http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-thru-27-Oct-2010.gif
It must be all that excess heat in the system.
that blows that blows
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
Recent Comments
- arn on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- Robertvd on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- arn on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- Gordon Vigurs on Thing Of The Past Returns
- Greg in NZ on Thing Of The Past Returns
- Robertvd on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- arn on Thing Of The Past Returns
- conrad ziefle on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Greg in NZ on “Impossible Heatwaves”
Hope it continues. Air temperature is definitely following suit. Almost to ‘average’…
Actually what you are showing is just the surface temp, not the heat of the ocean.
Surface temp fluctuates a lot with the ENSO cycles.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif
Still we’ve got that long term trend which isn’t explained by ENSO.
I didn’t realize that GISS has thermometers underground. Thanks for enlightening me.
Brendon,
your own chart plainly shows that the warming trend stopped in 1998.The very claim many skeptics have been making for a few years now.
That should not be possible if the well mixed CO2 atmosphere is on the job gobbling all those naughty IR photons up.With the ever increasing number of hungry CO2 molecules joining in on the hunt.
There should be a CONTINUOUS increase in temperature ALL over the world.After all being well mixed and increasing.The vaunted warm forcing powers should ramp up to a higher level with new additional CO2 molecules appearing in the atmosphere.
But alas,it is not happening and that ALONE is evidence that CO2 is not driving temperature upward.
Since you AGW believers already discount the sun and women.It MUST be CO2 alone that drives the temperature upward and therefore MUST be driving it up CONTINUALLY!
But alas it is not happenning…
I agree with most of your statement , however there is the possibility that some other undetermined factor has been screening out the CO2 driven increase, in exactly the same manour that something besides CO2 forcing is driving temperature. The temperature is changing has been since there has been weather, but we still don’t know what we don’t know regarding the climate change mechanisms, attributing small scale changes TO ANYTHING is somewhat silly. Finding out some more about climate mechanisms seems like a good idea prior to making prognostications.
I know Glen.
I was only trying to make the point that CO2 could not possibly THE climate driver AGW believers seems to think.
I wish they would stop their tunnel vision over the CO2 gas and start looking around for ALL the possible effects that drives weather and ultimately the climate.
If you bothered to read any of the science you’d find that scientists are NOT saying that CO2 is the only driver of climate. They, in fact, say that there are quite a lot of mechanisms at work on climate including solar irradiance, Milankovitch cycles, as well as a large number of other factors. It’s a highly complex system. What scientists are saying is that CO2 is the “biggest control knob” out of many control knobs. And scientist are continually pointing out that there are a large number of uncertainties involved with what we currently understand about how climate works.
But there is also a great deal that IS known about how CO2 operates on climate. What is clear is that there is a high likelihood that if we don’t start accepting (and acting upon) the very basic aspects of what we do understand we are running a serious risks.
This is the state of the science of climate change. There are those things that are understood, there are uncertainties and there are risks. The scientific community is just saying, how much are you willing to gamble?
AOL news reported that
The researchers built a model for Earth’s atmosphere and the heat it absorbed, and then ran it with differing levels of noncondensing gasses. With water vapor alone, the greenhouse effect collapsed and the model froze over. This suggests that *carbon dioxide levels account for 80 percent of the greenhouse effect, not 20, as previously thought.*
http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/nasa-carbon-dioxide-not-water-vapor-causes-global-warming/19675957
No doubt the poor communications from NASA were purely accidental
So, do you read AOL for your science or scientific papers for your science? The gist is correct. The wording is inaccurate. WV works as a feedback based on temperature. CO2 has the strongest effect of the non-condensible atmospheric gases. WV will have a feedback response to changes in CO2. That’s is what makes CO2 the biggest control knob.
No. I see a consistent pattern of press releases overstating the case for CO2 and no attempt by the organizations after the fact to straighten them out.
The gist is not correct. Even at the South Pole, H2O is by far the dominant greenhouse gas.
The idea of separating off H2O as a condensable gas vs. CO2 as a non-condensible is ridiculous. It is very difficult to condense enough water vapour to get H2O down to 390 ppm.
