The Penny Drops (into the long grass)

Posted: May 19, 2015 by tallbloke in Energy
Tags: , ,

Well that’s put the whole AGW thing into the long grass for the forseeable…

.

Comments
  1. graphicconception says:

    There are, of course, two sets of rules.

    When the atmosphere was warming up that was all we needed to know. No-one looked at the oceans to see if they were warming as well. Presumably, they were cooling at the time otherwise where did the heat for El Nino come from? Now the atmosphere is not warming we need to include other things.

    There is a similar rule for Global Warming itself. If the global average surface temperature anomaly has increased then we can claim Global Warming (e.g. 2014) . If it has decreased then we need to also show that it cooled everywhere otherwise it does not count as Global Cooling (MWP).

  2. Global warming has become a bit like one of those jokes which go on and on and on with absolutely no purpose – except the real joke is how long people will keep listening before they catch on to the real joke.

    Likewise, it just takes some people a lot longer than others to realise that climate changes.

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘energy of whole system’

    Is the Sun part of the ‘whole system’ in this definition?

  4. “Into the Long Grass” should be the title of this post; that’s good (and Inigo Montoya would tell you “I do not think ‘the penny drops’ means what you think it does”). And “climate science” (TM, all rights reserved) has been there (lost “in the long grass”) since the Betts’s of the world started to echo “it’s gone into the deep ocean”, without any sense of irony in their redefining of “global warming” after more than 25 years of fear-mongering, all in vain.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Harry, title modified. I asked Richard what accurate measurements we have of the ‘energy of the whole system’ that justify a 95% confidence that humans are responsible for most of the rise in surface temperature since 1950.

    Needless to say I got no reply.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Last year’s pause excuse, that ‘the missing heat’ was hiding in the high lat Southern ocean seems to have gone out of fashion. Latest idea is that it’s in the Indian ocean. I wonder if anyone has done the calcs.

  7. Ben Vorlich says:

    tallbloke says:
    May 19, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    Needless to say I got no reply.

    Malcolm IV “the Maiden” who inherited the Scottish throne at 12 years old told Henry II shortly afterwards “I came to visit in peace not to answer difficult questions” when asked why Henry shouldn’t be overlord of Scotland.

    Richard Betts rarely manages an answer of such subtlety.

  8. oldbrew says:

    ‘what accurate measurements’

    Not from misfiring climate models, not from real life data. What else is there – just evidence-free claims and assertions?

    It’s preposterous to tie countries to climate treaties or whatever they call them based on such hot air and lack of substance. The null hypothesis i.e. natural climate change still stands.

    Check out this classic…
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/baked-alaska/#comment-523046

  9. oldbrew says:

    Seven unanswered questions for NASA GISS climate chief Gavin Schmidt from Dr Roger Pielke Senior.

    Number 5: ‘Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?’

    Why indeed:/

  10. Richard Betts is as dishonest as Gavin Schmidt (see WUWT latest post). Neither can give an honest answer to questions put to him, as Richard Courtney puts it, “without opposing the views of his employer” and losing his well remunerated job. Family comes before honesty.

  11. dscott says:

    Funny you should mention heat. What are the proper units of measure to quantify heat in a system? Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, Rankin? WRONG

    Why would that be? Temperature is a PARTIAL measure of heat. Thermodynamics 101

    So what is the proper scientific and engineering unit used to measure the TOTAL heat of a system?

    BTU/pound OR KCal/kg depending whose system of measurement you prefer (English/International).

    Do you see where Mann and Schmidt misled their believers? Do you understand why 90 F in New York is not equal to 90 F in say Tampa, Florida, or Tegucigalpa, Honduras or San José, Costa Rica? What’s the difference? humidity… Temperature will fluctuate greatly even though the overall heat of the system changes incrementally giving wildly different percentage changes in stated air temperature because most of the heat is stored or contained in latent form (water vapor).

