The fact is that I was wrong!

Update 2016-01-26
There is an error in the calculations in this post as “increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature.” Has not been taken into account.

The conclusion is not valid.

Here is a new post providing the same kind of calculations, hopefully without errors this time: IPCC got all bets covered!

—-

Have you ever wondered how much warming is missing?

This Post contains relevant figures, references to the IPCC report, step by step calculations and link to a spread sheet with easy to follow calculations of:
– The deduced amount of warming
– The observed amount of warming

For 0 – 2000 m ocean depth, from 2005 – 2015,
the temperature increase deduced from the theory put forward by IPCC is :

  • 0,063  K for the lowest limit for radiative forcing (1,2 W / m2)
  • 0,13     K for the central estimate for radiative forcing (2,3 W / m2)
  • 0,19     K for the highest limit for radiative forcing (3,3 W / m2)

A temperature increase of only 0,045 K is reported for this period.

 

Introduction

The core of the scientific method is to compute necessary consequences from the idea, and than check if the deduced consequences match the observations. If the deduced consequences match the observations – the idea is corroborated by that experiment, under those conditions. If the deduced consequences does not match the observations – the idea is wrong.  At least it cannot be claimed that the theory provides a proper understanding of the issue at hand.

Following this line of thought, I will compute the consequences of IPCC´s climate theory and compare it to the observations.

IPCC states that 93 % of the energy – which is absorbed by the 0,01 % of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans – has been accumulating in the oceans. Hence, to check if predictions by IPCC match the observations, we have to look for accumulation of energy in the oceans.

But first, which predictions has IPCC actually made?
IPCC are not very clear about their predictions. Therefore, I will first deduce necessary consequences of the theory put forward by IPCC in the fifth  assessment report.

Here is link to the spread sheet I used:
IPCC – Expected vs observed ocean warming – Excel
(If you think the calculations are wrong, please tell me about the: Right assumptions, right figures or right calculations. Please also provide relevant references.)

The spread sheet should be very easy to follow. One computation in each row. With links to the source for the values I used.

All references to IPCC´s theory in this post refers to:  Working Group I Report “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”.

Predictions by IPCC

IPCC made the following statements in the contributions from Working Group I to the Assessment Report 5 by IPCC:

Radiative Forcing and Equilibrium Radiative Forcing are used to quantify the change in the Earth’s energy balance that occurs as a result of an externally imposed change. They are expressed in watts per square metre (W m–2). … The Equilibrium Radiative Forcing concept defined in AR5 allows rapid adjustments to perturbations, for all variables except for Global Mean Surface Temperature or ocean temperature and sea ice cover.

Ref.: Box TS.2 | Radiative Forcing and Effective Radiative Forcing

And:

  • The total anthropogenic Radiative Forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is
    2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2

Ref.: Summary for policymakers; C. Drivers of Climate Change

By the law of conservation of energy – that amount of energy has to go somewhere!

The following gives a clear indication about where IPCC expects that energy to go.

Ocean warming dominates that total heating rate, with full ocean depth warming accounting for about 93% (high confidence), and warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64%. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents each account for 3% of the total. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.

Ref.: Page 39 ; TS.2.3 Changes in Energy Budget and Heat Content

The majority of energy is supposed to go into the oceans. Hence, we have to look into the oceans to compare the predictions with observations.

Regarding the energy budget in the oceans – we find the following statements by IPCC:

Warming of the ocean between 700 and 2000 m likely contributed about 30% of the total increase in global ocean heat content (0 to 2000 m) between 1957 and 2009.

Ref.: Page 257 ; Oceans; Executive summary; Temperature and Heat Content Changes

30 % of 93% = 27,9% ; 27,9 % of the warming went into the oceans between 700 m and 2000 m.

64 % + 27,9 % = 91,9

Hence IPCC reported that 91,9 % of the energy went into the oceans between 700 m and 2000 m in the period between 1957 and 2009.

Further, IPCC did not report any warming of the oceans between 2000m and 3000m:

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period.

 

This implies that IPCC expects that:
– 93% of the energy captured by the CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere is accumulated in the oceans
– 91,9 % of the energy captured by the CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere is accumulated in the oceans between 0 m  and 2000 m depth.