And actually, the Lacis paper (2010) this report is based on is an excellent paper.
Steve… The gist is correct. Without CO2 water vapor will collapse. Look at a chart of water vapor content of air over a range of temperatures.
No it won’t. Even at -20F water vapour is much more abundant than CO2.
Here’s a water vapor chart for you. Plotted at 100% and 50% relative humidity.
So, how much water vapor is there in the air (even at 100% relative humidity) when the temperature is -20C?
It is about 1/10 of the amount at 20C. Which makes it 5X the amount of CO2.
http://home.comcast.net/~frankhanson2/vapor.htm
But you agree that the amount of WV in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Right?
Of course.
The amount of humidity in the air varies a lot from day to day, but CO2 remains constant.
Steve… The relative amount of CO2 to WV doesn’t mean anything. Have you read the Lacis paper?
Of course it does.
Day to day temperature and humidity is a function of convection and not part of the issue.
Do you agree that CO2 and the other non-condensing GHG’s have radiative properties?
Why are you wasting my time with these questions?
I have written dozens of articles on these topics. The site has a search engine.
No one debates that there is less CO2 in the atmosphere than WV. No one debates that WV is a more important GHG. The issue is what controls what. WV is dependent on temperature to remain in the atmosphere. It is the GHE from the non-condensing GHG’s that enables WV residence in the atmosphere. Without the non-condensing GHG’s WV would fall to near zero.
Honeycutt doesnt understand the implications of the paper.
It clearly proves the logical fallacies behind climate modelers. Of course a model where H2o is totally dependant on the CO2, it freezes up when CO2 is removed. How obvious is that. We already knew it. And thats what we have been critisizing about.
What they have not proven whether it exists in nature, not just in the models. And it is clear it does not.
WV has a function of CO2 but its not totally dependant on it. CO2 attributes around 9%-26% to greenhouse effect. This study only proves climate models use assumptions which are in contrast of the common knowledge whether there would be a greenhouse effect without CO2 or not – yes there would.
They also do not have any idea how clouds behave as a feedback, neither do they have an explanation on AMO or PDO.
You should also read:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/does-co2-drive-the-earths-climate-system-comments-on-the-latest-nasa-giss-paper/
And the comments.
This latest GISS paper is simply pure rubbish.
If all the CO2 was removed from the tropical atmosphere, it would have a small impact on the temperature. Probably not enough to make it freeze in the tropics.
If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the tropics would be much colder.
J… I have, in fact, already read Spencer’s comments on the Lacis paper. But Spencer’s blog is in no way a to be considered a studied or reviewed response.
I do understand the paper quite well. If you take any time to learn the physics behind the effect you’ll realize that you’re spouting nonsense.
PDO and AMO contribute to climate variability. They can not add heat energy to the climate system.
Steve… If you removed all the CO2 you would then be removing all the WV as a secondary response.
No, you absolutely would not be removing all the H2O. Removal of all CO2 would only reduce downwelling LW radiation by 3% in the tropics. And reduction of cloud cover would probably offset much of that 3%.
Steve… You obviously didn’t bother to read Lacis.
I read it and I wrote three articles about it. You obviously didn’t do your homework before posting.
This looks bad. Cold PDO and inactive sun (possible Dalton or worse still Maunder minimum) means trouble.
All we need now is for this winter’s snow to stick around and mayhem starts.
Did Honeycutt stop by to add humor to our day?
Rob: Please keep spreading the BS it is soooo transparent!
Rob:
CO2 can not add heat or energy to the climate system either. If it could we would already be using it as an energy source.
Rob Honeycutt says:
October 29, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Steve… The gist is correct. Without CO2 water vapor will collapse.
Without CO2 life on earth will also cease. (Is this the hidden agenda of the warmistas?) Check out the paper below, especially figure 6 and the conclusions paragraph:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/75/42/PDF/bg-3-85-2006.pdf
What is it that will end life on the planet? Heating? No – CO2 starvation. No primary production, no ecosystem (except maybe near hydrothermal vents if there is still an ocean).