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: 401 - 451

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

401. sirmaelstrom 20:21 GMT le 17 mai 2010
№ 400, № 398 This is still estimated volume using sea-ice-age as a thickness proxy, and only measured for what is likely the last half of a sea-ice cycle. There is little doubt that sea-ice volume/extent was at a maximum during the 1970s and had a previous minimum in the 1930s-40s. Until we start getting direct measurements—which should be soon—and longer-term measurements it is impossible to infer much about future trends from this data alone. Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

402. cyclonebuster 20:43 GMT le 17 mai 2010
Oil enters the loop current!

404. cyclonebuster 22:28 GMT le 17 mai 2010
Re: 403 A closer look While NSIDC primarily uses the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) sensors to track long-term conditions, we also look at data from higher-resolution sensors to assess current conditions in more detail. An image from NASA%u2019s Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer - Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) sensor from April 19 reveals numerous polynyas, or areas of open water in the pack ice in the Bering Sea, and broad areas of more scattered ice cover in the Sea of Okhotsk, Barents Sea, and Hudson Bay. Such conditions usually indicate that ice is about to retreat rapidly. Over much of the coastline in this image, there is an indication of low-concentration sea ice. This is an artifact of mixed pixel areas, which contain both water and land. The same effect is seen occasionally in the SSM/I record. Ice motion in the Arctic Ocean The thickness of sea ice at the beginning of spring plays a role in how much ice survives summer melt, so we pay attention to factors that influence ice thickness, such as ice motion. Ice motion is determined by winds and other factors, which in turn are influenced by weather patterns such as the Arctic Oscillation. In February, the strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation was associated with a strong Beaufort Gyre, enhancing ice motion from the western to the eastern Arctic. A weaker Transpolar Drift Stream also slowed the movement of ice from the Siberian coast of Russia across the Arctic basin, and reduced ice flow out of Fram Strait. The wind pattern changed in March, when the Arctic Oscillation went into a more neutral phase. As a result, the flow of ice sped up through Fram Strait and along the coast of Greenland. This pattern helps to remove older ice from the central Arctic, pushing it toward the warm waters of the North Atlantic, where it will melt. In past decades, a strong Beaufort Gyre tended to retain old, thick ice in the Arctic Ocean. However, this may no longer hold true, because in recent years ice transiting the Beaufort Gyre tends not to survive the summer melt season. This summer%u2019s weather conditions may be key to the survival of this older ice. For more information about the Beaufort Gyre and Transpolar Drift Stream, see the All About Sea Ice: Circulation Web page. Link

405. cyclonebuster 23:28 GMT le 17 mai 2010
Link

406. cyclonebuster 23:31 GMT le 17 mai 2010
Link

411. cyclonebuster 02:51 GMT le 18 mai 2010

413. cyclonebuster 02:53 GMT le 18 mai 2010
And yet another warmest Global ocean. Separately, the global ocean surface temperature was 1.03�F (0.57�C) above the 20th century average of 60.9�F (16.0�C) and the warmest on record for April. The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic. Link

414. cyclonebuster 02:56 GMT le 18 mai 2010
The combined April global land and ocean average surface temperature was the warmest on record at 58.1°F (14.5°C), which is 1.37°F (0.76°C) above the 20th century average of 56.7°F (13.7°C). The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was the warmest on record for January-April at 56.0°F (13.3°C), which is 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. Separately, the global ocean surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average of 60.9°F (16.0°C) and the warmest on record for April. The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic. The global land surface temperature was 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average of 46.5 °F (8.1°C) — the third warmest on record for April. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, with the most prominent warmth in Canada, Alaska, the eastern United States, Australia, South Asia, northern Africa and northern Russia. Cooler-than-normal places included Mongolia, Argentina, far eastern Russia, the western contiguous United States and most of China. El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weakened in April, as sea-surface temperature anomalies decreased across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The weakening contributed significantly to the warmth observed in the tropical belt and the warmth of the overall ocean temperature for April. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to continue through June. Link

415. cyclonebuster 02:59 GMT le 18 mai 2010
NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record Also Warmest January-April May 17, 2010 The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last month’s average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record. The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services that NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions. Link

416. cyclonebuster 03:02 GMT le 18 mai 2010
RE: 412 Don't you just hate our government just wasting your tax dollars on such wrong information?

