IPCC climate report 2013

[Methuselah]

All  the plucking in the world cannot hide the fact that we are not warming and more to the point if we continue with static temps, or worse they decline then some plucking questions will need answering.

Which all sounds similar to a heart-patient who claim that his heart-disease has miraculously cured itself because he's gone a whole week without suffering from angina? 

[UV-RAY]

Which all sounds similar to a heart-patient who claim that his heart-disease has miraculously cured itself because he's gone a whole week without suffering from angina? 

Not if it he goes 15 years more without angina.

[Devonian]

All  the plucking in the world cannot hide the fact that we are not warming and more to the point if we continue with static temps, or worse they decline then some plucking questions will need answering.

 

I would ask questions. Will you if we see record warmth within the next five to ten years?

Edited October 12, 2013 by Devonian

[UV-RAY]

I will ask questions. Will you if we see record warmth within the next five to ten years?

Yes, will you if we don't?

[Devonian]

Yes, will you if we don't?

??? I just said I would...

[Gray-Wolf]

If we see the current level of energy imbalance between the energy we measure arriving at the top of the atmosphere and that leaving the planet I would be very concerned should we still see a reduced level of change in global temps over another 10 year period!

 

If we thought 98' was a hot year then the next big Nino will have that looking like a dwarf!!! If 2010's small Nino already challenged 98's record then what will a big Nino' do?

 

Remember that we have seen a run of Nina's with only 2010 as a release valve for that warming so we are surely building up to either a run of Nino's ( and their impacts on global temps) or one Mother of a Nino ( and a huge spike in temps).

 

Where do you think all of this measured imbalance of extra energy stuck in the climate system is being hidden?

[UV-RAY]

If we see the current level of energy imbalance between the energy we measure arriving at the top of the atmosphere and that leaving the planet I would be very concerned should we still see a reduced level of change in global temps over another 10 year period!

 

If we thought 98' was a hot year then the next big Nino will have that looking like a dwarf!!! If 2010's small Nino already challenged 98's record then what will a big Nino' do?

 

Remember that we have seen a run of Nina's with only 2010 as a release valve for that warming so we are surely building up to either a run of Nino's ( and their impacts on global temps) or one Mother of a Nino ( and a huge spike in temps).

 

Where do you think all of this measured imbalance of extra energy stuck in the climate system is being hidden?

In a shoe box somewhere? Or hidden so well in the oceans that no one cane detect it, I'm I close?

[Gray-Wolf]

All i know that what we measure going in is as same as ever but that exiting has become less over time so it has to be somewhere or the 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed' looks doubtful?

[UV-RAY]

All i know that what we measure going in is as same as ever but that exiting has become less over time so it has to be somewhere or the 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed' looks doubtful?

Yes but where GW, until we know the answer then all we have is conjecture.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we need rename what we are seeing as 'global energy Imbalance' then?

 

Would we see less contention were it named around what science measures?

[UV-RAY]

Maybe we need rename what we are seeing as 'global energy Imbalance' then?Would we see less contention were it named around what science measures?

Lol, it's a start and let's be honest none of us can say with any certainty if one camp is right on this until we have more data to assess over the coming years. Edited October 12, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe there are some 'certainties' that we can agree on from what 'Science' has measured for us?

 

Surely if we know the planet is accruing energy then we should confidently expect to see that drive 'change' as that difference grows?

 

I'm pretty much aligned with the Lovelockian view of how the planet ( Mother N.) deals with change. I think that to keep things broadly 'stable' the system has a number of fail safes that 'soak up' forcings over the short term but that if a forcing in one direction maintains then the system flips to the next 'stable' point.

 

That said maybe the current 'slowdown' is showing us one of the ways Mother N. has for trying to fend off change? The worry ( for me) is that the imbalance is continuing even while the rate of change has slowed in global temps. What will Mother N. do when she has exhausted the current attempt to fend off change and she realises that the current energy imbalance remains?

 

Will it result in a rapid shift to a climate state that better matches the extra energy that we measure in the system? My way of understanding the workings of the system would demand that at some point we will 'flip up' to a climate state that utilises all of this extra energy.

 

When I look at the past 60 years I see Mother N. spending some of this imbalance in the energy budget in ice melt. Sadly this process cannot continue indefinitely. When the bulk of ice has gone then the energy that was able to be 'hidden' on that task again becomes surplus energy. To me the massive bulk loss of ice across the Arctic is now at an end and all that remains there is thin skim of near seasonal ice ( the bulk being below 3m thick come winters end) with the massive'ice islands' and Paleocryistic ice now confined to history.

