Roger Pielke Sr has commented on the Urban & Keller paper on his weblog:
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/

By “unrealized warming in the pipeline”, they mean heat that is being stored within the ocean, which can subsequently be released into the ocean atmosphere. It is erroneous to consider this heat as “unrealized warming”, if the Joules of heat are actually being stored in the ocean. The heat is “realized”; it would just not be entering the atmosphere yet.

As discussed in the Physics Today paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. (Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55), there has been no heating of the upper ocean since mid-2003. Moreover, there has been no heating within the troposphere (e.g. see Figure 7 of the RSS MSU data).

Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline” using the author’s terminology, nor any heating within the atmosphere! Perhaps the heating that was observed prior to 2003 will begin again, however, it is scientifically incorrect to report that there is any heat that has not yet been realized within the climate system.

The answer to the question posted in this weblog “Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”? is NO.

Also, the Pielke Sr and Christy comment on Hansen et al 2005 “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” was bizarrely rejected by Science:

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/Hansen-Science.pdf

Roger Pielke Sr has commented on the Urban & Keller paper on his weblog:
http://climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/

By “unrealized warming in the pipeline”, they mean heat that is being stored within the ocean, which can subsequently be released into the ocean atmosphere. It is erroneous to consider this heat as “unrealized warming”, if the Joules of heat are actually being stored in the ocean. The heat is “realized”; it would just not be entering the atmosphere yet.

As discussed in the Physics Today paper: Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. (Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55), there has been no heating of the upper ocean since mid-2003. Moreover, there has been no heating within the troposphere (e.g. see Figure 7 of the RSS MSU data).

Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline” using the author’s terminology, nor any heating within the atmosphere! Perhaps the heating that was observed prior to 2003 will begin again, however, it is scientifically incorrect to report that there is any heat that has not yet been realized within the climate system.

The answer to the question posted in this weblog “Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”? is NO.

Also, the Pielke Sr and Christy comment on Hansen et al 2005 “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” was bizarrely rejected by Science:

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/Hansen-Science.pdf

“A given surface air temperature change is consistent with either a relatively large heating which is penetrating rapidly into the oceans and delaying some of the surface warming (i.e., a high climate sensitivity and a high ocean diffusivity), or a relatively small heating which is penetrating slowly into the oceans so the surface warming is quickly experienced (i.e., a low climate sensitivity and a low ocean diffusivity). Our analysis suggests that one promising avenue to decide whether the true climate sensitivity is indeed located in the heavy upper tail of current estimates is through improving the skill of the existing ocean observation system to estimate the anthropogenic heat uptake.”

Urban, Nathan M., and Klaus Keller, 2009. Complementary observational constraints on climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04708, doi:10.1029/2008GL036457, February 25, 2009, preprint online at http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kkeller/Urban_Keller_grl_08_submitted.pdf

RE: URBAN & KELLER (2009)

Nir Shaviv [nshaviv@gmail.com]

Guys,

Urban and Keller use the standard 1750-2000 forcing (see end of page 1 of their paper). However, this does not include the real solar forcing which is much higher. As such, you need a large sensitivity from the (wrong) small forcing in order to get the heat content change. Thus, the climate sensitivity they calculate is meaningless.

Cheers
— Nir

Roy Spencer [roywspencer@hotmail.com]

Theirs is not the only possibility. Another is that for a given temperature change AND a given ocean diffusivity, then it can either be the result of

(1) large forcing and low climate sensitivity, or

(2) small forcing and a high climate sensitivity.

I believe it is the former, and I now have satellite evidence of not only low climate sensitivity, but also that the large forcing is due to nature, not mankind.

-Roy

“A given surface air temperature change is consistent with either a relatively large heating which is penetrating rapidly into the oceans and delaying some of the surface warming (i.e., a high climate sensitivity and a high ocean diffusivity), or a relatively small heating which is penetrating slowly into the oceans so the surface warming is quickly experienced (i.e., a low climate sensitivity and a low ocean diffusivity). Our analysis suggests that one promising avenue to decide whether the true climate sensitivity is indeed located in the heavy upper tail of current estimates is through improving the skill of the existing ocean observation system to estimate the anthropogenic heat uptake.”

Urban, Nathan M., and Klaus Keller, 2009. Complementary observational constraints on climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04708, doi:10.1029/2008GL036457, February 25, 2009, preprint online at http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kkeller/Urban_Keller_grl_08_submitted.pdf

RE: URBAN & KELLER (2009)

Nir Shaviv [nshaviv@gmail.com]

Guys,

Urban and Keller use the standard 1750-2000 forcing (see end of page 1 of their paper). However, this does not include the real solar forcing which is much higher. As such, you need a large sensitivity from the (wrong) small forcing in order to get the heat content change. Thus, the climate sensitivity they calculate is meaningless.

Cheers
— Nir

Roy Spencer [roywspencer@hotmail.com]

Theirs is not the only possibility. Another is that for a given temperature change AND a given ocean diffusivity, then it can either be the result of

(1) large forcing and low climate sensitivity, or

(2) small forcing and a high climate sensitivity.

I believe it is the former, and I now have satellite evidence of not only low climate sensitivity, but also that the large forcing is due to nature, not mankind.

-Roy

My wife rented a copy of the movie, Australia (which we will watch sometime this weekend). Since so many folks from the Down-Under frequent this blog, I thought I’d ask if the movie is worth watching, from an Austrailian’s perspective. Anyone?

My wife rented a copy of the movie, Australia (which we will watch sometime this weekend). Since so many folks from the Down-Under frequent this blog, I thought I’d ask if the movie is worth watching, from an Austrailian’s perspective. Anyone?

“Is there a proper name for the fallacy of refutation by pretending not to be able to hear any counter-arguments?”

As it is such a very worthwhile endeavour, I hereby formally name this fallacy (and claim originality) as the ‘Flutterby Effect’.

Just as with the well-known Butterfly Effect, it too may be borne out of chaos (not to mention MEP , viz:

We construct a network of observed climate indices in
the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective
behavior. The results indicate that this network
synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a
steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices,
the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new
climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with
significant changes in global temperature trend and in
ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the
great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence
for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a
state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this
mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
the size and complexity of the climate system.
Citation: Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007),
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

“Is there a proper name for the fallacy of refutation by pretending not to be able to hear any counter-arguments?”

As it is such a very worthwhile endeavour, I hereby formally name this fallacy (and claim originality) as the ‘Flutterby Effect’.

Just as with the well-known Butterfly Effect, it too may be borne out of chaos (not to mention MEP , viz:

We construct a network of observed climate indices in
the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective
behavior. The results indicate that this network
synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a
steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices,
the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new
climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with
significant changes in global temperature trend and in
ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the
great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence
for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a
state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this
mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
the size and complexity of the climate system.
Citation: Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007),
A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.