Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Still Following the Heat

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 04:08 GMT le 07 mai 2010

Still Following the Heat - Bumps and Wiggles (5):

Introduction: This is the fifth in a series on understanding climate variability, global warming, and what we might do about it. The series focuses on the past 30 years and the next 30 years. There has been so much going on it has become a bit of a ramble, but it’s a blog – so.

The basic idea in this series is that climate model projections and observational verifications are precise enough to tell us with extremely high confidence that the Earth’s surface will warm because of increasing carbon dioxide. With this knowledge in hand, a new standard is evolving in climate modeling, which is more in the spirit of traditional weather predictions. That is, more specific information about what is going to happen at a certain place at a certain time. To reach this new standard, it becomes imperative that we better quantify the bumps and wiggles in the observations for the last 30 years and use this information to develop our prediction skills for the next 30 years. It is no longer adequate to simply say that – given the observed natural variability, that any discrepancies between existing projections and observations are, formally, small. That is, they are noise.

Improving our ability to diagnose the discrepancies between model projections and observations challenges all aspects of the scientific investigation of the climate. Better observations are needed to sample climate variability. Better models are needed, and in particular, we will have to quantify better how pieces fit together and interact. Pieces? When we develop hypotheses, theories and predictive models, we break the climate system into pieces. One piece might be the type of convective cloud that causes thunderstorms, and that piece has to fit together with all of the other pieces that make up the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere has to fit together with the ocean and the land and the glaciers and the ice sheets and the sea ice and the trees and the people – it is a big problem. An important and understudied (I assert) part of climate science is “how do the pieces fit together.” While we know a lot, if we are going to understand the bumps and wiggles, then we are going to have to know more. (And for those who want to say it’s just a theory.)

So we break down the problem, and so far in this series (all linked below), we have talked about the Sun and the carbon dioxide that comes from volcanoes and “following the heat.” Of these the most important is following the heat. This is important because if you take a simple look at the warming due to carbon dioxide, the observed warming of the Earth’s surface is not as high as predicted. So what is wrong? In the second blog of the series we followed the heat into the ocean. Broadly in the last 30 years the heat content of the ocean has increased, and that is a far more convincing measure of a warming planet than the surface air temperature measurements. I want to revisit this because of a recent perspective by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, who, investigating the recent bumps and wiggles, ask the question - why isn’t the ocean warming even faster? There is still missing heat. But first a diversion.

In the third entry of this series I introduced Simple Earth. Read that entry if you want the full description of the figure. Below is the same figure, but there has been one thing added to the figure. Namely, the blurry, reddish line on the surface. What this line represents is that if greenhouse gases increase, then there will be warming at the surface. (There will also be cooling in, say, the upper troposphere.)

Figure 1: Simple Earth 2: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate and surface heating.

I also argued in that third entry that in the end, we were truly concerned about climate, climate change and humans. Sure we can dismiss the current warming as some cycle, but that takes humans and human-care out of the picture, and it is in our best interest to always think about climate and climate change in a human context. So when we think about it in the human context, we start to wonder about the warming at the surface, and especially, at the surface over land. Of course most of the Earth’s surface is ocean, and heat goes into the ocean. That’s what I represent in this figure:

Figure 2: Simple Earth 3: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate. There is heat going into the ocean. (This is simple Earth, so this is vastly over simplified heat transport.)

So this brings us back to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo. In Science Magazine on April 16, 2010, they have a Perspective, where they discuss missing heat. The point of their article is that if you look at the heat budget of the Earth from satellites in space, we can measure that the Earth is not currently in balance. Heat is staying on the planet; hence, it must be warming. If you focus on the past five years, then the planet is just not warming as fast as it should. They do not say that the basic conclusions that the surface of the Earth is warming and will warm more are incorrect. Again, neither they nor their data challenge those foundational results, but if you look at the details, the bumps and wiggles, then we have some work left to do to fully understand what is going on. They conclude that now that geoengineering is entering our discussion, we really must be able to understand these bumps and wiggles.

