Eric c
Lv 4
Eric c asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

What do you make of the new paper that shows that there is no radiative imbalance?

and that there is no "missing heat'?

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_I...

Update:

Bob: Can you then explain how this heat went to below 700m without it being detected?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think these boys just placed their melons on the AGW executioner's block. But we will see if they can publish it, then see what the wolves do.

    But I love the way this theory is instantly shot down. Way to be first to pan it Linlyons! Maybe you should read the paper...Or is Dana needed to interpret it first?

    "Trenberth and Fasullo (TF) [2] believe that missing

    energy has been accumulating at a considerable rate

    since 2005. According to their rough graph, as of 2010

    the missing energy production rate is about 1.0 W/m2,

    which represents the difference between FTOA ~ 1.4 and

    FOHC ~ 0.4 W/m2. It is clear that the TF missing-energy

    problem is made much more severe if FOHC is negative or

    even zero. In our opinion, the missing energy problem

    is probably caused by a serious overestimate by TF of

    FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by

    modeling.

    In summary, we find that estimates of the recent

    (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly

    negative. This does not support the existence of either a

    large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.”

    So it is. Please forgive me sir, for I went straight to the meat, instead of reading every last line...

  • 9 years ago

    Bob and the others have shown the paper itself to be not really up to par

    Then there's the Journal it's not that difficult to notice it is just vol.1, no. 3 and in fact if you go to the Publisher website they have quite a few publications and most of them are only at their 2nd or 3rd editions. The reason takes a little digging because while the 'About Us' link give a nice little Californian set of contacts. The entire site is actually Chinese, yet they have journals with names like "American Journal of Analytical Chemistry" or the "American Journal of Plant Sciences"

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/Index.aspx

    Forget 2nd and 3rd editions ten of the journals in this list are yet to have a 1st edition.

    This is the board - http://www.scirp.org/Journal/EditorialBoard.aspx?J...

    I can't help but find it mildly amusing that people with a number of communist plot theories are quoting a communist source.

    I also assume that this member keeps the publication supplied with sharp razor blades

    Prof. Oleg Khavroshkin - http://www.icbp.ba/documents/Khavrsohkin%20-%20Geo...

    As always fun to find the holes in denier nonsense and so easy.

    I find Davids logic interesting "Douglass co-authored a paper with John Christy... So he must be a denier" actually he's written half a dozen papers with Christy (several of these included S. Fred Singer, yet another denier) and suggesting a 'consistency' with Lindzen and Spencer (two other well established deniers) is meant to prove what exactly.

    There are also several publication in Energy & Environment, setup for the express purpose of publishing 'science' no real journal will touch.

    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/recent-publ...

    Perhaps if deniers don't want their paper "attacked with religious zealotry" they could post papers that are not of the consistency of Swiss cheese from questionable publications and authors solidly linked to groups like Heartland Institute, which is actually the real reason for these papers to give groups like Heartland talking points that appear to be backed by some sort of scientific argument, to date deniers seem to have not bothered to notice that almost all these papers have pretty much the same names on them Lindzen, Christy, Singer, Soon and Spencer

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22604/C...

  • bob326
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Hey, another new paper that adds nothing to our understanding of the climate system! As of yet, according to ARGO, there is little trend in the upper OHC data (0-700 m)... but we already knew this -- that is why the heat is "missing". That Douglass does not find the "missing heat" in the very place we already knew it was missing from tells us little.

    Of course, the fact that Von Schuckmann 2009 found significant quantities of heat below 700m to 2000m and that there is potential for energy to be "hiding" even deeper and in the Arctic where measurements are sparse makes no difference to Douglass; AGW is wrong.

    David,

    Yes, this paper does support the conclusions of Ishii&Kimoto and Levitus on the trend in upper OHC, but it tells us nothing about the missing heat or the radiative imbalance. And you should know by now that there are serious issues with both LC09 and SB10. See [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] for more information on why LC09 is likely incorrect, and [6] for why Spencer's statements on feedbacks/CS are wrong (Spencer himself even notes in his 2010 paper that he's unsure of how his methods and results relate to long-term CS). These are all good references on the missing heat/radiative imbalance topic as well.

    Linlyons,

    Douglass chose the time period 2003-2008 not because it was ideologically convenient, but rather because 2003 is the first year ARGO was in place, and 2008 because it is the end date used in many previous ocean heat content studies. The study might be more interesting had they extended the data to recently, but I'm unsure of the availability or quality of measurements post 2008.

    AMP,

    ARGO is currently the best system in place for measuring OHC in terms of both spatial and temporal resolution and consistency in instrumentation. This is not say that it's perfect, and I'm fairly certain there are significant problems with the ARGO data, but it's the best we got.

