| | | It therefore follows that, if sea surface temperatures have been increasing since 1998 as claimed, atmospheric temperatures would also be increasing. As we know, of course, they have not, they have actually been dropping.
Quite simply, Karl’s claims don’t stack up scientifically.
Paul Homewood
Big news: NOAA has used newly fiddled data from many locations to row back what they told the IPCC -- so they can now claim that there has been no warming slowdown in recent years. But they might as well not have bothered. I quote:
"For the full period of record (1880–present), the new global analysis has essentially the same rate of warming as the previous analysis (0.068°C dec-1 and 0.065°C dec-1 respectively)"
So the warming per century still comes out at only two thirds of one degree Celsius. If that continues for another century, who is going to be bothered?
A few comments anyway: The big change they made was extensive "corrections" to the sea-surface temperature data, which is pretty haphazard data at the best of times and hence not much to be relied on. And guess what? I quote:
"the new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale... This is clearly attributable to the new SST analysis".
The new conclusions rely, in other words on "adjustments" and the adjustments are to what is in any case a very shaky dataset. Not a lot to hang your hat on there, is there?
And, don't laugh: The revised temperature rise shown for the early 21st century (2000-2014) is 0.116°C -- which is just a touch over one tenth of one degree. That's 8 THOUSANDTHS of a degree per year or eight tenths of a degree per century: Totally trivial. When you have to express your findings about change in tenths of one degree over a 14 year period, you might as well say "no change", might you not? Very pesky of me to go back to the actual numbers, isn't it? I have always found that an amusing thing to do when dealing with ideologues.
And, finally, they get statistical significance for their new trend only by accepting a 10% probability of error -- versus the usual scientific standard of 5%. In other words, by normal scientific criteria, there has STILL been no significant warming this century. What an anticlimax to their big fiddle!
antigreen.blogpost
Thoughts On Karl’s Pause-Buster Paper
June 5, 2015
By Paul Homewood
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
WUWT has already thoroughly covered the latest NCDC attempt to remove the pause.
Basically, Thomas Karl and co have adjusted sea surface temperatures down prior to around 1998, and up since, so that they now show that SST’s have carried on rising unabated.
But I will just add two comments.
1) It is fundamental physics that when water is warmed up, the rate of evaporation increases. And evaporation is one of the main processes for the transfer of heat from the surface to the atmosphere, as NASA explain:
Surface Energy BudgetTo understand how the Earth’s climate system balances the energy budget, we have to consider processes occurring at the three levels: the surface of the Earth, where most solar heating takes place; the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, where sunlight enters the system; and the atmosphere in between. At each level, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy, or net flux, must be equal.
Remember that about 29 percent of incoming sunlight is reflected back to space by bright particles in the atmosphere or bright ground surfaces, which leaves about 71 percent to be absorbed by the atmosphere (23 percent) and the land (48 percent). For the energy budget at Earth’s surface to balance, processes on the ground must get rid of the 48 percent of incoming solar energy that the ocean and land surfaces absorb. Energy leaves the surface through three processes: evaporation, convection, and emission of thermal infrared energy.
The surface absorbs about 48% of incoming sunlight. Three processes remove an equivalent amount of energy from the Earth’s surface: evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation, or heat (net 17%). (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Photograph ©2006 Cyron.)
About 25 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface through evaporation. Liquid water molecules absorb incoming solar energy, and they change phase from liquid to gas. The heat energy that it took to evaporate the water is latent in the random motions of the water vapor molecules as they spread through the atmosphere. When the water vapor molecules condense back into rain, the latent heat is released to the surrounding atmosphere. Evaporation from tropical oceans and the subsequent release of latent heat are the primary drivers of the atmospheric heat engine (described on page 3).
Towers of cumulus clouds transport energy away from the surface of the Earth. Solar heating drives evaporation. Warm, moist air becomes buoyant and rises, moving energy from the surface high into the atmosphere. Energy is released back into the atmosphere when the water vapor condenses into liquid water or freezes into ice crystals
It therefore follows that, if sea surface temperatures have been increasing since 1998 as claimed, atmospheric temperatures would also be increasing. As we know, of course, they have not, they have actually been dropping.
Quite simply, Karl’s claims don’t stack up scientifically.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
2) We only need to go back to the ClimateGate emails to see the blatant attempts that were made to remove the inconvenient 1940’s blip by tampering with SST’s.
(Note the phrase speculations on correcting SSTs; now compare with the latest Karl paper which mentions using updated and corrected temperature observations taken at thousands of weather observing stations over land and as many commercial ships and buoys at sea. )
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu> To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> Subject: 1940s Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov> <x-flowed> Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) -- but not really enough. So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom. http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/thoughts-on-karls-pause-buster-paper/#more-15121
Paul Homewood permalink*
June 5, 2015 12:46 pm
Because I am looking at atmospheric temperatures. UAH show virtually the same trend as RSS.
It is not the overall trend that is the issue, but the attempt to remove the inconvenient 18-yr pause. Hence the Science headline
Much-touted global warming pause never happened
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/06/much-touted-global-warming-pause-never-happened?rss=1
Then there is the abstract itself:
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632 |
|
