Bishop Hill Stratospheric persistence
Nov 4, 2014 Climate: Models Climatologists are nothing if not persistent. A new paper by a large team of climate scientists, among them Susan Solomon and Ben Santer, reckons it has found the reason for the model-observations divergence. I think this brings the tally of explanations to over 40 now. The correct answer, it seems, is that aerosol cooling, in particular that due to volcanoes, has been severely underestimated:
Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth (AOD) above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, AERONET and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at mid to high latitudes, and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be −0.19 ± 0.09 Wm−2. This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12 °C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km.
I'm not sure what they've actually done, since the paper is paywalled. No doubt the credibility of their claims will be examined over the next couple of days.
Reader Comments (94)
It's a ritual.
- BBD
- BitBucket
- ??? [forgotten their name - was convinced it made sense talking about the evidence for things that had not yet happened - who was it? BYIJ had subsequent corespondence with them]
- Raff
- ? Onbyaccident ?
There is a pattern:
- AGW Believer arrives and seems to expect to convince BH regulars of their foolishness by the incisiveness of their comments.
- AGW Believer seems surprised that their comments are responded to intelligently and are not accepted as authoritative.
- Posting rate of the AGW Believer increases, with their comments slowly shedding their appearance of rationality.
- AGW Believer's comments become strident.
- AGW Believer disappears and is not seen again.
Bish, I think you under estimate. This is excuse number 53.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/excuse-52-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-natural-climate-variability-as-secular-trends/
Martin A:
Very good Mr A.
What volcanoes? Where's their names? There's been few big volcanoes since Pinatubo. Sure an Icelandic volcano or two have erupted but global circulation patterns confine most (all?) of the cooling effect to the high northern latitudes. That's the thing about Pinatubo, El Chicon and various Indonesian volcanoes, they are near the equator and the ejected matter circulates into both hemispheres. And let's not forget that 50% of the Earth's surface lies between latitudes 30N and 30S.
Martin A:
Exactly! That is the big mistake made.
+1
Some thought has gone into this:
Nov 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM | tty
The ICAO definition of the tropopause is 11km. The airspace between 11 and 15km (~36,000ft to 49,000ft) is very much the habitat of aircraft; airliners from less than 36,000ft to ~43,000ft and corporate jets to over 49,000ft. No mention of aerosols from air traffic in the paper? Odd?
Some thought has gone into this:
Nov 4, 2014 at 1:15 PM | tty
The ICAO definition of the tropopause is 11km. The airspace between 11 and 15km (~36,000ft to 49,000ft) is very much the habitat of aircraft; airliners from less than 36,000ft to ~43,000ft and corporate jets to over 49,000ft. No mention of aerosols from air traffic in the paper? Odd?
They twiddled the knobs until they found one that seemed to support their objective. Then they looked to see what that knob was labelled ... "Volcanic Aerosols". See how easy that is? The trick was then to create a whole academic research paper around this and aggregate their mates' names as authors and co-authoors for internal credibility ... that was the difficult part that might be the undoing of the effort.
Over at WUWT the official list of reasons for the cessation of warming now amounts to at least 57 varieties. It is a good thing for the Warmistas that the 'science is settled' and that 97% of scientists agree on this too.
Martin A
What is a man to do faced with still no comments on science (references/publications?) yet substituted by comments re teapots in orbit around the sun (possible but highly improbable n'est ce pas and in a short life span am sure we can agree to ignore that one) and the cockerel claims re the sunrise...ffs just tape its beak and make it watch the sun come up...
Am fully aware that correlation does not imply sound science. Goes even further and just because I believe that "A" causes "B" that evidence that "B" happens even without "A" is not a contradiction. The science is more than just causal observations. I have no idea what drives deniers to clutch at such statements. I won't insult you by implying that you are paid (I have no evidence of this) and actually your comments re teapots and cockerels did raise a smile so your presumably have some intelligence so why reject Physics 101?
Still waiting...
Dave S - was going to ignore you as you seem to have even less to say here. Tell you what - why don't you help out here? Maybe I'll not stick to the "usual script" if presented with the appropriate "evidence". Oops - too strident. Been a long day even before I discovered this site.
To bed. To bed...
The climate clique never seem to be happy about their catastrophe predictions turning out to be far too pessimistic. I know journalists are pretty dense but you'd think they'd at least notice this hypocrisy.
There is at least one teapot orbiting the Sun. It is in my kitchen. :-)
EM. Get back in your teapot.
Onbyaccident
Never mind talking about "physics 101" with the implication that anybody doubting that human activity has changed the climate in any way that can be detected is a dunce who does not understand basics. [You have a physics degree yourself?]