This heat will be found, probably in the deep ocean, where we don’t have such good observations. The discrepancy will be explained. It is, ultimately, better observations that Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo call for. (The discussion of the paper in blogs amongst both scientists and politically motivated sorts is pretty interesting. ( 1 , 2 , 3))

During my career, I have been fortunate enough to have some scientific successes – figured out something new, helped build an algorithm that got some use, or figured out a technique that mattered. Each time the result seemed big and significant in the moment. It’s not long after getting such a result that it seems mundane, perhaps almost self-evident – why did it take so long to figure that out? This is a little of what we are talking about here. So when Trenberth and Fasullo say,

“So, although some heat has gone into the recordbreaking loss of Arctic sea ice, and some has undoubtedly contributed to the unprecedented melting of Greenland and Antarctica, it does not add up to anywhere near enough to account for the measured energy difference at the top of the atmosphere.” (Emphasis mine.)

They are looking at the next problem, the bumps, the wiggles. They, their analysis, their observations offer no serious relief from the warming, the sea level rise, and the changing weather.

r

Bumps and Wiggles (1): Predictions and Projections

Bumps and Wiggles (2): Some Jobs for Models and Modelers (Sun and Ocean)

Bumps and Wiggles (3): Simple Earth

Bumps and Wiggles (4): Volcanoes and Long Cycles

And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 101 - 151

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 — Blog Index

103. unclemush 07:35 GMT le 09 mai 2010
LinkBig business leaves big forest footprints Member Since: 7 juillet 2001 Posts: 59 Comments: 13135

104. SWFLgazer 08:07 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Re:102 How many of those who signed that petition are climate scientists? And before you answer, all is not an answer. The answer requires a number. Member Since: 14 août 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 447

105. SWFLgazer 08:16 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Since it is common to see the “but he/she is not a climate scientist” argument used against people that offer views differing to “the consensus”, here are the impeccable climate science credentials of the first 20 signatories : Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD Richard M Amasino – Biochemist, UW Madison Edward Anders – Geologist, University of Chicago David J. Anderson - Biologist, Cal Tech Luc Anselin - Geographer, ASU Mary Kalin Arroyo – Biologist, University of Chile Dr. Berhane Asfaw – Palaeoanthropologist, Rift Valley Research Service FRANCISCO J. AYALA – Professor of Biological Sciences, UC Irvine Dr. Ad Bax – Physics, NIH Anthony Bebbington – Professor of Nature, University of Manchester Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer MICHAEL VANDER LAAN BENNETT – Neuroscientist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine Jeffrey Bennetzen - Geneticist, University of Washington May R. Berenbaum – Entomologist, UIUC Overton Brent Berlin – Anthropologist, University of Georgia Pamela Bjorkman – Biologist, Cal tech Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn – Biologist, UCSF Jacques Blamont – Astrophysicist Michael Botchan – Biochemistry, Berkeley John S. Boyer – Marine Biosciences, University of Delaware After the first 20 names, they are batting 0.000. If anyone cares to go through the rest of the list and report, please pitch in. Member Since: 14 août 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 447

106. SWFLgazer 08:47 GMT le 09 mai 2010
I won't say that St Simons... is bad. I will say that he is mistaken. Member Since: 14 août 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 447

107. SWFLgazer 08:53 GMT le 09 mai 2010
This is likely where StSimons...got his information. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter Member Since: 14 août 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 447

108. SWFLgazer 08:56 GMT le 09 mai 2010
The M’s (from the links kindly provided by the Guardian)- batting average hasn’t really improved. Mabogunje, Akin L, Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives-”arguably one of the best known geographers and social scientists in Africa” Malone, Thomas F, North Carolina State University- He left a tenured faculty appointment at MIT in 1955 to join The Travelers Insurance Companies where he went on to become Senior Vice President and Director of Research. Manabe, Syukuro, Princeton University – Meteorologist Marcus, Joyce, University of Michigan-Professor of Anthropology and Curator of Latin American Archaeology. Massey, Douglas S, Princeton University – Sociology, McWilliams, Jim C, University of California, Los Angeles – Louis B. Slichter Professor of Earth Sciences – Applied Mathematics Medina, Ernesto, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research – Plant Biology Melosh, Jay H, Purdue University – Geophysics – Research interests: Ramifications of impact cratering, planetary tectonics, and the physics of earthquakes and landslide Meltzer, David J, Southern Methodist University – Anthropology/Archaeology Michener, Charles D, University of Kansas – Entomology Miles, Edward L, University of Washington – International Relations/Comparative Politics Mooney, Harold A, Stanford University – Plant Biology Moore, Peter B, Yale University – Biophysical Chemistry Morel, Francois M M, Princeton University – geochemistry Mosley-Thompson, Ellen, Ohio State University – Geography Moss, Bernard, National Institutes of Health – Genetic Engineering, viruses Munk, Walter H, University of California, San Diego – oceanography Myers, Norman, University of Oxford – ecology Member Since: 14 août 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 447