 

With the thaw of the Permafrost now underway the last 'energy sink' is now being used up. This 'sink' is a double edged blade with further GHG's being released by the energy being spent on melting the resource.

 

When natural forcings again turn positive not only have we got a larger energy imbalance than the last phase of atmospheric warming but we also have a depleted reserve of materials that can 'soak up' this energy.

 

To make it easier to visualise maybe we take 2 bath tubs. We fill them half full with water and add 40kg's of ice into bath 1 and 10kg's of ice into bath 2. We then add equal amounts of boiling water into each tub and after 1/2 an hour take the temp of the air above the water surface. Would we expect to see difference in both temps?

 

To me more energy will have been used up in melting the bigger amount of ice and so less heat will have been left for the warming of the rest of the water ( and so lessen the temp over that tub compared to the other tub). Tub 1 was the last period with positive natural forcings, tub 2 is the next period of natural positive forcings we have to come?

[Methuselah]

I tend to agree with that, Ian...You simply cannot measure latent heat using temperature change alone.

Edited October 13, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[VillagePlank]

Err no. Latent heat and sensible heat are manifestations of energy. The only way you are going to lock up extra energy is in phase transitions such as the Arctic ice freezing or some such like. As far as I can tell, Ian isn't claiming that this is the case. Sensible heat is what is observed in series such as HadCrut4. The only possible way this makes sense is if a recovery in global ice locks in the energy. This isn't being observed.

 

Ian is ignoring observations and turning hypothesis, once again, into hyperbole.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm trying to make my own sense of a very complex 'thing' actually sparks!

 

We all agree we see more energy 'in' the system as the gap between energy in and energy out grows. We know that in past times some of that surplus must have gone into melting ice that has not been replaced so the amount of energy used in that area can only be less than before.

 

We currently see an acceleration in the heat being taken up in the ocean at various depths. Is this added uptake at the cost of atmospheric heating alone or do we need allow for some of the energy no longer needed to melt out the bulk of the Arctic now that it has gone?

 

EDIT: Just seen Pete's post below. I think we are both saying that there is an 'energy cost' to ice loss. I may be pushing that forward and asking what then becomes of the energy once expended on ice melt once it has gone but we are still counting the cost of ice melt are we not?

 

During a period of the warming of the planet a large amount of energy must be being accounted for by the cryosphere. Both from energy that never makes it into the system due to albedo properties and also the energy spent on degrading the ice cover. Once the job is done we gain the energy once lost due to albedo ( or a large portion of the total incoming compared to the trivial amount we received whist albedo was high) and also the energy once employed in the state change of ice to water. 

 

It's like needing to add in a whole other big number into the climate equation that we can currently ignore as it is 'invisible'........

Edited October 14, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

The only point I was making is the obvious one; that the very process of ice-melt takes heat from the surroundings. Which is why it's always important to thoroughly defrost a frozen chicken prior to cooking...melting sea-ice must cause a cooling of the surrounding bodies of water and air...

[stewfox]

 

EDIT: Just seen Pete's post below. I think we are both saying that there is an 'energy cost' to ice loss. I may be pushing that forward and asking what then becomes of the energy once expended on ice melt once it has gone but we are still counting the cost of ice melt are we not?

 

During a period of the warming of the planet a large amount of energy must be being accounted for by the cryosphere. Both from energy that never makes it into the system due to albedo properties and also the energy spent on degrading the ice cover. Once the job is done we gain the energy once lost due to albedo ( or a large portion of the total incoming compared to the trivial amount we received whist albedo was high) and also the energy once employed in the state change of ice to water. 

 

It's like needing to add in a whole other big number into the climate equation that we can currently ignore as it is 'invisible'.......

 

If the ice  goes surely the artic ocean will just continue to warm and refreeze start later and later each year.

 

The Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient could reduce . More heat energy in the artic

Edited October 14, 2013 by stewfox

[4wd]

 

 

We all agree we see more energy 'in' the system as the gap between energy in and energy out grows. 

The basic assumption which underlies the IPCC approach.

Yet the predictions which are projections based on this have been so spectacularly wrong that the assumptions deserves to be questioned.

 

 

 

We currently see an acceleration in the heat being taken up in the ocean at various depths. 

 

It is speculation that this is where the imaginary heat must have gone.

We do not see it, nor are we able to measure it, since the imaginary heat spread through the vastness of the ocean amounts to hundredths of a degree which is beyond the resolution of any measuring device.

It is hard to imagine being able to measure the average temperature of approximately 1.3 Ã— 10⁹ km³ of water.

Furthermore, the concept of water which is about 0.003 degrees warmer somehow re-emerging from the depths to heat up the atmosphere in a disastrous way is rather implausible.

Edited October 14, 2013 by 4wd

[BornFromTheVoid]

The basic assumption which underlies the IPCC approach.

Yet the predictions which are projections based on this have been so spectacularly wrong that the assumptions deserves to be questioned.

 

 

It is speculation that this is where the imaginary heat must have gone.

We do not see it, nor are we able to measure it, since the imaginary heat spread through the vastness of the ocean amounts to hundredths of a degree which is beyond the resolution of any measuring device.

It is hard to imagine being able to measure the average temperature of approximately 1.3 Ã— 10⁹ km³ of water.

Furthermore, the concept of water which is about 0.003 degrees warmer somehow re-emerging from the depths to heat up the atmosphere in a disastrous way is rather implausible.

 

More energy coming in than going out is not an assumption, it's actually happening. The proof comes from ground measurements, satellite measurements and models using very basic physics.

 

The heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air. So to even warm the oceans by a fraction of a degree requires a massive input of energy. It's not so much that the heat release from the ocean will cause rapid warming, but that the ocean will stop absorbing so much heat, allowing the atmosphere to heat up quicker.

 

Presuming that you won't dismiss RealClimate, here's a interesting link on the topic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

[knocker]

And on sea level rise.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

[UV-RAY]

More energy coming in than going out is not an assumption, it's actually happening. The proof comes from ground measurements, satellite measurements and models using very basic physics.

 

The heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air. So to even warm the oceans by a fraction of a degree requires a massive input of energy. It's not so much that the heat release from the ocean will cause rapid warming, but that the ocean will stop absorbing so much heat, allowing the atmosphere to heat up quicker.

 

Presuming that you won't dismiss RealClimate, here's a interesting link on the topic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

That's all well and good but we can only measure a fraction of the oceans depth, the rest is more assumptions in an ever growing list of them.

 

An interesting read on  oceanic heat content can be found here, not for BFTV  though, only joking!

 

 

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/18/ocean-heat-content-discussion-thread/

Edited October 15, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

That's all well and good but we can only measure a fraction of the oceans depth, the rest is more assumptions in an ever growing list of them.

I don't that that would make the slightest difference? The fact that the heat coming in is greater than that going out, is what's important...Same as heating a house, when you think about it?

[Gray-Wolf]

That's all well and good but we can only measure a fraction of the oceans depth, the rest is more assumptions in an ever growing list of them.

 

An interesting read on the oceanic heat content can be found here, not for BFTV  though, only joking!

 

 

 

http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/18/ocean-heat-content-discussion-thread/

 

So things could be far worse than these conservative estimates then?

[jethro]

This could well be me having a thicko moment...... this whole more energy going in than coming out thing, which apparently means the ocean must be absorbing the heat as it can't be found elsewhere, surely is making more than an assumption or two. How can anyone know whether there is more energy coming in than going out, when we still haven't answered what the radiation budget is, nor figured out whether clouds amplify heat or radiate it? It's all well and good running computer models which end up saying the heat must be there somewhere, as it's expected to be there. But what happens if the heat isn't there? What happens if it's being radiated away to space?

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't that that would make the slightest difference? The fact that the heat coming in is greater than that going out, is what's important...Same as heating a house, when you think about it?

 

This has to be the 'bottom line' of this whole debate does it not? If the Earth is holding onto ever more energy then surely it must lead to a different climate system to the one maintained by a lower energy environment?

 

We can have the circular arguments about how and where this extra energy will lead to change but surely we all expect it to lead to change?

 

What I think I'm seeing though is a body of folk trying to deny impacts by looking at atmospheric temp change rates and using what they see there as a 'reason' to dismiss the extra energy we measure and it's ability to force change? 

 

If , over the long game, we all expect the energy imbalance to lead to changes in the climate system to a state that better suits the higher energy environment then what is being gained by this period of trying to stall climate action?

 

Studies show the longer we delay addressing the imbalance the poorer the future prognosis becomes and the faster it arrives so what could we possibly benefit from?.