Unless IPCC believes that energy has now started going into the abyss below 2000 m, the above gives us a pretty good idea about where to look for warming.

From the statements above, we can deduce that IPCC expects that roughly 91,9 % of the energy, captured by the 0,01 % CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere, is accumulated in the oceans between  0 m and 2000 m.

Heat capacity of the oceans from 0 – 2000m

Energy accumulation is not measured directly. What is measured is temperature. Hence the expected amounts of energy J joule must be combined with the heat capacity J / K joule / kelvin to calculate the expected increase in temperature K kelvin.

I really wish IPCC had presented both their predictions, and all relevant figures, in a more structured way.

In addition to the figures presented above, we also need the volume fractions of the ocean layers  for 0 – 2000 m. Fortunately I found the relevant information in a post by Bob Tisdale at Watts Up With That:

Then on the last page of the NOAA presentation here, under the heading of “ARGO Future Possibilities”, they have the bullet point:

-52% of ocean volume below 2000 m

That obviously means that about 48% of the ocean volume is above 2000 meters.

Estimate by Bob Tisdale; Rough Estimate of the Annual Changes in Ocean Temperatures from 700 to 2000 Meters Based on NODC Data

Now I know almost everything I need, to deduce necessary consequences of the theory put forward by IPCC. The rest of the values are found quite easily. See links in the table below.

Deduced amount of warming 0 – 2000 m

Based on statements by IPCC, the information above and additional information linked to in the table below, I can now calculate the expected amount of warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m:

0-2000 m

0-2000 m

0-2000 m

Units

IPCC

lowest

estimate

IPCC  expected

IPCC

highest

estimate

IPCC estimate of total anthropogenic Radiative forcing in 2011 relative to 1750. W / m2

1,1E+00

2,3E+00

3,3E+00

Global surface area 510,072,200 km2 m2

5,1E+14

5,1E+14

5,1E+14

Deduced IPCC estimate of total anthropogenic radiative forcing W

5,8E+14

1,2E+15

1,7E+15

Fraction of energy going into the relevant part of the oceans

9,2E−01

9,2E−01

9,2E−01

Deduced IPCC estimate of amount of energy going into the relevant part of the oceans W

5,3E+14

1,1E+15

1,6E+15

Deduced IPCC estimate of amount of energy going into the relevant part of the oceans per second J / s

5,3E+14

1,1E+15

1,6E+15

Number of seconds per year s

3,2E+07

3,2E+07

3,2E+07

Deduced IPCC estimate for amount of energy going into the relevant part of the oceans J / 1year

1,7E+22

3,4E+22

4,9E+22

Deduced IPCC estimate for amount of energy going into the relevant part of the oceans J / 10year

1,7E+23

3,4E+23

4,9E+23

Mass of all the oceans 1,4 E18 metric tons kg

1,4E+21

1,4E+21

1,4E+21

Relevant part / all oceans

 

Fraction

4,8E−01

4,8E−01

4,8E−01

Specific heat capacity for water J / kg*K

4,0E+03

4,0E+03

4,0E+03

Heat capacity for the relevant part of the oceans J / K

2,7E+24

2,7E+24

2,7E+24

Deduced IPCC estimate for average warming of the relevant part of the oceans. K / year

6,3E−03

1,3E−02

1,9E−02

Deduced IPCC estimate for average warming of the relevant part of the oceans. K / 10year

6,3E−02

1,3E−01

1,9E−01

By the calculations above, it is deduced that during the 10 years from 2005 to 2015, the upper 2000m of the oceans should have warmed by 0,13 K – according to the theory put forward by by IPCC.

Observed warming of the oceans

One place to find historical records over ocean temperature is in the  KNMI climate explorer – where time series for “ocean mean temperatures” can be found.

(I will, for now, disregard the adjustments of the ocean records. I will also have to disregard uncertainty estimates – as decent uncertainty estimates, in accordance with the international standards for expression of uncertainty, are hard to get by.)