    As a result, GAT or the Global Average Temperature is a fictitious number that combines Polar (low humidity), Desert (low humidity), Equatorial (high humidity), Mid latitude (Seasonally varying humidity) temperature measurements that are not compatible. This is like adding apples and oranges to come up with a vague count of fruit.

    So what’s wrong with combining Sea Surface Temperatures with Air Temperatures? Same problem but compounded, like adding apples and green beans. When you combine a “partial measure of heat” that is represented minimally by temperature for air in it’s gaseous phase to water whose temperature mostly represents the heat of that substance in it’s liquid phase due to it’s uniformity you get a useless number that represents NOTHING. In fact, when you get down to it, you can’t even average fresh water with salt water temperatures due to the difference in heat content on a pound for pound basis. Salt water is a solution of water and minerals, e.g. a cubic foot of salt water weighs more than one cubic foot of fresh water – density. IF you understand the principles of specific heat you would know that each element and compound has an unique ability to store heat that is different from any other substance.

    This is why any measurement of heat must be done in Btu/# or Kcal/kg. Any attempt at comparisons for any liquid/air/solid can only be made using the proper units.

    The irony here is that if Mann and Schmidt were students in chemistry and thermodynamics class had made such a basic mistake on a test question in labeling the units of heat, the teacher would have no choice but to mark the answer wrong.

  12. oldbrew says:

    How much money and how many land- and sea- scapes will be wasted over this?

    [H/T Notrickszone.com]

  13. Ron Clutz says:

    There is an oscillation at play–the Indian Ocean Dipole– with similar ocean dynamics to ENSO, some of the events linked to the Pacific and some independent. Since that ocean has not been studied so much, it becomes a good candidate for the global warming cache.

    “Using various ocean and atmosphere data, we have shown that the IOD is a natural ocean–atmosphere coupled mode in the Indian Ocean. This important tropical ocean–atmosphere
    coupled phenomenon has been overlooked for a long period as the ENSO-forced basin-wide mode dominates statistically the SST variability in the basin. The SINTEX-F1 CGCM simulates
    successfully the IOD as an ocean–atmosphere coupled mode and confirms the importance of oceanic dynamics in the evolution of IOD.

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/publications/agu_book_ch12.pdf

  14. Alan Poirier says:

    This shift to total energy budget has been coming for a while now. After all, everything sounds so incredibly scary in joules. The average person doesn’t know a joule from a jewel. We will need to be translating constantly for people. Such perfidy.

  15. FTOP_T says:

    @dsscott

    In light of the starkness of this reality concerning the accurate way to measure heat content, it makes the policy wonks alarmism based on this meaningless metric more disturbing. We might as well base policy on the horoscope section or the comic pages of the daily rags.

  16. tom0mason says:

    But it is not a penny in the long grass…

    No, because “global warming” is not just about mean surface temperature. It’s about the $89Trillion bill that the UN has handed the Western governments.

    See http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/nobel-chutzpah-prize-2015-un-world-bank-need-89-trillion/

    Pay the tithe or the UN will send in the ‘Peace-keepers’

  17. stewgreen says:

    @Philip I just learnt that SkS writer “Dikran Marsupial” is a pen name of Gavin
    so whilst I will not endorse your comment it is an interesting chain.
    – Utter Climate Disinformation propaganda site SkS is linked to Gavin
    … Betts seems to be very much Gavin’s protege
    ..Yet now Betts is coming out “on the side of science” to point out flaws in Lew/Oreskes work. That might explain why he seems to do in in such a long clumsy way, whereas J Curry does it very quickly :
    1. “The latest nonsense by Lewandowsky and Oreskes.”
    2. ..” I think that the studying cognitive biases in science is an important topic, that has unfortunately been perverted by Stephan Lewandowsky, with respect to climate science anyways.”

  18. oldbrew says:

    The handy thing about owning the pitch is you can move the goalposts whenever you feel like it😎

  19. Stephen Richards says:

    Doesn’t Betts know that there is a strong correlation between energy and temperature and that they use temperature because it is a darn site easier than energy to measure.