109. martinitony 10:20 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Quoting JFLORIDA: The MWP isnt a confirmed planetary event - if it is it will have its own causes. Since you dont even know what IPCC is do I assume you are a MWP expert? Florida, do you deny there was a medieval warming period? Just curious? Same to all of you? And if you don't deny it, what was all that crap posted last night all about to discredit Skeptical2? You guys are a real joke sometimes. Ganging up on someone to "prove" a point just shows how inadequate most of your arguments are. Funny how posts 104-108 shut all of you up. Thanks SWFL. Why is it that the truth so often silences this board? Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

110. martinitony 10:45 GMT le 09 mai 2010
On the real issue here, AGW, how come there are almost no posts addressing that issue? Think about this for a moment. Suppose there is major global warming that is not manmade. Suppose that we spend our time and our trillions and trillions of dollars and energy trying to stop something that is unstoppable. Example. Suppose the only solutions were to find a way to actually cool our planet or to leave this planet for a more hospitable place. What then? What if we wasted decades and all our resources until it was too late? We just pulled the plug on space exploration at a cost of what, 10 billion or so. How smart was that. And then what if the posts early last night were right, there is plenty of time and/or there is no AGW and not likely any dramatic change coming? What would we have done to ourselves, our children and future generations? Look to the middle east to see what a mistaken religion can do to a people. How many generations does it take to correct the wasted and misdirected efforts of wrongheaded people? I think this board should spend more time dealing with proof of AGW, not climate change. I have seen little attempt to prove that the warming is AGW. Much has been said about the correlation of CO2 increases and the warming. That doesn't work for me. I've had too much statistics and probability. Showing us warming temperatures and then melting glaciers is like showing me falling rain and puddles. I would be surprised if there were not puddles, but you haven't proved the rain will not stop. You also haven't proved that mankind produced the rain. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

116. martinitony 14:24 GMT le 09 mai 2010
"Why is it you can never reference your opinions." Here is a clue Florida. My opinions come from inside my mind. That's why they are called"my opinions." I don't give a rat's patoot whether or not you agree with or disagree with my opinions. I also don't care whether or not you believe my opinions are "properly" referenced. What I do notice is that when you are confronted with truth that doesn't favor your argument you always respond in the same way. You discredit the arguer or you claim the argument isn't ""appropriately" referenced. Strange. I would think it would be so much easier just to blow the argument away with a more convincing set of facts. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

120. Patrap 15:48 GMT le 09 mai 2010
I love the smell of Warmth in the Morning.. The data,and the consensus is the Planet continues to warm from the Influx of CO2 and other fossil fuel burning derived emissions. And the warming is accelerating as per the consensus and the current modeling... ..at a faster than anticipated rate. Funny, Glenn and RUSH havent gotten the memo? Fascinating. The Warming cares not what anyone believes. The data drives the empirical evidence. Its way above the din. Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 371 Comments: 111403

126. Patrap 15:57 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Show me proof of God? Show me proof of Faith? A link can quantify AGW...? Fascinating what the net can do to a Human Brain. ...or Ohio State for that matter. Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 371 Comments: 111403

130. Patrap 16:02 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Happy Mothers Day. Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 371 Comments: 111403

133. martinitony 16:15 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Florida misunderstood the post.He didn't understand the hypocrisy of his own claims that the guys who are skeptical don't have what he considers credentials and yet the alarmists who spoke loudest to protest Climategate were not climatologists. I suppose that if the post had been properly sourced he would have grasped it better. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

135. martinitony 16:22 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Patrap, another elitist speaks. I suppose I should learn to recognize my betters and not object so much. Maybe I should take another 4 days off and tell Patrap to go;;;;, himself, but then what would that accomplish. Hey Doc, I don't get in trouble just by thinking something, do I? I don't think that happens until Obama's second term. I wish I was as smart as Patrap and could learn to post pretty pictures and stuff. He might respect me more then. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

136. martinitony 16:23 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Quoting JFLORIDA: I have no idea what that means. I still would like to see the MWP source or some type of clarification on it. Florida, hold your breath for a little while while we get that together for you. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

