Bishop Hill Mini paradox, major paradox
Feb 15, 2014 Reader Paul K (a regular writer at Lucia's) left this fascinating comment on the thread about the England trade winds paper. As BH regulars know, I don't spend a lot of time on alternative theories of climate change, but I felt this was worthy of an airing.
As Nic correctly points out, from the observed data, the total global ocean heat flux shows a peak around 2001-2005 depending on which dataset one takes. TOA radiative measurements show a peak in net radiative incoming flux somewhere around 1997-2000, driven largely by SW changes in net albedo. Modern MSL data from satellite altimetry (or indeed from tide gauge data) shows a peak in its derivative function around 2001-2003, which should also be a proxy for net heat flux going into the ocean. (Using gravimetric data from GRACE, we can rule out the possibility that the peak in MSL derivative was caused by mass addition – it is a peak clearly driven by thermosteric expansion. There is a useful presentation here by Nerem.
So there is a consistent story from three data sources which says that the net incoming flux hit a peak and has since been decreasing overall for about a decade. This is not compatible with increasing forcing from GHGs and flat or declining tropospheric temperature – a mini paradox, if you will.
The mini-paradox becomes a major paradox when we consider the historical behavior of MSL from tide-guage data. The derivative function of the MSL data shows a dominant and remarkably consistent quasi-60 year cycle. It shows dominant peaks around 1750, 1810, 1870’s and 1940s. (See Jevrejeva 2008.) In other words, the modern peak in the MSL data came in right on time relative to previous recorded oscillatory cycles which date back to 1700. Using the modern peak for calibration, which we know relates to a peak in incoming net flux, we can very reasonably infer that the previous peaks were also due to peaks in net heat flux. The paradox is that these dates for peak incoming flux correspond closely to peaks in the multidecadal oscillations of surface temperature. This is a major bust. This is exactly pi radians out of phase with what we would expect if these cycles were caused by an unforced redistribution of internal heat. (High surface temperatures should induce an increase in outgoing radiation which translates into a decrease in net incoming radiation.) I think that we are therefore led to the inevitable conclusion that these are forced climate oscillations, which means that we have to look for a new flux forcing to explain them, since the current selection box does not have any forcings of the correct frequencies.
I now return to the work of Matthew England. His work adds an important piece to the jigsaw puzzle, even if he himself is failing to appreciate the implications. We saw from Kosaka and Xie 2013 that a large chunk of the late 20th century heating as well as the modern temperature hiatus could be captured by the simple expedient of prescribing sea surface temperatures in a small area of the eastern Pacific. Those temperatures are in reality controlled by ENSO events which are in turn controlled by equatorial trade wind strength and direction. England’s work confirms at least in skeletal form that controlling the wind stress tensor in the same area gives a similar result, even if he is wrong on some of the details.
The question it leaves is: what then controls the equatorial trade winds? The answer was actually known more than 40 years ago when science was still relatively unsullied, but it will not be accepted easily by mainstream climate science today, since the answer makes not one but two major breaches in fundamental assumptions of climate science.
The first part of the answer is that the climate oscillations are triggered by gravitationally forced changes in the angular velocity of the solid Earth. These changes transmit a (non-radiative) momentum flux into the hydrosphere and atmosphere via frictional torque and conservation of angular momentum. These changes explain the fluctuations in trade winds and, just as importantly, the latitudinal meanderings of the jet streams. Before anyone starts calling for the men in white coats, I would suggest that you have a look at this 1976 paper and this. For the excellent correlation apparent in the higher frequency data between Earth’s rotation velocity, atmospheric angular momentum and ENSO events, you might also try this paper.
So it seems that England has probably confirmed that the multidecadal oscillations are driven by atmospheric tides which are driven by a non-radiative orbital forcing. He just hasn’t realised yet that what he has done is to demonstrate that the GCMs are all missing a massively important piece of physics which was considered small enough to be neglected on energetic grounds.