Please note that the only reason why I focus on the last 10 years in this post, is that the ARGO buoys have only provided temperature measurements of the oceans down to 2000 m depth in the oceans for about so long. Thats the most reliable historical record we have for the oceans.

The following curve is generated by the KNMI climate explorer by  selecting: Ocean mean temperature; 0-2000 m; 2005 – 2015 and 12 months low pass filter:

For 0 – 2000m I find the following:

KNMI explorer 0 - 2000m  2005 - 2015

(Click the figure to enlarge)

From that figure we can simply take the difference between the first point in the time series and last point in the time series.

I would say the observed warming 0 – 2000 m is pretty close to 0, 045 K.

Comparison of expected temperature with  observed observed temperature.

Now the exiting part begins. It is time to compare the predictions with observations.

In terms of temperature:
For 0 – 2000 m ocean depth, a temperature increase of 0,045 K is reported for the period from 2005 – 2015:

The temperature increase deduced from the theory put forward by IPCC is :

  • 0,063  K for the lowest limit for radiative forcing (1,2 W / m2)
  • 0,13     K for the central estimate for radiative forcing (2,3 W / m2)
  • 0,19     K for the highest limit for radiative forcing (3,3 W / m2)

Hence, the observed amount of warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m is far below the lowest limit deduced from IPCC´s estimate for anthropogenic forcing.

 

Estimating radiative forcing from observed warming of oceans from 0 – 2000 m

There is also another perspective to this. We can turn the calculation around, and estimate  the required radiative forcing to produce the observed warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m. (By using the same figures and calculations used above to deduce expected warming of the oceans).

The calculation is as follows:

0-2000 m

0-2000 m

0-2000 m

Units

IPCC

lowest

estimate

IPCC  expected

IPCC

highest

estimate

Observed ; Reported by KNMI climate explorer:
Observed ; Figures from KNMI climate explorer K / 10year

4,5E−02

Heat capacity for the relevant part of the oceans J / K

2,7E+24

Estimated amount of energy required for the observed increase of temperature J / 10year

1,2E+23

Estimated amount of energy required for the observed increase of temperature J / 1year

1,2E+22

Number of seconds per year s

3,2E+07

Estimated amount of energy accumulation in relevant part of the oceans J / s

3,8E+14

Estimated amount of energy going into relevant part of the oceans W

3,8E+14

IPCC expected fraction of accumulated energy going into relevant part of the ocean Fraction

9,2E−01

Estimated total radiative forcing based on observed warming in relevant part of the oceans W

4,1E+14

Global surface area 510,072,200 km2 m2

5,1E+14

Observed:
Estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing based on observed warming of the relevant part of the oceans and IPCC estimate for how much warming is expected to go into that part of the oceans W / m2

8,1E−01

Predicted:

Lowest

Central estimate

Highest

IPCC estimate of total anthropogenic Radiative forcing in 2011 relative to 1750.

Ref. IPCC Summary for policy makers C. Drivers of Climate Change.

«The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is

2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2»

W / m2

1,1E+00

2,3E+00

3,3E+00

 

Hence, by IPCC climate theory, an anthropogenic forcing of 0,81 W/m2 is sufficient to explain the reported warming of the oceans between 0 – 2000 m ocean depth.

  • The lowest estimate by IPCC is 1,1 W / m2 (95 % confidence level)
  • The central estimate by IPCC is 2,3 W / m2
  • The highest estimate by IPCC is 3,3 W / m2 (95 % confidence level)

Observed warming of the oceans only accounts for 0,81 W / m2 of the predicted 2,3 W / m2. This means that close to 2/3 of the predicted energy accumulation is unaccounted for.

The climate theory put forward by United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems to be wrong. The predictions are not consistent with the observations.

 

Other possible explanations by IPCC

It is then time to expose the idea that IPCC has overestimated the net effect of CO2 to the fiercest attempt to falsification. Could it be that the observed warming is reasonable in light of the theory put forward by IPCC?

This analysis covers the years from 2005 to 2015. The fifth assessment report by IPCC was issued in 2013. IPCC´s estimate for anthropogenic forcing is for 2011 – pretty much in the middle of the period analyzed in this post.So the figures should be representative for that period.

The following figure from “8.5.1 Summary of Radiative Forcing by Species and Uncertainties ” shows clearly the predicted magnitude of both Anthropogenic and Natural radiative forcing.

Fig8-15 Radiative forcing of climate between 1750 and 2011

Figure 8.15 | Bar chart for RF (hatched) and ERF (solid) for the period 1750–2011, where the total ERF is derived from Figure 8.16. Uncertainties (5 to 95% confidence range) are given for RF (dotted lines) and ERF (solid lines).

There are a few references to natural forcings in the the report, but this section contains the essence:

Consistent with Assessment Report 4, it is assessed that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in Well Mixed Green House Gas concentrations. WMGHGs contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C over the period between 1951 and 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely to be between –0.6°C and 0.1°C and from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C.

Ref: Page 66; TS.4.2 Surface Temperature

And the following section confirms that IPCC regard the natural radiative forcing to be zero.

(e.g., the volcanic RF change between 2007–2011 and 1978–1982 is 0.06 W m–2 and the representative change in solar irradiance over the 1980–2011 period is –0.06 W m–2) with total natural RF of 0.0 (-0.1 to +0.1) W m–2.

Ref: Page 700;  8.5.2 Time Evolution of Historical Forcing

The following figure corroborates that impression:

FigFAQ1.1-1 natural variation

FAQ 1.1, Figure 1 | Schematic diagram showing the relative importance of different uncertainties, and their evolution in time. (a) Decadal mean surface temperature change (°C) from the historical record (black line), with climate model estimates of uncertainty for historical period (grey), along with future climate projections and uncertainty. Values are normalised by means from 1961 to 1980. Natural variability (orange) derives from model interannual variability, and is assumed constant with time.

Hence, for all practical purposes, IPCC regards the natural variability of energy accumulation to be about zero.

Recall that accumulation of energy in atmosphere, ice and continents is predicted to be only 7 % of the total accumulation of energy, and that about 2 / 3 or 60 % of the predicted energy accumulation in the oceans is unaccounted for. This means that the missing energy cannot possibly have gone into melting of ice, warming of the continents or warming of the atmosphere. We would for sure have noticed.

Ref.:

Ocean warming dominates that total heating rate, with full ocean depth warming accounting for about 93% (high confidence), and warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64%. Melting ice (including Arctic sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers) and warming of the continents each account for 3% of the total. Warming of the atmosphere makes up the remaining 1%.

Ref.: Page 39 ; TS.2.3 Changes in Energy Budget and Heat Content

 

To further illustrate this:

Levitus et al. (2012) made a rather silly remark in their paper:
World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010

We have estimated an increase of 24 E22 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09 C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F).  This transfer of course will not happen; earth’s climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955.

– Levitus et al. (2012)

However, I will borrow that example.

Given that:
– 2,2 E23 J ; are missing from the oceans for the time periode from 2005 -2015 and
– The heat capacity of the whole atmosphere is 5,1 E21 J / K:
I have estimated that 2,2 E23 J , representing a volume mean warming of 0,084 K of the 0-2000 layer of the World Oceans, are missing in accordance with IPCC´s climate theory, for the period from 2005 – 2015 . If this heat were instantly applied to the whole atmosphere it would result in a mean warming of the atmosphere by approximately 40 C.

As should be clear from that example – there is:
– no way the missing amount of energy has gone into the atmosphere
– no way the missing amount of energy have melted arctic or antarctic ice
– beyond reason to think that the continents have accumulated that amount of energy

It is also beyond reason to think that 2/3 of the energy, which was supposed to be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere from 2005 to 2015:
– failed to warm the atmosphere
– passed the upper 2000 meters of the oceans, (which used to accumulated all the energy up until 2013).

The only possible idea is that the missing energy must have passed the atmosphere and the upper 2000 m of the oceans before it was sequestered in the oceans below 2000 m, where it cannot currently be measured. But that is an unreasonable and unscientific claim to make.

Karl Popper warned about such unscientific approach :

… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible

Ref. Karl Popper; The logic of scientific discovery; Page 20

IPCC also states that they have low confidence in the relationship between CO2 and deep-ocean temperature. When IPCC has low confidence about something they really don´t have a clue.

Although new reconstructions of deep-ocean temperatures have been compiled since AR4 (e.g., Cramer et al., 2011), low confidence remains in the precise relationship between CO2 and deep-ocean temperature (Beerling and Royer, 2011).

Ref: Page 398 ; 5.3.1 High-Carbon Dioxide Worlds and Temperature

I cannot see any mechanism identified in the IPCC report which can explain the lack of warming.

 

Conclusion

As the theory is inconsistent with the observations, IPCC can choose between the following 2 options:

1. State that the theory put forward in the fifth assessment report must be wrong
2. Be unscientific – by providing ad-hoc hypothesis or change definitions

It is not a reasonable option for IPCC to claim being right.

There is only one scientific conclusion to make from this. The theory put forward by IPCC must be wrong, the theory is falsified.

 

It seems appropriate to draw the attention to the following clip by Richard Feynman:

 

With the greatest wish to be corrected
Best Regards
Science or Fiction?

Note: If you think the calculations are wrong, please tell me about the: Right premises, right assumptions, right figures or right calculations. Please also provide relevant references.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “The fact is that I was wrong!

  1. Fun napkin math, though not likely to be serious. At quick scan a few of the assumptions that may be problematic include (a) you are assuming the only thing that has been operating on the climate is anthropogenic greenhouse forcing. In reality, the #2 external forcing has been anthropogenic aerosols, which slightly shade the air and cool it, significantly counteracting greenhouse warming, (b) you are ignoring Planck response – I’m not sure how significant in this context, maybe not, but as the earth warms it gets better at releasing heat to space (thermal IR) as well (a lot of amateur physics critiques like this, e.g. “there can’t be positive feedback because the earth hasn’t had runaway warming”, trip over this concept.) (c) you are assuming the RF as of 2015 was in effect in 2005, right?, maybe not a huge difference.

    I do think there is a good question here as I have seen some contradictory statements about the proportion of RF going into oceans and the IPCC 93% figure that I haven’t totally figured out myself. I will ask some questions and see if I can find anything else out for you. Although your major goal seems to be reinforcing your a priori conviction that scientists are incompetent – combined with a desire to pedantically lecture them – it’s not as if you are *100%* unwilling to learn what the scientific claims actually are (which is somewhat rare in WUWT circles) and for that nonzero amount of intellectual curiosity I express appreciation.

    Like

    • Regarding comment ( c):

      The figure I´m using for radiative forcing is for 2011 as compared to 1750. 2011 is pretty much in the middle of the period from 2005 – 2015 – the period I am investigating here, so I think it can be said that it is representative.

      However, there is one question I asked myself, which I did not mention in the post. I noted that the radiative forcing is compared to 1750, so theoretically it could be thought that the effect had started to level off. My qualitative judgement about that possibility was that I found that unlikely. CO2 level in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing.Further it is stated in the IPCC report:
      «Due to the long time scales of this heat transfer from the surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries, even if GHG emissions are decreased or concentrations kept constant.» (WGI;AR5;page 1033)
      I have not found relevant figures for an quantitative evaluation of this question.

      Like

      • So the response I got was to say that (b) is the main factor you missed. The radiative forcing measurement is relative to 1750, but the system has had over two centuries to respond to that forcing as it ramped up. So today, the actual top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance is smaller because the surface has heated up ~0.9 deg C and is radiating away more heat (cooling itself off more effectively. Basically, some of the heat you are saying is ‘expected’ has been lost to space.) Physically it is the TOA imbalance over the last decade that represents the energy the theory needs to account for. Here is the comment:

        “He’s ignoring that temperatures have already risen so as to partly offset this change in forcing. In other words, since 1750, there has been a net change in anthropogenic forcing of about 2.3Wm-2, but there has also been an increase in temperature of almost 0.9oC. This acts to reduce the top-of-the-atmosphere flux, so that the system heat uptake rate (most of which goes into the oceans) is smaller than the change in anthropogenic forcing.

