Climate Modellers Acknowledge Important Role of Oceans
Posted by jennifer, December 16th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
IT is not a new paper, it was being discussed back in July by Roger Pielke Sr, but the paper by Compo and Sardeshmukhj was only recently brought to my attention and as an example of the use of the IPCC’s computer models to explain warming without reference to greenhouse gases. That’s right, a peer reviewed paper based on simulation modelling that generates the observed warming of the last half-century but without reference to the ever increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The paper, entitled ’Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming’, suggests that it is warming of the oceans that has driven warming of the land since the 1970s. But it does not tell us what has warmed the oceans!
The paper concludes: “In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcing [Greenhouse gases] , in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST[sea surface temperature] changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface.”
Well known Australian sceptic, Bill Kininmonth, has made this point many times: that the tropical oceans are the main source of energy in the form of latent heat in the evaporation of water vapour and as the tropic oceans warm they exchange more energy with the atmosphere; more energy is transported pole ward to warm the middle and high latitude land areas.
So, it seems, the climate modellers are at last catching on.
***************
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming by Gilbert P. Compo and Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Climate Dynamics, 2008. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf
Luke, I got about 6 pages into that “Draft Framework” (Daft Frameup) for science priorities and started dry retching. All the standard crap, reliant on Guanno and lesser departmental pond life. It is not so much a plan of action as a rationalisation for criminal misappropriation of public funds. Shot full of errors of fact like reduced rainfall in the SE and totally reliant on spin and speculation for ballast.
Excerpt from the Climate Sceptics Dictionary;
“Climate, generally accepted synonym for Bull$hit, as in ‘climate science, bull$hit science’, as in bull$hitologist, bull$hit modeller, bull$hit crisis, bull$hit change, anthropogenic bull$hit change, etc.
Nice try at a sidestep, Luke, now how about a response on the relative impacts of albedo change vs CO2 forcing, over oceans. Do you accept that potential for radiative forcing is minimal over any surface with albedo of 5%?
Thanks Bill; you are aware a number of ther people have removed ENSO from temp trends to isolate a GHG forcing; Trenberth who got 0.0925CPD; Douglass and Christy who got 0.07CPD, although an earlier Christy and McNider piece got 0.09CPD; both Tilo Reber and Lucia found post 2000 ENSO removed -ve trends; White and Cayon and Tsonis allocate the majority of temp trend to ENSO/PDO and who knows what Compo found; there is a Hazeleger paper on non-CO2 heating of the oceans which modelling shows ocean circulation responsible. Bob Tisdale has also found some interesting correlations between ENSO and SST and GMST; Bob supports the Newman paper which reagrds PDO as the residual of ENSO; Bob has found an accumulation of SST in El Nino dominated periods with consequence for GMST; he has also isolated step-ups in the temp trend which begin the El Nino sequences; a step-up occurred in 1976; another in 1998, which had the effect of almost entirely creating the upward trend in temp in the latter 1/2 of the 20thC; here is his paper; note the link to Warwick Hughe’s analysis of SST from 1860 to the present, which is essentially flat;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-there-cumulative-enso-climate.html
[...] in the libertarian blogosphere. Jennifer Marohasy notes the Rudd 5% commitment and discusses the role of oceans in climate change, we hear that Al Gore says the arctic may disapear, Jim Fryar gives the facts of stranded polar [...]
As to the cosmic ray link; their study period was 5 years; I can’t be sure but I suspect that would fail our Deltoid acolyte, sod’s cherry-picking criteria;
it was reasonable to have doubts about your interpretation. actually it looks, like you don t understand cherry picking or the complains about short time spans for analysis of climate change.
cherry picking means, using the single well chosen data point, that supports your position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
like starting a temperature trend in 1998, showing that it is decreasing (in certain data sets), ignoring that using either 1997 or 1999 would lead to an increase in trend.
our complains about denialists using short term trends, is a completely different one. 30 years has been chosen to be a period, long enough to distinguish real climate changes from random weather events.
there is no general requirement, for ALL RESEARCH, to use 30 year periods. just (within certain limitations) for research, making claims about climate.
neither of these conditions effects the study about cosmic rays NOT forming clouds.
http://www.cicero.uio.no/webnews/index_e.aspx?id=11074
the period of 5 years seems to have been enforced by the deployment of the MODIS instrument. no cherry picking.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7969/22037/01025812.pdf?arnumber=1025812
neither would such a study need a longer period. they did not investigate, how cosmic rays influence the climate. instead, they looked at whether it changes clouds. this is a pretty immediate effect, that doesn t require a long term analysis.
“Reduced cosmic rays did not lead to reduced cloud formation, either during the outbreaks or during the days that followed.
if you think that cosmic rays tend to form clouds 6 years LATER, you might want to publish your hypothesis. good luck!
a last nugget from the research (do you spot the major difference to typical denialist “research”?)
This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.
Cohenite – 2nd link works – I had a problem earlier too. Maybe site issues? It’s so popular. Either try cutting back to home page and come forward or try
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/publications/pubs/consultation-draft.pdf
““Reduced cosmic rays did not lead to reduced cloud formation, either during the outbreaks or during the days that followed.
if you think that cosmic rays tend to form clouds 6 years LATER, you might want to publish your hypothesis. good luck!”