420. Patrap 14:53 GMT le 18 mai 2010
Some who are biased going in will never accept ANY data. Their pretense to objectivity is skewed going in,.. So best to link the data and banter it among free minded men. To do the other is futile..as I have learned Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 372 Comments: 111607

421. cyclonebuster 16:08 GMT le 18 mai 2010
Fishing banned in 19 percent of Gulf of Mexico due to oil spill Link

422. cyclonebuster 16:17 GMT le 18 mai 2010
Key West tar balls! Coast Guard: Tar balls recovered from Key West, Florida (CNN) -- The Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will conduct shoreline surveys in Key West, Florida, on Tuesday after tar balls were found on a beach there, officials said. The Coast Guard said in a statement it responded to the Florida Park Service report of 20 tar balls on the beach at Fort Zachary Taylor State Park about 5:15 p.m. Monday. "Park rangers conducted a shoreline survey of Fort Zachary Taylor and the adjacent Navy beach at Truman Annex and recovered the tar balls at a rate of nearly three tar balls an hour throughout the day, with the heaviest concentration found at high tide," the Coast Guard statement said. Link

423. cyclonebuster 16:29 GMT le 18 mai 2010
LOL! One good thing about warmer oceans is they can evaporate the oil spills we cause quicker!

428. cyclonebuster 22:33 GMT le 18 mai 2010
Greenland Rapidly Rising as Ice Melt Continues ScienceDaily (May 18, 2010) — Greenland is situated in the Atlantic Ocean to the northeast of Canada. It has stunning fjords on its rocky coast formed by moving glaciers, and a dense icecap up to 2 km thick that covers much of the island--pressing down the land beneath and lowering its elevation. Now, scientists at the University of Miami say Greenland's ice is melting so quickly that the land underneath is rising at an accelerated pace. Link

429. idontknowforsure 22:34 GMT le 18 mai 2010
The Sceptics On Video Perhaps some of you should hear what some expert skeptic are saying. Great video presentations. Member Since: 17 janvier 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 289

430. cyclonebuster 23:37 GMT le 18 mai 2010
Link

431. cyclonebuster 23:59 GMT le 18 mai 2010
Link

432. cyclonebuster 00:00 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Link

433. cyclonebuster 00:02 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Link

435. cyclonebuster 00:04 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Link

436. cyclonebuster 00:39 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Second warmest global SSTs December 2009. Link

438. cyclonebuster 00:41 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Second warmest global SSTs for January 2010. Link

439. cyclonebuster 00:59 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Second warmest global SSTs for Feb. 2010. Link

440. sirmaelstrom 04:35 GMT le 19 mai 2010
OK. So I wanted to see the videos in idontknowforsure's link, especially after StSimonsIslandGAGuy's rant—I wanted to see if SSIGG actually watched the video(s). However, my computer tells me that Dr.Spencer's video alone is going to take four hours to download. The heck? It looks like my broadband connection is lousy tonight. Good excuse to find a WiFi spot tomorrow and have a few bourbons for happy hour though :^). Let's see...In other posts... Quote: Don't you just hate our government just wasting your tax dollars on such wrong information? I'm not actually sure what information you were specifically referring to, but I'll answer the question in general: Yes. @SSIGG concerning the Monty Hall Problem: I first saw this years ago, and I still revisit it from time to time to try to make sense of it. I know I'm wrong, but I still can't accept that the odds of picking the car after the first door is opened are not 50%. It makes my brain bleed to think about it. № 434 @MichaelSTL That's it...Close your mind to all other viewpoints and you can never be wrong. Isn't it wonderful? That's it for me tonight... Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

441. martinitony 08:39 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Quoting sirmaelstrom: OK. So I wanted to see the videos in idontknowforsure's link, especially after StSimonsIslandGAGuy's rant—I wanted to see if SSIGG actually watched the video(s). However, my computer tells me that Dr.Spencer's video alone is going to take four hours to download. The heck? It looks like my broadband connection is lousy tonight. Good excuse to find a WiFi spot tomorrow and have a few bourbons for happy hour though :^). Let's see...In other posts... Quote: Don't you just hate our government just wasting your tax dollars on such wrong information? I'm not actually sure what information you were specifically referring to, but I'll answer the question in general: Yes. @SSIGG concerning the Monty Hall Problem: I first saw this years ago, and I still revisit it from time to time to try to make sense of it. I know I'm wrong, but I still can't accept that the odds of picking the car after the first door is opened are not 50%. It makes my brain bleed to think about it. № 434 @MichaelSTL That's it...Close your mind to all other viewpoints and you can never be wrong. Isn't it wonderful? That's it for me tonight... It's streaming media. You shouldn't have to download to view. They keep adding to the available presentations. You can tell by the posting on this board that there is tremendous fear of any truth that diminishes the alarmist argument. Cyclones endless posts were put there to move the readers eyes away from the link that posted to that conference. The repetition of old propaganda to keep viewers away from new presentations by real scientists is pathetic. Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