        The equation you can use is the following.

        dN = dF – \lambda dT,

        where dN is the current system heat uptake rate, dF is the net change in anthropogenic forcing, \lambda is the feedback response, and dT is the change in temperature. For an ECS of about 2.5oC per doubling of CO2, \lambda = 1.5 W m^{-2} K^{-1}. If dF = 2.3 Wm^{-2} and dT = 0.9 K, then you can solve for dN to get

        dN = 2.3 – 1.5 \times 0.9 = 0.95 Wm^{-2}.

        A bit higher than the 0.8 Wm-2 you show which is partly because I should have averaged over a decade, rather than doing something this simple. However, the bottom line is that simply using the change in anthropogenic forcing is definitely wrong.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thank you very much, I just realized that: “net Top Of Atmosphere downward radiative flux” isn´t the net value.

          Thank you very much for correcting me on this. And providing the way of combining the figures. I will make a note at the beginning of the post.

          Like

          • I don’t think it is the “net”-ness that is the main question, nor the “fixed climatological values” that are involved in the distinction between “traditional” RF calculations and “effective radiative forcing” (I am not 100% sure on the implications of that latter one, “In calculations of RF for well-mixed greenhouse gases and aerosols in this report, physical variables, except for the ocean and sea ice, are allowed to respond to perturbations with rapid adjustments”… the “fixed” values then are ocean sea ice.)

            Rather it is simply a very core definition question; the core RF is defined as a delta from 1750. (And you need to define RF relative to some time point as it is inherently a time-bound quantity; the total RF relative to last hour’s state of radiative balance is a negligible difference after all.) So it is an inaccurate application of the figure to apply it to the past ten years and expect that much heat accumulation; it is physically meaningless. The question you are posing has to do with integrating the TOA energy imbalance over the time range of interest (for each year, TOA imbalance was such and such W/m2, and so that year this much energy should have accumulated), but the TOA imbalance in a given year is smaller than the RF since 1750.

            So it raises the question of what the RF figures *are* good for. For one thing they can be calculated based on more directly observed physical properties (application of Stefan-Boltzmann etc. to calculate greenhouse forcing). And because it takes time for all responses (Planck i.e. the earth warming catches up ‘slowly’ on human timeframe due to ‘thermal lag’ via ocean heat uptake, and feedbacks) looking at the RF gives a basis for thinking about ‘what is the net perturbation we have imposed on earth’s energy balance, and from that where does physics predict we will therefore end up’?

            While TOA imbalance is a critical value, they cannot currently directly measure it with high accuracy via satellite (i.e. precisely measure in energy terms all incoming non-reflected and all outgoing thermal radiation), they have only estimated measurements. Climate scientists of course are constantly trying to fill such measurement gaps, but sometimes are held up on congressional approval etc; in the meantime they triangulate looking at all variables.

            So the sad reality is that these critically interesting figures – ocean heat uptake and TOA energy imbalance, both just aren’t measured with high accuracy yet. But the range of inaccuracy is not so high as to cast fundamental questions on AGW or known physics, and the measurements and inferences that are available heavily and repeatedly validate theory (in the quite classical Popperian way).

            For example, the fact that AIRS measurements of changes in spectrum bites in outgoing longwave so exactly matched that which was predicted via theory was a strong, classical validation of the radiative transfer theory underlying modern climate science and AGW. A good essay on this by geophysicist Pierrehumbert:

            https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

            supported by e.g.

            2013: D. Chapman, P. Nguyen, M. Halem, A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS, Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery XIX, 874313,SPIE 8743, April 29, 2013
            “We have extended this effort by measuring the annual rate of change of AIRS all-sky Outgoing Longwave Spectra (OLS) with respect to greenhouse forcings… Decadal trends for AIRS spectra from 2002-2012 indicate continued decrease of -0.06 K/yr in the trend of CO2 BT (700cm-1 and 2250cm-1), a decrease of -0.04 K/yr of O3 BT (1050 cm-1), and a decrease of -0.03 K/yr of the CH4 BT (1300cm-1). Observed decreases in BT trends are expected due to ten years of increased greenhouse gasses”
            http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262

            (It probably goes without saying that I do not think your presumptions are very reasonable, i.e. to think you can easily do some afternoon calculations and reveal an entire century-old branch of science as fundamentally broken, but I understand that is a disagreement and that sites like WUWT exist to promote that point of view. By all means keep poking, more power to you, I appreciate the opportunity to improve my understanding of these concepts myself and genuinely appreciate the acknowledgement here.)