139. SWFLgazer 16:47 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Re: 188 JFlorida, those are the "climate scientists" who signed the petition defending the integrity of climate science. You see any climate scientists among them? To quote JFlorida "None of them have published a SPECK that has disputed AGW. Perhaps "the impeccable climate science credentials" should actually have something to do with climate science. Right ?!?" Huh? JFlorida, these are the guys on your side. Member Since: 14 août 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 447

140. sirmaelstrom 17:52 GMT le 09 mai 2010
No. 84 Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy: Ozone hole discoverer's warning By Dr. Joe Farman of the British Antarctic Survey. This part of Dr. Farman's article is pretty interesting: Quote: Dr Farman also blamed the science establishment for "brushing aside" specific criticisms of climate science. It is impossible, for instance, properly to peer-review computer climate projections from the Met Office, he says. "Show me paper from the Hadley Centre and invite me to peer review it - I simply can't... it took 2,000 man years to write it!" The fact that other models reproduced the findings was not in itself conclusive, he says, adding "It's getting peer review into bad odour." He said the teams investigating the controversy at the University of East Anglia should have invited some climate sceptics on board. "Lord Oxburgh's review (which cleared researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of any wrong-doing) was not convincing, he said. No. 102 Quote: 255 climate scientists sign letter defending integrity of climate science--including 11 Nobel Prize winners Please excuse the fact that the title of Nobel Prize Winner doesn't exactly impress me in light of recent awards. Edited: Corrected typos Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

141. martinitony 17:53 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Quoting SWFLgazer: Re: 188 JFlorida, those are the "climate scientists" who signed the petition defending the integrity of climate science. You see any climate scientists among them? To quote JFlorida "None of them have published a SPECK that has disputed AGW. Perhaps "the impeccable climate science credentials" should actually have something to do with climate science. Right ?!?" Huh? JFlorida, these are the guys on your side. SWFL, I really don't see the point of you're coming here to explain your posts when we have Florida here to evaluate all posts. Who are you to suggest that Florida might have misunderstood you? What are your credentials and who are your sources? Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

142. martinitony 18:15 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Quoting JFLORIDA: I have no idea what that means. I still would like to see the MWP source or some type of clarification on it. "I have no idea what that means." I shouldn't have been so cynical, sarcastic and snarky with you. Here, you acknowledge your ignorance, even briefly. How refreshing. You should Google some of the complicated words in my post, especially "hypocrisy." Mostly what hypocrisy means is being inconsistent in your moral and ethical conduct when it suits your purposes to do so. I made that up myself, but my guess is, it's pretty close to the definition. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

143. sirmaelstrom 18:22 GMT le 09 mai 2010
The Medieval Warm period: always good for intensifying a AGW discussion. My personal view is that temperature proxies are not precise enough to conclusively say whether today's warming is greater. Also, Southern Hemisphere data is sparse enough that we can't say for sure that it was global--we also can't say that it wasn't. Anyway, here is a good overview of what evidence there is for the MWP and specific locations from where the data originates. I have not evaluated every link myself, but it should make for interesting reading for anyone who wants to delve into it more closely. A quick link to the picture showing locations and graphs is here for anyone wanting a preview of the article. You can position the cursor over each graph for an enlargement. The associated graphs may take a few minutes to completely load. Note: the original English translation is linked at the beginning--that version contains working footnote links. Edit: I forgot to add the link; I added it below. Link Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

144. martinitony 18:42 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Florida, I have a source for you, an abstract: Link Now, what has this got to do with Global Warming? 40 years ago my cousin told me that the Black Forest actually was gone for quite some time before it grew back. What had happened was that Europe was more populated and more prosperous and the Black Forest area was cultivated and farmed. Then the Black Plague came, killed about 2 of 3 people and the farms disappeared and the forest grew back. So, my opinion is that the Medieval Warm Period ended. Things got cold and gloomy. The Plague came and the Forest grew back. It says in the abstract that CO2 declines predated the onset of the plague. Therefore, one should conclude that higher levels of CO2 keep the Plague away. Can you get my post peer reviewed? Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

145. Patrap 19:03 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Werent many Coal Fired Plants and SUV'S in the MWP. But the Grog was excellent I hear tell. Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 371 Comments: 111403

146. martinitony 19:31 GMT le 09 mai 2010
Oh, what the heck, a good read. David Deming This guy Deming is a blast. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

Viewing: 101 - 151

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood