IPCC climate report 2013

[Methuselah]

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?.

And the beauty of the heat in/heat out 'bottom line', is that both quantities can be measured...And, as J rightly pointed out, one can assume that the remainder has gone into the oceans, melting ice, or into other processes (some known, some not)...The most contentious assumption, however, would be one that required heat to simply disappear? Now that would contravene the laws of physics!

Edited October 15, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[VillagePlank]

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?

 

But, GW, you are the one who keeps on going about change and how catastrophic it's going to be. Have you considered the climate model that considers the different configuration of continents, in times past, and thus ocean currents?

 

I've said for years (and years) that the climate is a leaky integrator and, given that, that very small amounts of residue energy can be stored away somewhere and that the loss of energy from the climate system is directly related to the quantity of energy in the system (also known as Newton's Law of Cooling) At the time I posited that this capacitance leading to hysteresis is most likely the ocean. Again, at the time, it was pooh-poohed, laughed at (etc etc) and Captain Bobski and I were raced out of town.

 

There is no such thing as extra energy as I said at the time. I know what you mean, but you need to be more precise. Energy is conserved: you can't have it hiding in little crooks and crannies waiting to confirm or deny whatever convenient hypothesis you might have to hand.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Sparkicle

[jethro]

And the beauty of the heat in/heat out 'bottom line', is that both quantities can be measured...And, as J rightly pointed out, one can assume that the remainder has gone into the oceans, melting ice, or into other processes (some known, some not)...The most contentious assumption, however, would be one that required heat to simply disappear? Now that would contravene the laws of physics!

 

Wouldn't it be just as contentious to assume that the heat had been retained and stored somewhere (like the ocean) if it had in fact been radiated away to space?

 

And we can't measure heat in/heat out - the radiation budget is one of the most widely sought answers in climate science.

[VillagePlank]

One thing's for sure - it hasn't disappeared, and as others have already posted, this 'missing' heat is unlikely to be observed in the ocean since, if it is well distributed, then the increase in temperature of the water is unlikely to exceed minimum sensible thermometer temperature thresholds and would show only as noise.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

Wouldn't it be just as contentious to assume that the heat had been retained and stored somewhere (like the ocean) if it had in fact been radiated away to space?

 

And we can't measure heat in/heat out - the radiation budget is one of the most widely sought answers in climate science.

It might, if it weren't for the fact that radiation-flux is a measurable quantity; so is effective temperature and so on and so on...I find it uncanny, that thermal-imaging technology (that can see through concrete walls and detect a 10 watt lightbulb, on the surface of the moon) has all-of-a-sudden developed a very convenient blind spot?

 

The top of the stratosphere is cooling. Why is that? Also, only 3% of reputable scientists have any truck with the 'sceptics'' arguments, whatsoever. Why is that? 

[UV-RAY]

I think we can put this one to bed up until a time when someone can show how this mechanism for missing heat content actually works, maybe it's not he oceans where the answer lies for this apparent missing heat.

[BornFromTheVoid]

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/

 

It's a reasonable enough piece by JC. There are uncertainties with everything of course, understanding those uncertainties and knowing the limits they impose are important. The records, especially that of the thousands of argos floats, cannot be dismissed as simple assumptions though.

 

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?

 

We know that the oceans are absorbing plenty of heat, especially between 700 and 2000m over the last decade or so.

 

it's believed that the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation plays a large role in this and is linked to ENSO and the PDO. Basically changes in wind patterns drive the warmth deeper into the ocean.

 

 

As for the energy in versus energy out confusion, satellites are capable of monitoring the level of energy reaching the Earth, ground stations can measure the energy reaching the surface, and satellites once again can measure how much is leaving the planet. No complex climate projections needed.

As it is, there has been little change in the energy reaching Earth, but an increase in the longwave energy hitting the surface (due to CO2 reradiating energy back to the surface), and a decrease in long wave energy leaving the atmosphere, as measured by satellites. Combine that data, with calculations of the total energy being accumulated within the biosphere, and radiative transfer models, and you get several different sources that can show the Earth currently is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance

[VillagePlank]

Well one thing stands out like a sore thumb: if the oceans have been warming up at some 50²² Joules since 1995 then why has climate science, apparently, pretty much ignored it until the plateau in temperatures? That's some 50²² W/s !! Hunting for the horse because someone forgot to bolt the stable door?

Edited October 15, 2013 by Sparkicle

[jethro]

It might, if it weren't for the fact that radiation-flux is a measurable quantity; so is effective temperature and so on and so on...I find it uncanny, that thermal-imaging technology (that can see through concrete walls and detect a 10 watt lightbulb, on the surface of the moon) has all-of-a-sudden developed a very convenient blind spot?

 

The top of the stratosphere is cooling. Why is that? Also, only 3% of reputable scientists have any truck with the 'sceptics'' arguments, whatsoever. Why is that? 

 

The search for the missing heat may be being absorbed by the oceans, or it may not. Without the answer to the below problem, it is impossible to tell. The heat is deemed missing as there has been a hiatus in the warming, the temperature rise isn't following the predicted curve, expected from rising GHG emissions and therefore, the heat is assumed to be missing and hiding in the oceans. It may be being absorbed by the ocean, it may be that climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as thought, or it may be that there is an unexpected negative feedback which is countering the warming.

 

 

The Earth’s radiation balance (ERB) is the difference between the absorbed solar radiation and the emitted infrared radiation and is equal to zero on an annual and long-term equilibrium basis. Temporarily (over a few years) the ERB can be slightly unbalanced, indicative of warming or cooling according to the sign of the unbalance. The geographical and temporal ERB distributions on the contrary are largely variable (figure). The ERB determination is essential to access the atmospheric modelling and climate studies. A major research problem is how clouds affect the radiation energy balance of the planet, and react to the greenhouse gas forcing.

 

http://www.ipsl.fr/en/Our-research/The-Earth-climate-system/Radiation-budget

[Methuselah]

The search for the missing heat may be being absorbed by the oceans, or it may not. Without the answer to the below problem, it is impossible to tell. The heat is deemed missing as there has been a hiatus in the warming, the temperature rise isn't following the predicted curve, expected from rising GHG emissions and therefore, the heat is assumed to be missing and hiding in the oceans. It may be being absorbed by the ocean, it may be that climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as thought, or it may be that there is an unexpected negative feedback which is countering the warming.

 

 

The Earth’s radiation balance (ERB) is the difference between the absorbed solar radiation and the emitted infrared radiation and is equal to zero on an annual and long-term equilibrium basis. Temporarily (over a few years) the ERB can be slightly unbalanced, indicative of warming or cooling according to the sign of the unbalance. The geographical and temporal ERB distributions on the contrary are largely variable (figure). The ERB determination is essential to access the atmospheric modelling and climate studies. A major research problem is how clouds affect the radiation energy balance of the planet, and react to the greenhouse gas forcing.

 

http://www.ipsl.fr/en/Our-research/The-Earth-climate-system/Radiation-budget

Absolutely, we seem to be dealing with a negative feedback, one that may have been either underestimated or over-looked entirely, by the IPCC...and the reduced mass-balance of ice, globally, must account for some of it...So, it is, I think, a feather in the caps of sceptics; neither a pause nor a slow-down was ever predicted?

[UV-RAY]

Well one thing stands out like a sore thumb: if the oceans have been warming up at some 50²² Joules since 1995 then why has climate science, apparently, pretty much ignored it until the plateau in temperatures? That's some 50²² W/s !! Hunting for the horse because someone forgot to bolt the stable door?

I mentioned this in an earlier post Sparkicle, I'm not dismissing it outright just yet but it appears highly unlikely that somehow the excess heat content decided now was the time it wanted to play hide and seek. Edited October 15, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well one thing stands out like a sore thumb: if the oceans have been warming up at some 50²² Joules since 1995 then why has climate science, apparently, pretty much ignored it until the plateau in temperatures? That's some 50²² W/s !! Hunting for the horse because someone forgot to bolt the stable door?

 

Perhaps a clue lies in your use of the word "apparently"!

[johnholmes]

I am still wading through the umpteen pages and graphs, charts etc. You lot must be fast readers, unless, heaven forbid, some are 'cherry picking' bits out!

[jethro]

Absolutely, we seem to be dealing with a negative feedback, one that may have been either underestimated or over-looked entirely, by the IPCC...and the reduced mass-balance of ice, globally, must account for some of it...So, it is, I think, a feather in the caps of sceptics; neither a pause nor a slow-down was ever predicted?

 

Or it's possible that the climate isn't as sensitive as has been supposed. I can think of one leading sceptic who has been denounced for years, but oddly enough, his projections for expected warming are closer than the official ones. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

 

Mass balance of ice....is it globally reduced? If so, isn't the official message that reduced albedo would lead to more warming, not less?

I am still wading through the umpteen pages and graphs, charts etc. You lot must be fast readers, unless, heaven forbid, some are 'cherry picking' bits out!

 

You don't need to read it John, we all know the world isn't warming as expected and the headlines were full of 'heat hiding in the oceans'.

[VillagePlank]

Perhaps a clue lies in your use of the word "apparently"!

 

Bugger: Froidian slip

 

(Climate science and beer? These two things do not go together!!!)

Edited October 15, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

If you know the rate of loss, it should be easy enough to calculate the amount of heat used in the process...(As you ought to know by now  I don't always adhere to what's 'official')...It is also consistent with recent observation: it's the zones around where ice is actually melting that are seeing the temperature decline; the rest of the globe is still getting warmer... 

Or it's possible that the climate isn't as sensitive as has been supposed. I can think of one leading sceptic who has been denounced for years, but oddly enough, his projections for expected warming are closer than the official ones. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

 

Mass balance of ice....is it globally reduced? If so, isn't the official message that reduced albedo would lead to more warming, not less?

 

It may be; but isn't the overall climate-sensitivity itself variable with time, and dependent (in part at least) on the sum of the magnitudes and directions of all the system's feedbacks?

 

PS: Something horrendous has happened to the quote function! 

Edited October 15, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue
Didn't he do well!

[VillagePlank]

It maybe; but isn't the overall climate-sensitivity itself variable with time, and dependent (in part at least) to the sum of the magnitudes and directions of all the system's feedbacks?

 

Yes!

 

(and we've known it since Fourier)

Edited October 15, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

I am still wading through the umpteen pages and graphs, charts etc. You lot must be fast readers, unless, heaven forbid, some are 'cherry picking' bits out!

 

Most opinions here are going off the summary report for policy makers (or were formed well before its release...). I'm still gradually getting through the full report myself!

[johnholmes]

Or it's possible that the climate isn't as sensitive as has been supposed. I can think of one leading sceptic who has been denounced for years, but oddly enough, his projections for expected warming are closer than the official ones. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

 

Mass balance of ice....is it globally reduced? If so, isn't the official message that reduced albedo would lead to more warming, not less?

 

You don't need to read it John, we all know the world isn't warming as expected and the headlines were full of 'heat hiding in the oceans'.

 

a rather biased comment, how on earth can you be sure of what you say unless you read it?

or are you just pulling my leg I suspect!

 

Most opinions here are going off the summary report for policy makers (or were formed well before its release...). I'm still gradually getting through the full report myself!

 

the only way to do it and try to form ones own opinion in my view

[UV-RAY]

a rather biased comment, how on earth can you be sure of what you say unless you read it?or are you just pulling my leg I suspect!  the only way to do it and try to form ones own opinion in my view

Quite easy really as we are commenting on the pause in rising temps and the alleged missing heat content which is widely documented by the IPCC.

[jethro]

a rather biased comment, how on earth can you be sure of what you say unless you read it?

or are you just pulling my leg I suspect!

 

 

the only way to do it and try to form ones own opinion in my view

 

There's nothing biased John. The hiatus in warming has been widely reported, as has the postulated idea that the heat is being stored in the ocean. The problems with the science, as far as what is unknown and how it may impact upon both temperature and climate sensitivity, are the same today as they were in the previous IPCC reports. We don't know the answers to some very large questions. It has no bearing on the basic theory, I'm not questioning the validity of the theory of AGW - in my opinion, it's a solid theory. It does however need refining, the topic of missing heat is one such refinement. As for being sure what I say and needing to read the latest report in order to do so - I've been involved in this topic for some years now, I do have a pretty good understanding of the topic and a fair level of knowledge. Over the years of studying and reading I've learnt lots and have formed my own opinion, but opinions don't come into it when you're dealing with basic climate facts and the holes in our knowledge that I have outlined above and in my previous posts. Digesting the latest sheaf of info from the IPCC won't shed any more light on these problems, nor provide answers; it's evident from the research done since the last report, and what has been released in the journals since that the answers remain elusive.

[BornFromTheVoid]

As for the IPCC's take on the elusive missing heat, and the supposed uncertainty about the oceans...

 

It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (above 700 m) has warmed from 1971 to 2010, and likely that it

has warmed from the 1870s to 1971 (Figure TS.1). There is less certainty in changes prior to 1971 because

of relatively sparse sampling in earlier time periods. Instrumental biases in historical upper ocean

temperature measurements have been identified and mitigated since AR4, reducing artificial decadal

variation in temperature and upper ocean heat content, most prominent during the 1970s and 1980s. {3.2.1,

3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.5.3}

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2010, based on five-year averages.

It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, when sufficient

observations became available for a global assessment. No significant trends in global average temperature

were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth for either overlapping time period. The largest changes in

deep ocean temperature have been observed close to the sources of deep and bottom water in the northern

North Atlantic and especially in the Southern Ocean with anomaly amplitudes lessening along the routes

through which these waters spread....

...The rate of ocean warming in some of the 0–700 m estimates was lower from 2003 to 2010 than in the

previous decade (Figure TS.1); however, warming in the subsurface layer between 700 and 2000 m likely

continued unabated during this period.

 

 

 

Then from the climate scientists over at realclimate with the latest data

 

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

 

People think the slow down in warming over the last 15 years is important, yet they said nothing when the warming was faster than expected in the 15 years to 2006.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nobody mentioning the 'polar hole' then? If you're wanting a complete picture of what is going on surely you need to look at the whole planet and not ignore the sat blindspot? I'm sure I saw calcs, a few years back, that showed that all the 'missing heat' is accounted for when polar data is also included in the calcs?

[UV-RAY]

IMO we can view the climate has being in a custody cell awaiting a court date, until we see temps respond in either direction then all talk of missing heat content and natural cycles can be put on hold. Neither side of the debate can claim a victory as it's half time and the scores are level.

[Methuselah]

But, there is no 'victory' to claim, SI...Heat in > heat out, and the global temps are more-or-less constant; ergo, there's an amount of heat that remains unaccounted-for?? So, all we can do (IMO) is to put-forward refutable hypotheses that might explain the situation...If something is indeed 'unknown' it's surely in everybody's interest if we try to know it?

 

Arguments along the lines of, 'God works in mysterious ways' don't wash in science...