            Like

        • Interesting though – that if we take into account that as there has been an increase in temperature of almost 0.9oC since 1750. The cloud feedback parameter is about the same magnitude as the “current system heat uptake rate.”

          Figure 7.10 | Cloud feedback parameters as predicted by GCMs for responses to CO2 increase including rapid adjustments. Total feedback shown at left, with centre light- shaded section showing components attributable to clouds in specific height ranges (see Section 7.2.1.1), and right dark-shaded panel those attributable to specific cloud property changes where available. The net feedback parameters are broken down in their longwave (LW) and shortwave (SW) components. Type attribution reported for CMIP3 does not conform exactly to the definition used in the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) but is shown for comparison, with their ‘mixed’ cat- egory assigned to middle cloud.

          Like

        • Thank you very much again for correcting me. I really appreciate the tremendous effort you have put into this.

          It was stupid of me to think that I could easily do some afternoon calculations and reveal an entire century-old branch of science as fundamentally broken. I look forward to look into the AIRS measurements of changes in spectrum.

          However, my global average energy balance calculations to predict ocean warming based on IPCC figures now seems to be spot on the observations.

          What I see, however is that IPCC provides a quite wide estimate for global warming and no best estimate. IPCC couldn´t possibly miss for any reasonable amount of warming. I look forward to perform a full uncertainty analysis for ocean warming based on IPCC figures.

          Here is my new post on estimated ocean warming compared to predicted ocean warming:

          IPCC would be spot on for any ocean warming!

          Like

  2. This 2013 post on ATTP seems relevant to a similar WUWT type napkin claim:

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/willis-and-the-ocean-forcing/

    highlighting that the right comparison is to TOA energy imbalance (which factors in the items I listed in previous reply).

    It also happens to offer this bit of advice that you, like most in the WUWT camp, will perhaps ignore as a form of the dreaded appeal to the existence of scientific expertise and knowledge:

    “If I can give them some advice, it is this. If something seems surprising it’s worth checking that you didn’t completely mess-up your calculation. The difference between good scientists and bad scientists is not that good scientists get all their calculations right first time, it’s that they check their calculations when the results don’t seem quite right (in fact, they normally check them anyway, just to be sure).”

    Also this article from July offers comparisons of ocean heating as predicted by models with observations, showing good agreement (a bit more warming than predicted, but not by a lot). This is a more real comparison as CMIP5 projections will incorporate all of the understood factors in climate physics:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/20/oceans-warming-faster-than-climate-models-predicted

    Like

    • I used Effective Radiative Forcing in my calculations:

      “ERF (Effective Radiative Forcing) is the change in net TOA (net Top Of Atmosphere) downward radiative flux after allowing for atmospheric temperatures, water vapour and clouds to adjust, but with surface temperature or a portion of surface conditions unchanged. Although there are multiple methods to calculate ERF, we take ERF to mean the method in which sea surface temperatures and sea ice cover are fixed at climatological values unless otherwise specified. Land surface properties (temperature, snow and ice cover and vegetation) are allowed to adjust in this method.”

      However, it could be that the “net Top Of Atmosphere downward radiative flux” isn´t the net value.
      It seems like sea surface temperature and sea ice cover are “fixed at climatological values”.

      I will have to look further into that.

      Like

  3. Pingback: IPCC would be spot on for any ocean warming | Science or fiction?

  4. i don’t care about the calculations but i totally admire the intransigent devotion to being right – as opposed to craving the appearance of it.
    that displays a quality of character that’s all too rare
    yet that’s what makes all the good things happen.

    a humorous metaphor for this i call ‘the mascara moustache’
    it’s where a kid applies mascara to his lip so it appears to be a moustache.
    but it isn’t one, and instead of convincing anyone of his adulthood, it merely betrays his failed aspirations and fraudulence.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s