The story doesn’t end there. The orbital forcing is a triggering and control mechanism, but it is “energetically deficient” to explain the full amplitude of the climate oscillations. On my sums the trough-to-peak transfer of energy via momentum flux and friction amounts to something less than 2*10^22 joules during the 60-year cycles. The amplification factor comes from the cloud response to the change in phase of the orbital forcing, which is why we note the dominant effect of SW changes in the radiative signature. This is a feedback mechanism of sorts, but it is not a “temperature dependent” feedback mechanism; it does not correlate simply with global surface temperature, but rather with the phase of orbital forcing. This post is already too long for me to try to explain how that works.
I am hoping if I live long enough to try to get some of this stuff down in more detail in an article for Lucia, but I do keep getting distracted, not to mention beaten up by my wife for wasting time on that climate change rubbish instead of doing something useful.
Reader Comments (58)
Glad to see you have given this comment the prominence that it deserves, your Grace
i believe that gravitational influences are also part of Piers Corbyn's Solar Lunar Action Theory. Whilst his record is not 100%, and he is obviously a maverick who woudl help himself greatly through better and more temperate communication, it seems to me that he has been remarkably successful in forecasting the extreme weather of this winter. I think it would be very interesting to have an ongoing factual thread on his predictions that those who have access to his detailed forecasts could post on retrospectively as to how accurate they have been, especially re extreme weather. Why not set one up Bishop?
Might you offer a link to Paul K's comment? Thanks so much.
Feb 15, 2014 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered Commenter Phoenix
The comment is on the "England,oh England" thread here on Bishop Hill. (I went looking for it at Lucia's...)
A very interesting comment indeed and one that may set the cat amongst the CO2 pigeons...
Ahh. Thanks. I couldn't find it at Lucia's either.
You might find the following interesting as well,
Wilson, I.R.G., 2011, Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation
Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
The General Science Journal, Dec 2011, 3811.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3811
Which Came First? - The Chicken or the Egg?
A Presentation to the 2008 Annual General Meeting of the
Lavoisier Society by Ian Wilson
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
and
El Ninos and Extreme Proxigean Spring Tides
A lecture by Ian Wilson at the Natural Climate Change
Symposium in Melbourne on June 17th 2009.
http://www.naturalclimatechange.info/?q=node/10
...and as a further aid to readers, here's a link to the Jevrejeva 2008 paper mentioned. Paul K is referring to the second panel of figure 3.
I think DeWitt Payne has also referenced this (and other) Cazenave papers during similar discussions at Lucias
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For you Bish, from Douglas Adams:
Interesting matter, this rotational speed of the earth. Being magnetic, the earth that is, it would not surprise me that in the current and of course previous low activity periods of our sun, whatever variable: sunspots or Ap indexes, the magnetic "brake" will influence the Length of Day (LOD) in appreciable manner. Weak sun magnetic field, increased LOD, stronger sun magnetic field decreased LOD. As colder air has a different mass than warmer air, different weather distribution patterns may arise. In shorter LOD situations colder air may move further in the equatorial direction.
Fascinating stuff. Let me try to paraphrase it in layman's Mickey Mouse Speak.
If I understand the current idea, small cyclical, gravitationally induced changes in the rotation of the solid earth cause disturbances in the oceans, since as liquids they are not fixed rigidly to the solid earth. There is slippage and friction as the earth's torque brings the oceans and atmosphere back to match the rotation of the solid earth.
This disturbance of these fluid layers (sea and atmosphere) may influence the radiative balance, for example through changes in cloud coverage. In other words, mechanical disturbance of the oceans and atmosphere can affect climate.
In a way, this reminds me of solar activity whereby the rotation of the fluid plasma surface layer becomes out of sync with the core of the sun and results in distortion of the magnetic field leading to sunspot activity.
All of this impinges on the idea that the larger planets of our solar system continuously affect the gravitational and magnetic fields of the sun and the earth.
It all makes sense to me. It will upset the GHG enthusiasts.
I have a good feeling about this suggested mechanism. Most of my working life has been focussed on innovation and quite often an important breakthrough involves turning conventional wisdom on its head or looking at the problem from a different angle.
This proposal contemplates that mechanical disturbance of the atmosphere and oceans can lead to changes in current flows, trade winds, jet stream and therefore climate. The GHG enthusiasts see everything through the prism of radiation and therefore for them, the changes in the sea and atmosphere have to be a consequence of radiative imbalance.
It is a question of cause and effect.
Oebele bruinsma
I hope you meant to say that cold air has a higher density than warm air.
I think this is nonsense. Changes in the angular velocity of the earth are minute. Far too small to influence the climate.
Paul Matthews
As my small grandson would say, why?
Entropic Man
When did the sea level increase at the level you have given on various threads here actually begin?
it will be interesting to see if Richard Betts pops in with his comments. As Paul K acknowledges this is not new science but as it is not carbon centric science one wonders to what extent it has been properly assessed by the mainstream. In any event there seems to be an opportunity here for us all to push back the frontiers of ignorance a little and we should welcome it accordingly.
Sandy S
The rate of sea level change roughly doubled between 1870 and1990. The rate has stayed pretty constant around 3.2mm/year since then. The acceleration has stopped, for now.
I was vastly entertained by this item on Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/13/battle-for-arctic-concerns-us-ignoring-resource-rich-region-as-ice-recedes/#
Another paradox?
From which we can conclude that additional atmospheric CO2 has an effect only on distribution of energy, not net flux at TOA and in proportion to a diurnal addition of 7 ppbillion ~ b****r all?
Paul Matthews
And could the same thing not perhaps be said about a gas which constitutes 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere?I'm with Schrodinger's Cat — at least to the extent that sometimes by turning the received wisdom on its head you make progress. However since the "best scientific minds" (copyright BBC) are firmly locked into the idea that it must be CO2 wot dun it, I don't expect any honest and objective investigation of alternatives — especially ones which look as if the great and the good (not to mention politicians, eco-activists, and FRSs) won't be able to "do something" about it.
EM: maybe I am just a cantankerous old biddy, but find the idea of measuring 3.2mm of sea level rise quite laughable. Are you aware of how much 3.2mm is? Roughly one eighth of an inch! Even if you claim to truly measure that rise on a tide gauge over one year, I would not believe you; I know the difficulty of measuring that in an enclosed space, with a much more controlled surface than the sea can present. Okay, the sea level has risen 10 inches since 1880; I can accept that. The average rate is then about 1 inch per decade, but I would still contend that that 1 inch could be measurable.
It is, if you wish, the reverse of the, “A whole month’s rain fell in one day!” horror story the media likes to give us; as most months do have days with no rain – some even have almost all the days without rain – so the month’s average will fall over fewer than 30 days; occasionally in as few as 1 day. Kind of takes the wind out of the media’s hyperbole, though.
What IS obvious is that there are far more forces at work influencing the climates than we are yet fully aware of; this is why we have to keep our minds open to alternatives.
i believe that gravitational influences are also part of Piers Corbyn's Solar Lunar Action Theory. Whilst his record is not 100%, and he is obviously a maverick who woudl help himself greatly through better and more temperate communication
That is my biggest criticism of Piers. He simple doesn't realise the damage his poor communications inflict on his otherwise deep knowledge of the Sun, Moon, Earth relationship.
"The rate of sea level change roughly doubled between 1870 and1990."
The average sea level change for stations that have data before 1900 is around 0.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
I hope you meant to say that cold air has a higher density than warm air.
Feb 15, 2014 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
Read what the man said again and again. Then come back and explain why you thought he said anything about density.
Interesting comment and it would gain to be linked to the actual geometry of atmospheric circulation. I recommend this seminal paper of 1993 by Marcel Leroux http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
I also think it is important to examine ENSO on a synoptic level especially when one is looking for a direct physical mechanism. Indexes are based on statistical entities, just like the so called "Azores anticyclone" is a statistical construction. In http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/book/978-3-642-04679-7 Leroux describes the synoptic reality of a El Nino event.
Stephen Richards
To quote oebele bruinsma ".As colder air has a different mass than warmer air, different weather distribution patterns may arise."
The mass of air does not change with temperature. Density does change with temperarure and this does drive weather.
From context, density makes sense. Mass does not.
EM,
Looks like you have your work cut out for you.
http://weather.about.com/od/forecastingtechniques/ss/frontsymbols_2.htm
Let us know when you've corrected everyone in the world who talks about heavy cold air and light warm air.
But I guess a pompous pedant's work is never done.
Re: EM
> The mass of air does not change with temperature. Density does change with temperarure and this does drive weather.
Same volume, same pressure, different temperature = different mass.
Same number of molecules, any temperature, any pressure = same mass.
Can we have a consensus that the science is not yet settled? After all, the ideas outlined by BH would not be worth pursing otherwise.
" beaten up by my wife for wasting time on that climate change rubbish instead of doing something useful."
I know the feeling only too well. If it was left to most wives there would be no climate beyond the wail "I can't put the washing out yet again!"
Entropic man
So the rate of increase started to "accelerate" before the "rapid" increase in atmospheric CO2 but at the end of the Little Ice Age and then stablised whilst the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere increased by about 15% to levels not seen for however many aeons (800K ->5M years) you care to believe?
Sorry to all for the OT post tried a couple of times to pin this down elsewhere.
Same number of molecules, any temperature, any pressure = same mass
Only if also assuming the same composition. Otherwise hydrogen balloons would not rise.
Water vapour has a lower mass per volume than oxygen or nitrogen for the same volume.
Tim Churchill (9:11 PM): rather misogynistic, isn’t it? There are plenty of examples of women concerned about this argument: Slingo and Bennett… okay, bad examples – but how about Jo Nova, and others of her ilk?
Mooloo (9:44 PM): there was a very good example of that on TV several years ago, when a load of helium-filled balloons were to be released to float over to… somewhere – I can’t remember. However, it was a very cold night/morning when the balloons were released – and most of the little blighters just sank to the ground, popping on the vegetation. So, TerryS and others are right; more density gives more mass.
Dang! Why won't you let me stay logged in? I keep forgetting to do it every time!
"It was a very cold night/morning when the balloons were released – and most of the little blighters just sank to the ground, popping on the vegetation. So, TerryS and others are right; more density gives more mass.
Feb 15, 2014 at 10:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent
I never really believed in the Dunning-Kruger effect - until now.
Sandy S
Not quite. The rate of change accelerated from 1870, the same time when the amount of CO2 started to increase.
As for the rest, could you say it more clearly. I want to be absolutely what you are claiming before I reply.
Entropic Man:
Perhaps you should try reading your own posts.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html
"For the period before 1870, global measurements of sea level are not available."
This completely fails the sniff test of reasonableness. We just don't see any big changes in the length of the day. The changes we do see are on the order of 1 second per year which gives a velocity change of the surface of the earth at the equator of 0.000015 metres per second per year or about 1.2 metres per day per year! That is a ridiculously small accelleration by comparison with the observed acceleration and velocity of wind and ocean currents. The notion that this could have any measurable effect of the climate is a massive fail.
The jarring and inappropriate use of words like "tensor" in this also smells to me a bit like someone trying to put a lipstick of scientific respectability onto an unscientific pig.
Bruce Feb 15, 2014 at 6:45 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
==================================================================================
Very interesting table. Sorting by MSL Trend and eyeballing geographic distribution of the negative vs positive trend locations shouts negative = Northern Europe, positive = Far east / southern hemisphere or maybe negative = low volcanic activity, positive = high volcanic activity, particularly high MSL trend sites are Japan, Phillipines/pacific rim areas.
Or am I reading too much into such a qualitative assessment?
I have to agree with Paul Matthew's sentiments on this one.
Weather - and climate - fluctuate at all scales, with the lowest frequencies having the largest fluctuations. The result of this is people seeing patterns everywhere - whether it be trends from CO2 or 60 year fluctuations.
These patterns are intrinsic to the climate system, part of the "initial value problem" and quite unpredictable. I despair when I see people hand-wave linkages like this, whether it is Slingo and her nonsense about the "causes" of the recent rainfall, today's article in the BBC uncritically parroting Dr Francis' nonsense about the jet stream, or this article.
So, given your back of the envelope calculations, I must assume you have also calculated how much of an impact this has had on a body of mass that is nearly 6×10^24 kg. You have, haven't you?
Furthermore, judging by your response, you do not know what a tensor is, or at least, it is not a word you have any need to use with regularity...
EM: you really are pretty thick.
Mark
"The rate of change accelerated from 1870"
Until about 1985. Then it flattened out.
My immediately previous response was directed at Ian H, BTW.
Mark
Mark - yes the earth weighs 6×10^24 kg, but what happens to the rocks within the crust of the earth are irrelevant to the claimed effect on the oceans and atmosphere. As for the "wind stress tensor", you are talking about extremely low pressure and velocity changes in what is very close to an ideal gas. Almost all the components of the tensor would be completely indistinguishable from zero. I find that hilarious -- a bit like using relativistic physics to calculate the motion of a snail. The bottom line is that the observed magnitude of changes in the length of the day create at best immeasurably miniscule forces on the air and water at the surface -- far too tiny to have any observable effect on climate.
Mark - I regret to inform you that you've inspired me to go further.
Lets compute a rate of heating by assuming (generously) that all the kinetic energy in this change of velocity of surface fluids and gases gets converted dissapatively into heat. Look at a cubic metre of water at the equator which is the maximum case in terms of KE. A velocity change of 0.000015 metres per second per year works out to 0.000000112 Joules per year or about 3.5 x 10^(-15) Watts. To put this in perspective that amount of energy would heat our cubic meter of water by 2.7x10^(-14) K per year. Good luck - really good luck - measuring that.
You criticise these calculations as "back of envelope", and indeed they are. But they establish to my satisfaction that the claimed effect is many orders of magnitude away from being significant or even observable. That kind of calculation is conspicuously absent from the article. I prefer my "back of the envelope" to the article's handwaving any day.
CO2 is very dense...
There are paradoxes everywhere if you believe climatologists and their pseudo "fissics."
The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture starts with an assumption that there would be isothermal conditions in a troposphere that was free of radiating (so-called "greenhouse") gases, including water vapour, or free of direct solar radiation.
There are similar conditions in the Uranus troposphere where there is very little methane except in a layer in the uppermost regions. Virtually all the very weak solar radiation reaching the planet (nearly 30 times the distance from the Sun that Earth is) is absorbed and re-emitted back to space by this methane layer where the temperature is a very cold 60K or so, that being the radiating temperature of the planet. There is no internal energy generation that can be convincingly detected, yet the core is at about 5,000K and the base of the troposphere (where there is no surface being heated by any direct Solar radiation) is hotter than Earth's surface.
The existence of isothermal conditions would be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously. Such as state is isentropic, and so the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy for each molecular has a propensity to be equal at all altitudes. This means that there is a temperature gradient, because temperature depends upon the mean kinetic energy, not the gravitational potential energy.
If there were isothermal conditions (an impossibility) then what is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere above any region? Perhaps you would say something like at least 10 degrees of warming. Hence you would say in a dry desert (with say 0.5% water vapour) the warming would be 5 degrees, but in a rain forest with 4.5% water vapour it might be 45 degrees, making the rainforest 40 degrees hotter than the dry desert.
Need I say more about this ludicrous travesty of physics?
This interesting and is also in line with what I have discovered by applying an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) where I have applied feedback on ENSO forcing and on ENSO forecast.
My result show that ENSO is mainly driven by a combination of tidal and magnetic forcing.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/enso-and-tidal-forcing.htm
One test on my forecast is coming up soon. Because there hasn’t been an El Niño since 2010 many experts such as Michael Mann expect ENSO to be in El Niño position at the end of this year.
Well, I expect them to fail also in this specific forecast, as my result indicate that ENSO is going to be in La Niña position at the end of this year.
Time will tell.
Entropic man
I was trying to find out exactly what correlation you were claiming, as it seems to me to be consistent with a warming after the Little Ice Age, with the caveat that there are random non-seasonal accelerations and decelerations as you'd expect with a natural process. As it's one of your frequent posts without much detail normally I wanted some more information that you may have to back up that opinion.
Nullius in verba