Clouds form pretty quickly, and disperse just as quickly. If radiation was a factor, it would be apparent quite soon, as soon as the cosmic rays changed in strength. (which is the claim being made). AGW claims the temperature rise will occur over a period of time that relates to climate variation.
And no side step Mottsa – as usual when confronted with a quality and serious policy document that you were unable to comprehend to you simply resort to a stupid level of abuse and gibberish. Garnaut – huh ??? WTF?
But back to albedo – well I see you’re not quoting a published paper but some opinion.
But why I’m giggling uncontrollably is that clouds can have both cooling (albedo) and warming (greenhouse) effects. When you’ve worked out the balance let us know. LOL.
Jeez you’re getting slow – you used to be at least half worth debating. Time to put your wife on.
sod the cornucopia with his cherries and cosmic rays; let’s wait and see what this decides;
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
BTW I thought this thread was about ENSO as an alternative to AGW for explaining temp trends.
“BTW I thought this thread was about ENSO as an alternative to AGW for explaining temp trends.”
SOD pointed out Jennifer’s mistake in the second post of the thread. Given sound of crickets chirping, I think she realises her mistake.
“crickets chirping”; Will, that would be you, luke and your lovechild, little sod.
“So what effect does the removal of the volcanic signal have on the running trends? The putative acceleration of global warming vanishes.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/17/recent-temperature-trends-in-context/#more-355
and that’s just the volcanoes we know!
And now all Luke can do is pretend that I don’t understand that clouds can both reflect insolation and capture IR. Give us a break. Pathetic even by your standards. And did I really read you suggesting that I was only quoting unpublished opinion? As if Ramananthan, founding Director of the Centre for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, UC San Diego, was mere “unpublished opinion”?
Pathetic. But we all note how you have carefully avoided the issue. Your mate Sod was claiming that it was CO2 forcing that was warming up the oceans which, in turn, were warming up the land. He was helped along by some carefully selected weasel words by Compo and Sardeshmukhj but wringing serious climate forcing out of 5% albedo, or even a 29% albedo over the upper half volume of the atmospheric column, was always looking seriously suss.
The facts are that if cloud albedo and clear sky albedo averages out to 29% then the oceans below those clouds can only absorb 0.95 of the remaining 71% that gets through, a modest 67.45%, while the clouds and CO2 are left to fight over the forcing potential of the remaining 3.55% of total solar energy.
You turkeys are seriously suggesting that CO2 induced changes in the forcing potential of 3.55% of insolation are going to warm up the worlds oceans (70% of surface area) and deliver significant heat transfers to the continental land masses?
The use of a constant albedo value of 29% in the GCMs is downright criminal because it deliberately ignores reductions in cooling agents that are far more significant and relevant than minor heating agents like CO2.
If you don’t know why this is biggest load of codswallop you’ve ever written you’re more stupid than we thought “The facts are that if cloud albedo and clear sky albedo averages out to 29% then the oceans below those clouds can only absorb 0.95 of the remaining 71% that gets through, a modest 67.45%, while the clouds and CO2 are left to fight over the forcing potential of the remaining 3.55% of total solar energy.”
Try publishing your “theory” ! hahahahahahahaha – I can hardly sit …. oooo it hurts …
Cohenite – why do you put up with him ? Actually Cohers – just tell me you agree with Mottsa ….. hehehehehehehe
[...] recently posted an article about a paper, entitled: ‘Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming’, suggesting that it is warming of the oceans that has driven warming of the land since the [...]
[...] recently posted an article about a paper, entitled: ‘Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming’, suggesting that it is warming of the oceans that has driven warming of the land since the [...]
“I can hardly sit….oooo it hurts…” That’s more than we need to know luke. But, following on from Rick Beikoff’s post above; Dr Andrew Watkins of the National Climate Centre said on our ABC this morning;
2008 has been the coolest year since 2000 but has been warmer than any year bar 2 in the last century.
That comment sums up AGW.
That comment sums up AGW.
hm. littler sun activity. la ninja. still among the warmest yeas on record.
yes, very good sum-up.
nina. nice one.
Which part can you not understand, Luke? If oceans absorb 95% of insolation regardless of the actual amount of that insolation then it would also apply to residual insolation that has been filtered by clouds. Not hard.
Luke hasn’t figured out yet that a sneer has no traction until it is combined with a grain of substance. At the moment all he dishes up is vacuous rantings that convince no-one.
Mottsa has forgotten half of the energy balance. And try looking up the difference between short wave and long wave. CO2 interacts with short wave does it? What a rank idiot. hehehehehehehe
You clown.
[...] recently posted an article about a paper, entitled: ‘Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming’, suggesting that it is warming of the oceans that has driven warming of the land since the [...]
“Try publishing your “theory” ! hahahahahahahaha – I can hardly sit …. oooo it hurts …”
The dumb-Luke epistemology. Only publishing counts. Luke in the real world Peer Review is just a big crock. And the philosophy of Peer Review is an obstruction to science.
The idea is to not choose STUPIDITY as you appear to have done. And instead to choose reason and evidence.