Still Following the Heat

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:08 AM GMT on May 07, 2010

Share this Blog
5
+

Still Following the Heat - Bumps and Wiggles (5):

Introduction: This is the fifth in a series on understanding climate variability, global warming, and what we might do about it. The series focuses on the past 30 years and the next 30 years. There has been so much going on it has become a bit of a ramble, but it’s a blog – so.

The basic idea in this series is that climate model projections and observational verifications are precise enough to tell us with extremely high confidence that the Earth’s surface will warm because of increasing carbon dioxide. With this knowledge in hand, a new standard is evolving in climate modeling, which is more in the spirit of traditional weather predictions. That is, more specific information about what is going to happen at a certain place at a certain time. To reach this new standard, it becomes imperative that we better quantify the bumps and wiggles in the observations for the last 30 years and use this information to develop our prediction skills for the next 30 years. It is no longer adequate to simply say that – given the observed natural variability, that any discrepancies between existing projections and observations are, formally, small. That is, they are noise.

Improving our ability to diagnose the discrepancies between model projections and observations challenges all aspects of the scientific investigation of the climate. Better observations are needed to sample climate variability. Better models are needed, and in particular, we will have to quantify better how pieces fit together and interact. Pieces? When we develop hypotheses, theories and predictive models, we break the climate system into pieces. One piece might be the type of convective cloud that causes thunderstorms, and that piece has to fit together with all of the other pieces that make up the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere has to fit together with the ocean and the land and the glaciers and the ice sheets and the sea ice and the trees and the people – it is a big problem. An important and understudied (I assert) part of climate science is “how do the pieces fit together.” While we know a lot, if we are going to understand the bumps and wiggles, then we are going to have to know more. (And for those who want to say it’s just a theory.)

So we break down the problem, and so far in this series (all linked below), we have talked about the Sun and the carbon dioxide that comes from volcanoes and “following the heat.” Of these the most important is following the heat. This is important because if you take a simple look at the warming due to carbon dioxide, the observed warming of the Earth’s surface is not as high as predicted. So what is wrong? In the second blog of the series we followed the heat into the ocean. Broadly in the last 30 years the heat content of the ocean has increased, and that is a far more convincing measure of a warming planet than the surface air temperature measurements. I want to revisit this because of a recent perspective by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, who, investigating the recent bumps and wiggles, ask the question - why isn’t the ocean warming even faster? There is still missing heat. But first a diversion.

In the third entry of this series I introduced Simple Earth. Read that entry if you want the full description of the figure. Below is the same figure, but there has been one thing added to the figure. Namely, the blurry, reddish line on the surface. What this line represents is that if greenhouse gases increase, then there will be warming at the surface. (There will also be cooling in, say, the upper troposphere.)



Figure 1: Simple Earth 2: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate and surface heating.

I also argued in that third entry that in the end, we were truly concerned about climate, climate change and humans. Sure we can dismiss the current warming as some cycle, but that takes humans and human-care out of the picture, and it is in our best interest to always think about climate and climate change in a human context. So when we think about it in the human context, we start to wonder about the warming at the surface, and especially, at the surface over land. Of course most of the Earth’s surface is ocean, and heat goes into the ocean. That’s what I represent in this figure:





Figure 2: Simple Earth 3: Some basic ingredients of the Earth’s climate. There is heat going into the ocean. (This is simple Earth, so this is vastly over simplified heat transport.)

So this brings us back to Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo. In Science Magazine on April 16, 2010, they have a Perspective, where they discuss missing heat. The point of their article is that if you look at the heat budget of the Earth from satellites in space, we can measure that the Earth is not currently in balance. Heat is staying on the planet; hence, it must be warming. If you focus on the past five years, then the planet is just not warming as fast as it should. They do not say that the basic conclusions that the surface of the Earth is warming and will warm more are incorrect. Again, neither they nor their data challenge those foundational results, but if you look at the details, the bumps and wiggles, then we have some work left to do to fully understand what is going on. They conclude that now that geoengineering is entering our discussion, we really must be able to understand these bumps and wiggles.

