulent, of course. Looks like you have to, to maintain your current mindset.

Would you like to state your evidence for "hiding the decline"? What decline? In what? and evidence?

The 10,000 didn't bring us the fraud, they just mindlessly signed on to it. The same way it took, what, a 60-100 years for Millikan's oil drop experiment to be replicated faithfully and accurately? Hansen, Mann, Jones, they created the fraud, fostered it. The rest just want to be in with the cool kids.

The decline was how as long ago as 5 and 6 six years ago, the AGW warmists realized reality was not keeping up to their predictions at all, so the decline in global temps away from their catastrophist predictions had to be hidden for them to keep the political relevance required to keep the grant money coming in. The IPCC has nothing without the tang of preventing disaster depending on it's being uncritically accepted at it's worst predicitons.

I asked for evidence. You are giving me assertions. I can do that too - but neither of us will emerge wiser.

Do you really believe that 10,000 PhDs in climate science - most of whom will go on to have jobs in banking (ours do that mostly - it pays!) engineering, whatever - are so stupid they could not call basic mistakes in science as you suggest? It beggars belief. Remember most of the real work is done by PhDs, and they are not controllable once they leave.

So far the basic mistakes I'm seeing here are naive folk science arguments that do not stand up to careful scrutiny!

[tomclarke]

To use what seems to be teh correct language here then:

The denialists, confronted with steady increase in surface temp record, for many years rejected that and said that OHC (ocean heat content) was the only reliable way to measure a warming signal.
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.c ... he-oceans/

Now that it no longer fits their theory they seem to be back-tracking?

As I said above - OHC is a good long-term indicator - it smooths out fluctuations and also is the dominant store of heat. However surface temp can give a faster indication of changes so is better, for example, in capturing the decadal internal variability from ENSO/sunspots that leads to the last 15 years hiatus. (Actually its a bit more complex - the effect of ENSO is to push heat away from surface and into oceans over this period).

The alarmists, confronted with atmospheric data that does not fit the theory, are rejecting the data and trying to replace it with ocean temperature data/sea level rise. It will be interesting to see what new data set they use when the oceans fail them.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/g ... nsus-hoax/

[MSimon]

Now that it no longer fits their theory they seem to be back-tracking?

It fits and we are doubling down. You have to understand that OHC is massive. It takes about one to two sunspot cycles for a change in solar output to manifest. If you count from 2003 and add 11 this is the year. Pay close attention to NH winter this year. What you see will accelerate for the next 20 years at least.

Some one has calculated that when the average Sun Spot Number (SSN) is above 40 we get warming (not immediately) when it is below that we get cooling (not immediately). I think that is probably correct. Although the actual balance point may have to be adjusted up or down as more people look into the question.

[MSimon]

You will see the decline manifested in the atmosphere this winter. Although North America is experiencing a cool summer. In my neck of the woods about 10F below average. But it could just be a fluctuation (I think it is the start of a trend).

You may want to look into - missing heat - the current explanation of why warming is not manifesting. Or - missing heat oceans - for more.

And why is it "missing"? The models predict.........................