    Sources:

    [1] Forester and Gregory 2006, "The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data".

    [2] Tsushima et al 2005, "Radiative damping of annual variation in global mean surface temperature: comparison between observed and simulated feedback".

    [3] Chung et al 2010, "An assessment of climate feedback processes using satellite observations of clear-sky OLR".

    [4] Murphy 2009, "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950".

    [5] Trenberth et al. 2010, "Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation".

    [6] Lin et al. 2010, "Can climate sensitivity be estimated from short-term relationships of top-of-atmosphere net radiation and surface temperature?".

    =======

    Eric,

    I see you're still pushing Pielke Sr.'s line that the heat "cannot" transit to deeper layers without necessarily being detected. This reasoning is just bizarre. Measuring energy in the oceans isn't like counting sheep, and you can't watch this event occur on a TV screen. Sampling is *very* poor in deeper layers, and the resolution required to accurately capture heat flux throughout the oceans is far beyond our current capabilities. Considering this and the poorly understood nature of many ocean circulations, heat could easily be advected to deeper layers without being detected. Evidence for this can be found in Von Schuckmann 2009.

    In any case, your question is misleading. In no way does the Douglass paper come even close to showing radiative balance at the TOA, and it baffles me that they'd claim as much.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    "A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content nomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance."

    We don't have to read any further. The recently published report is excrement. +/- 30% in either direction could only be classified a guess.

    The margin of error is so wide that the statement is a waste of paper or electrons, depending on what it was printed on -- but then again, that's the point, isn't it?

    Edit..... from the first line.... "0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2" -- is that really accurate enough to call it "science?" please.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    "I think these boys just placed their melons on the AGW executioner's block. But we will see if they can publish it, then see what the wolves do."

    Can someone explain the words "if they can publish it", as they apply to this already published paper? Or is Arthur Dent following his fictional namesake into alternative realities?

  • 9 years ago

    I am confused by it. In part because the research in the journals is written for specialists in a particular field and I just can't understand most of the details. But more confusing to me is that this new study seems to discrediting the study by these same two guys just last year.

    In 2009 they said:

    "A large annual term is found in both the implied radiation imbalance and the direct measurements.

    Its magnitude and phase confirm earlier observations that delivery of the energy to the ocean is rapid, thus eliminating the possibility of long time constants associated with the bulk of the

    heat transferred."

    Then in 210 they said:

    "These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance."

    In 2009 there was a rapid transfer of heat to the oceans and in 2010 there was none? Perhaps someone can explain this better. Are these studies by the same people in conflict with each other?

    Source(s): http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Doug... (this is a large pdf and will take a few moments to download)
  • 9 years ago

    >>>The recently published report is excrement. +/- 30% in either direction could only be classified a guess.

    Haha, which explains why there's a ±0.2 W/m^2 error allowance for a range of -0.010 to -0.160 W/m^2. Excellent percentage calculations there Peter.

    Can someone fill in for me why only one source of data was used and why the decided to use data that ranged from a very short period of time that started with the 3rd hottest year and ended with the 10th?

    Edit: Thanks bob.

  • 9 years ago

    Douglass seems to be making a name for himself with consistently flawed studies. First the tropospheric hot spot paper which ignored the uncertainties the data involved. Now a total cherrypick study which only uses ARGO data and only for 5 years. Totally pointless.

    Having read the paper in more detail now, it's even worse than I thought. The paper ignores Lyman (2010), for starters. It also references von Schuckmann and then promply ignores their results, which show OHC increasing. It also references another paper showing warming in depeer oceans, then proceeds to ignore their results as well.

    Basically they ignored all the data showing increasing OHC. I find it hard to believe that this paper made it through peer-review. Their conclusion is that OHC is decreasing because ARGO floats show shallow oceans cooling over a 5 year period. Absolutely horrible paper. A disgrace.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Typically, alarmists have to fall back on their flawed models. If you don't' understand my point, read the whole article, particularly the last paragraph. If the real world doesn't work for you, it is easy to get a model to lie for you.

  • David
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    <SARCASM>Douglass co-authored a paper with John Christy... So he must be a denier.</SARCASM>

    Douglass' conclusions are consistent with Lindzen & Choi, 2009 and Spencer & Braswell, 2010. They are also consistent with at least two recent analyses of Ocean Heat Content (Levitus et al., 2009 and Ishii & Kimoto, 2009)...

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate...

    I'm sure the so-called consensus will ignore and/or attack this paper with their usual religious zealotry.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.