This heat will be found, probably in the deep ocean, where we don’t have such good observations. The discrepancy will be explained. It is, ultimately, better observations that Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo call for. (The discussion of the paper in blogs amongst both scientists and politically motivated sorts is pretty interesting. ( 1 , 2 , 3))

During my career, I have been fortunate enough to have some scientific successes – figured out something new, helped build an algorithm that got some use, or figured out a technique that mattered. Each time the result seemed big and significant in the moment. It’s not long after getting such a result that it seems mundane, perhaps almost self-evident – why did it take so long to figure that out? This is a little of what we are talking about here. So when Trenberth and Fasullo say,

“So, although some heat has gone into the recordbreaking loss of Arctic sea ice, and some has undoubtedly contributed to the unprecedented melting of Greenland and Antarctica, it does not add up to anywhere near enough to account for the measured energy difference at the top of the atmosphere.” (Emphasis mine.)

They are looking at the next problem, the bumps, the wiggles. They, their analysis, their observations offer no serious relief from the warming, the sea level rise, and the changing weather.


r

Bumps and Wiggles (1): Predictions and Projections

Bumps and Wiggles (2): Some Jobs for Models and Modelers (Sun and Ocean)

Bumps and Wiggles (3): Simple Earth

Bumps and Wiggles (4): Volcanoes and Long Cycles




And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 295 - 245

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Quoting skepticall2:


Yes we can talk about change which happens 4 times a year in most parts of the Earth.


Negative you are incorrect! Rick Roods blog is about climate change not cycles. Can you read the title?

Climate Change

Last Updated: 1:54 AM GMT on May 08, 2010 %u2014 Last Comment: 5:39 PM GMT on May 13, 2010
Still Following the Heat


Posted by: RickyRood, 4:08 AM GMT on May 07, 2010

Still Following the Heat - Bumps and Wiggles (5):
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
bump
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Negative you are incorrect! Rick Roods blog is about climate change not cycles. Can you read the title?
Quoting skepticall2:


You mean climate cycle. We get change 4 times a year.


Negative you are incorrect! Rick Roods blog is about climate change not cycles. Can you read the title?

Climate Change

Last Updated: 1:54 AM GMT on May 08, 2010 %u2014 Last Comment: 5:39 PM GMT on May 13, 2010
Still Following the Heat


Posted by: RickyRood, 4:08 AM GMT on May 07, 2010

Still Following the Heat - Bumps and Wiggles (5):
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting skepticall2:


Why don't you look those up? Just like you told me to look up what the temperature of the Earth should be at. This isn't an oil blog I don't feel like talking about it anymore because there isn't much being brought up here that people haven't thought of.


I tried looking it up but I couldn't find the information. Did you have any luck? If you don't think oil has anything to with climate change then I don't know how to help you!
Sorry.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Pressure differential isn't that great between well and ocean depth because if it were it would blowing out many times quicker than it is in this video.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting skepticall2:


If you can test it with the pressure for it and the oil rushing through it on land than be my guest. I bet it won't work.


I assure you it will work! What is the wall thickness of the pipe and its alloy? What is the outside diameter vs the inside diameter of the pipe??
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting skepticall2:


Your thinking that they just didn't think of the "easiest" thing to fix it at all? My friend told me this the first week then said it wouldn't work which makes complete sense.


Test it up on land I bet it does work. Test it under water I bet it will still work.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting skepticall2:


Down in the gulf where the pressure is great. I really think they have thought about this sounds unprofessional not to.


How do you know unless you ask?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
A hundred ton press could do it easy!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting skepticall2:


The pressure from the oil is to great that was probably the first thing they thought of unless it is on the don't think of this list because it won't work.


What is the differential pressure between the well and the ocean at that depth? I am sure the hydraulics are more than up to the task to pinch the pipe off!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting martinitony:


Cyclone, maybe you could grab some scuba gear and a blow torch and swim down there and take care of things. Make sure you wear something warm and carry a flashlight.


Just what we need a wise guy at a time like this!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Why don't the scientist pinch the leak off hydraulically and then blast weld the pipe together to stop the leak?


Cyclone, maybe you could grab some scuba gear and a blow torch and swim down there and take care of things. Make sure you wear something warm and carry a flashlight.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Why don't the scientist pinch the leak off hydraulically and then blast weld the pipe together to stop the leak?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
I never had the intention to use Antarctica to disprove globla issues


Whats a Globla issue..?

Im lost....?

Imagine dat
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Red is oil on the shore already. Tunnels would have prevented this!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Crony Capitalism, that's what it's about.

as to climate

As to the world

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- BP knew of problems with an offshore well hours before it exploded last month, spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, a House committee chairman said Wednesday.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the oil company told the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight privately that the well failed a key pressure test just hours before it exploded on April 20.
The test indicated pressure was building up in the well, which could indicate oil or gas was seeping in and could lead to an explosion, said Waxman.

"Yet it appears the companies did not suspend operations, and now 11 workers are dead and the Gulf faces an environmental catastrophe," he said, asking why work wasn't stopped on the well.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
How much oil can that well pump into the GOM potentially?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
Quoting crucilandia:
262

again showing inability to discuss one issue.

I never had the intention to use Antarctica to disprove globla issues


But you did!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 132 Comments: 20521
262

again showing inability to discuss one issue.

I never had the intention to use Antarctica to disprove globla issues
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
# 261

Very reliable rate estimates if one has to go over all this to make sense of what they are measuring:

1. High degree and order spherical harmonics of GRACE gravity solutions are dominated by noise

2.The exact cause of the noise is not certain, but noise is significantly suppressed by removing correlated variations in coefficients

3. once data is filtered they apply a a 300 km Gaussian smoothing

4. then, the mean of all 43 monthly solutions removed

5. After filtering, surface mass change field is estimated from each of the 43 solutions

6. estimate of apparent mass rate that will include contributions from interannual and decadal fluctuations, due to the brevity of the time series

7. the GRACE orbit configuration and errors in the S2 tide model make alias relatively strong

8.there is evidence of remaining problems in some locations

9. Further analysis is required to remove biases from the apparent rates introduced by a limited range of spherical harmonics, Gaussian smoothing, and other processing steps, and to obtain a separate estimate for ice loss

10. We focus efforts on several geographical regions with relatively large apparent rates. (cherry picking)

11. Errors due to inadequate atmospheric and oceanic models used in GRACE processing are significant

12. Model rates and region shapes are adjusted until there is general agreement with the GRACE map (force the data to show what you want)

Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
KSC Live Feeds


Ch 4
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
258

it is hard to deal with a non-scientist, the focus of our discussion has been the temperature and ice sheet trends in Antarctica.

michaelSTL was showing irrelevant and incorrect graphs.
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
this is what you should have posted. Note the cooling in antarctica



Color coded map of decadal trends in MSU channel TLT (1979 - 2009). MSU/AMSU data are produced by Remote Sensing Systems
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
254

learn what brightness temperature means first
Member Since: March 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212
Anyone want some Whiskey..?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
Apparently the details of the proposed climate bill have been leaked here.
Link
Figured everybody would be interested. I have no comment on it myself; it will take too long to download until I get somewhere with a more favorable broadband signal.


I couldn't copy from the link, but the first point says that consumers will come out on top. These people, Kerry/Lieberman, believe in magic. All energy will cost more and be taxed higher, but the consumer will be unaffected. Yeah, sure. They'll just get the money from the energy companies who will gladly give up all their profits and even operate at a loss so that the consumer pays less. On top of that there will be plenty of extra money for the trading scheme guys to rake off the top, like GE and Al Gore and Goldman. What a wonderful world.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Antarctica is a desert:

"Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth. The coldest natural temperature ever recorded on Earth was −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) at the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983.[31] For comparison, this is 11 °C (20 °F) colder than subliming dry ice. Antarctica is a frozen desert with little precipitation; the South Pole itself receives less than 10 cm (4 in) per year, on average. "

Therefore posting that ice mass has dropped (the abstract posted below) is like posting that the Sahara has had some really dry years. It is a bogus concept because there is no loss do to higher temperatures. It could only be due to lack of precipitation and ice evaporation, sublimation.

Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970

Viewing: 295 - 245

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.