442. martinitony 08:46 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy: Lord. Roy Spencer is also one of those intelligent design nuts who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. and he claims that 10 people per square km results in a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature. And that this effect is stronger outside the USA than in the USA. So why isn't it in the same the world round? Oh and Roy Spencer said he doesn't trust temperatures from the Arctic and Antarctic--just where global warming is strongest. How convenient. And he says that the temperature period he covers is the 6 years from 2002-2007. Dr. Spencer says he "wont go into" why he uses such a restricted range of years. Almost certainly because his conclusion would be invalidated by using more data. And Dr. Spencer goes on an on about how rising CO2 provides only a small warming. Which is true. A 50% increase in CO2 from ice ages to interglacials should have warmed temperatures 1.2C Temperatures warmed 10 C. Very strong positive feedbacks took place. Not one global warming denier has ever offered an explanation why a 10 C rise in temps would not result from a prolonged increase in CO2 to 450 ppm, 50% above the highest interglacial atmospheric CO2 levels. Not one. Always odd how the deniers in here always link back to Roy Spencer, who believes in the intelligent design fraud. And Richard Lindzen, who was paid millions by tobacco companies to testify at trials to say that tobacco smoking is not linked with cancer. One a deluded fool. One a knave. Your statements about Spencer are reckless and border on lies. You begin with the outcry, "Lord." Then you go on to accuse Spencer of believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. You sound like a real hypocrite. Spencer claims that the greatest change caused by the urban effect happens when the first ten people settle per square mile because from a percentage standpoint that settling brings in significant infrastructure, roads etc where there had been none before. Makes sense to me. If you watch the video you learn that Spencer is a specialist in data collection. He then uses that data to either support or disprove "consensus." You will also find out that he is not a "total" skeptic regarding warming. This also makes sense to me. Link to Roy Spencer's web site Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

445. sirmaelstrom 17:43 GMT le 19 mai 2010
@ martinitony Quote: It's streaming media. You shouldn't have to download to view. Yeah I know, but even streaming it, the implication was that it would still take four hours to watch it. I'm usually lucky to get 200 kbps out of my broadband at home, but last night the signal was much worse. I want to watch all the videos anyway so I'm going to try to make it to a WiFi spot either today or tomorrow. Even under the best conditions for my broadband, WiFi is many times faster. Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

447. biff4ugo 18:09 GMT le 19 mai 2010
#422 I heard the key west tar balls did not come from deephorizon. What is the constelation of SST measurments with the longest period of record? Is there an older one than NOAA's that could reasonably produce a global estimate? SSIGuy, thanks for debunking or rather sourcing Roy Spencer's claims. It saves me some time. Member Since: 28 décembre 2006 Posts: 107 Comments: 1187

449. cyclonebuster 18:35 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Quoting biff4ugo: #422 I heard the key west tar balls did not come from deephorizon. What is the constelation of SST measurments with the longest period of record? Is there an older one than NOAA's that could reasonably produce a global estimate? SSIGuy, thanks for debunking or rather sourcing Roy Spencer's claims. It saves me some time. You mean there is another leak out there that we don't know about?

450. martinitony 18:35 GMT le 19 mai 2010
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy: Actually I made a lot more than one point about Roy Spencer. The points I made in #437 Roy Spencer just uses 6 years of data and refuses to explain why he excludes other years. Roy Spencer says he ignores temperature readings from the Arctic and Antarctic regions---just where global warming has been strongest. Roy Spencer claims that a population density of 10 people per square km results in a 1 C increase in temp---without even admitting the possibility that generalized global warming is not causing the temperature rise. Roy Spencer also refuses to give a mechanism for how population at such a low density would result in such a great temperature rise. 10 people per square km is about the average population density of the lower 48 of the United States in 1900. Or the average population density in Nevada in 2000. Not very dense. IHHEOTBS, your statement that I said "one little thing" is a lie. Now you may feel that lying about other posters and smearing is acceptable. But this is not a tea party site, where personal attacks and smears are tolerated. and extracted verbatim from your post: "I can't take you or your information right anymore" Your statement makes no sense, taking me right? Anyway, I don't care. "because if I do the world would run out of people" The world will run out of people? Given the rate of increase here that seems most unlikely. Oh, my. You've spotted another lier. Who is it that doesn't agree with you that isn't a liar or a fraud or a fool or a knave? I think those of us here who have viewed your tactics know what kind of person you are. I have found that those who need to tear others down to the extent you do are usually suffering from a deep inferiority complex. You should look into that Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 928

451. sirmaelstrom 18:44 GMT le 19 mai 2010
№ 449 Quote: You mean there is another leak out there that we don't know about? Maybe from here? Member Since: 19 février 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

Viewing: 401 - 451

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