  20. Kristian says:

    The ‘atmospheric radiative greenhouse EFFECT’ is specifically defined as an ‘average global surface temperature’ one and nothing else. Since AGW is simply to be regarded as an extension of the rGHE (what we’re doing is apparently “enhancing” or “strengthening” it, after all), the EFFECT of AGW is also to be observed at the global surface. If not, it’s no longer AGW. It’s something else …

  21. tallbloke says:

    Kristian: Now add to this the fact that we’re not even talking about the surface temperature, but the air several feet above it.

  22. Kristian,

    “The ‘atmospheric radiative greenhouse EFFECT’ is specifically defined as an ‘average global surface temperature’ one and nothing else”
    Does a spatial/temporal average have any meaning whatsoever?

    On your site you have a question:
    jerry l krause says: May 18, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    “Hi Kristian,
    First, I have been patiently waiting for you (and Rafael) to respond to my Eureka moment I described to you and readers of your post ‘The enhanced greenhouse’ in my response of March 23, 2015 at 3:48AM.” -will-

  23. steverichards1984 says:

    @Dscott

    +100

  24. Ned Nikolov says:

    The global surface air temperature is reflective of the amount of kinetic energy contained in the atmospheric system and the top 100 m of well-mixed oceanic layer. Why? Because temperature is a linear expression of kinetic energy. This follows from the most fundamental law in thermodynamics – the Gas Law: PV = RT per mole of gas (atmosphere).

    PV is kinetic energy (Joule), R is the universal gas constant and T is the gas temperature (K). Due to this linear relationship, the spatially averaged annual temperature is a direct measure of the system’s kinetic energy…

    Hence the mean global temperature is not a meaningless statistical quantity, but a very meaningful one!

  25. Kristian says:

    Will Janoschka says, May 20, 2015 at 1:24 pm:

    “Does a spatial/temporal average have any meaning whatsoever?”

    Probably not. But then again, I’m not the one postulating a greenhouse effect on such a constructed global average.

    “On your site you have a question:”

    I’m aware of that. However, already some time ago I informed the person posing the question that I had no interest in continuing my communication with him. He should know why, because I’ve explained it to him.

    Feel free to respond, though.

  26. ren says:

    The temperature in the North Atlantic and the AMO.

    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1850

  27. ren says:

    The AMO index is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe such as North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel rainfall and North American and European summer climate. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.[3]

    Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the US Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent or prolonged. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite—warm AMO, more rainfall.[6]

    Climate models suggest that a warm phase of the AMO strengthens the summer rainfall over India and Sahel and the North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

  28. Ned Nikolov says: May 20, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    “The global surface air temperature is reflective of the amount of kinetic energy contained in the atmospheric system and the top 100 m of well-mixed oceanic layer. Why? Because temperature is a linear expression of kinetic energy. This follows from the most fundamental law in thermodynamics – the Gas Law: PV = RT per mole of gas (atmosphere).

    “PV is kinetic energy (Joule), R is the universal gas constant and T is the gas temperature (K). Due to this linear relationship, the spatially averaged annual temperature is a direct measure of the system’s kinetic energy. Hence the mean global temperature is not a meaningless statistical quantity, but a very meaningful one!”

    Why does this form of energy (average sensible heat, of some ill defined atmospheric mass 1.5 meters above the ground) have any value other than a meaningless statistic? Compare such energy with the latent heat of average 2.4 cm water column. Compare also to the kinetic energy provided by the angular momentum of the atmosphere. Finally compare with one minute worth of insolation energy!🙂

  29. Brian H says:

    Direct measure of KE? Whatever happened to specific heat, and latent heat?

  30. ren says:

    ABSTRACT The odd nitrogen source strengths associated with solar proton events (SPEs), galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), and the oxidation of nitrous oxide in the Earth’s middle atmosphere from 1974 through 1993 have been compared globally, at middle and lower latitudes (50 ø) with a two-dimensional photochemical transport model. As discovered previously, the oxidation of nitrous oxide dominates the global odd nitrogen source, while GCRs and SPEs are significant at polar latitudes. The horizontal transport of odd nitrogen, produced by the oxidation of nitrous oxide at latitudes

    A comparison of sources of odd nitrogen production from 1974 through 1993 in the Earth’s middle atmosphere as calculated using a two-dimensional – ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242267498_A_comparison_of_sources_of_odd_nitrogen_production_from_1974_through_193_in_the_Earth%27s_middle_atmosphere_as_calculated_using_a_two-dimensional [accessed May 21, 2015].

  31. oldbrew says:

    TB: ‘Last year’s pause excuse, that ‘the missing heat’ was hiding in the high lat Southern ocean seems to have gone out of fashion. Latest idea is that it’s in the Indian ocean.’

    Yes, the latest in a string of theories that all seem to have one thing in common: no real evidence.

    ‘Trenberth and his colleagues found pronounced Pacific warming during the hiatus and only modest warming in the Indian Ocean using heat content estimates derived in part from satellite measurements. Other studies have also implicated warming in the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

    For now, it seems that the hunt for the missing heat may continue.’
    http://www.nature.com/news/indian-ocean-may-be-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.17505

    Looking like yet another climate science job creation scheme – create a hobgoblin then chase round the globe pretending to track it down.

    The term “hobgoblin” has grown to mean a superficial object that is a source of (often imagined) fear or trouble.‘ – Wikipedia

  32. tallbloke says:

    OB: Yes.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
    H. L. Mencken

  33. oldbrew says:

    TB: no hobgoblin hiatus in sight then:/

    Trenberth and co. used ‘heat content estimates derived in part from satellite measurements’.
    Smell of fish there methinks😎

  34. Brian H says: May 21, 2015 at 5:41 am

    “Direct measure of KE? Whatever happened to specific heat, and latent heat?”

    Intent to deceive happened!! Newtonian KE requires a momentum vector, and measured in Joules!
    Mass x specific heat x temperature results in an energy form called sensible heat in Joules!
    Mass x enthalpy of vaporization,an isotherm, results in a form called latent heat in Joules!
    Post modern science tries to replace all three with something called internal energy in Joules!
    Some of us wish to understand what form of energy is under discussion.

  35. ren says:

    N2 molecule is very little active.
    The CRII leads to the production of odd nitrogen. For example, fast secondary
    electrons (e∗) can dissociate the nitrogen molecule, N2+e∗→2N(2D)+e, and almost
    all of the N atoms in the excited 2D state react with O2, producing nitric oxide,
    N(2D)+O2 →NO+O. Vitt and Jackman (1996) estimated CRII to produce 3.0 to
    3.7×1033 molecules of odd nitrogen per year in the global stratosphere, which amounts
    to about 10% of the NOx production following N2O oxidation. They also mention that
    the northern polar/subpolar stratosphere (>50◦ N) is believed to be supplied with NOx
    in equal amounts by GCRs (7.1 to 9.6×1032 molecules/yr) and by N2O oxidation (9.4
    to 10.7×1032 molecules/yr). In the deep polar winter stratosphere, when air masses
    experience sunlit periods only infrequently and photolysis of HNO3 becomes negligible,
    CRII become the only source of NOx, revealing the importance of GCRs in high latitudes.
    http://www.researchgate.net/profile/I_Usoskin/publication/49611898_Influence_of_galactic_cosmic_rays_on_atmospheric_composition_and_temperature/links/0deec518021e5b06ef000000.pdf
    It is also seen that the GCR produces particles of active oxygen. During strong stream of GCR total is changed atmospheric chemistry at high latitudes.

    CRII = Cosmic Ray Induced Ionization [mod]

  36. ren says:

    It can be assumed that the GCR depending on the availability of UV, height, pressure and temperature can both reduce as increase the amount of ozone in the high latitudes.

  37. ren says:

    For over 13 years, from the peak in the previous solar cycle in the tropics temperature drops. No wonder, then, that decreases the amount of water vapor in the troposphere.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:2001