Please say in a line or two what evidence there is that human activity has changed any aspect of global climate to an extent that can be distinguished from variation due to natural effects.
By the way, anything along the lines of 'computer models show it' is not acceptable. The common view here is that unvalidated models illustrate the hypotheses of their programmers but do not supply evidence of anything.
I have not looked at the full paper only the abstract. There they talk of aerosols since 2000. The big weakness is that they do not appear to present data prior to 2000. Only if they could show that aerosol cooling was much stronger after 2000 would they start to have a case.
Now does this also mean there has been an under estimation of volcanic derived CO2?
This is why the UK met-office needs their new £100 million super computer. They'll be world leaders in the field, with the ability to predict this stuff only 3-5 years after it happens instead of the current 10-20 years.
Onbyaccident
One of the most fascinating discoveries of my life was when I was doing my PhD and working in the labs supervising undergraduates. They were first year students so we were guiding them in how to correctly report and document their findings. Things like how to word an abstract in the passive voice and the like.
One student asked me why did she need to write down all these assumptions and also add in errors. I answered because your answer is only as good as what you started with. To be consistent you have to clearly state what you don't know so that someone can make up their mind to judge what you say you do.
The surprise was that this came instinctively. I didn't need to think about it. That was when I realised I was doing the Scientific Method. I was taught it but I never felt like I truly got it. But then I could see that it's something you learn from experience and from trying not to fool yourself. To be frank science is about truth first and foremost.
It also is based on logic. If I presume an effect is there and ask people to prove me wrong then I've made an assertion. I don't need to prove you wrong. I just highlight the assertion and all other proofs come from that.
It doesn't matter if you've written 100 papers and all your friends agree. If someone points out the assertion you need to reconsider your position. If you truly are a follower of science then you would add that AGW takes a specific observation (absorption and emission of radiation) and extrapolates that idea to much larger scales without correctly stating that this is an assumption. Instead of having "nothing out of the ordinary" as its base assertion it assumes there is an effect and that is a no no.
Hence Martin's teapot is equally valid in determining temperature. It may seem a bit of a stretch but it doesn't matter if you are an inch over the line or a parsec. Extrapolating requires assumptions.
The other thing: science didn't make your car run properly or make planes fly. Engineers did. They took a concept improved on it and made it accountable for use by people. Scientists should also know this ethical boundary: it's their job to present ideas and preliminary results. It's not their job to dictate application.
Onbyaccident
Welcome to the delusion zone. I occasionally lurk on here but not posted but thought I would in defence after seeing your posts and much cheered by them. A woird of caution though – these people don’t want debate (I suspect they are not capable of that and mostly don’t have the background to take on real evidence as presented by yourself) and will resort to meanderings about the meaning of evidence etc etc. Bet your bottom dollar that if you had presented “evidence” that supported their views that they would pat you on yopur back and forget such rigors. These people are the trolls of other message boards. The denier army. The time wasters. Historians. English Lit graduates. Chartered accountants. I see yopu’ve been challenged about your credentials a few posts back – may be wrong here but I suspect you may have more than an O-level in chemistry….fess up!
By the way – loved that bit about taping up the cockerel beak – had me roaring in laughter.. :DD
Ps – as I said – don’t waste your time here. Get yourself over to RealClimate where the real discussion and valid debate is. You will be welcome.
Whack a Mole:
Weird and word combined. Brilliant.
Obviously brought up in New Joisey.
Ah yes Physics 101, where we learnt that a warming sea is a CO2 source, not a sink and that there is no law of thermodynamics yet discovered that allows the 'missing heat' from putative greenhouse gas warming to heat the ocean without being detected in the top 700 metres. Of course we could refer to history 101 where we learnt that warming has always been much better for life on Earth than cooling. Or Geology 101 where we learn that natural temperature variation is historically huge, sudden and doesn't correlate to CO2 anywhere except in Antarctica (where it is currrently cooling contrary to alarmist dogma). If there is time we can revisit economics 101 where we might relearn that replacing cheap, reliable power with expensive, intermittent power is a darn good way of increasing poverty, starvation and death.
Whackamole says "Realclimate" and "real discussion and valid debate" in one sentence....FUNNY!!!!
Onbyaccident, see:
AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties
This final section of the Technical Summary provides readers with a
short overview of key uncertainties in the understanding of the climate
system and the ability to project changes in response to anthropogenic
influences. The overview is not comprehensive and does not describe in
detail the basis for these findings. These are found in the main body of
this Technical Summary and in the underlying chapters to which each
bullet points in the curly brackets.
TS.6.1 Key Uncertainties in Observation of Changes in
the Climate System
• There is only medium to low confidence in the rate of change of
tropospheric warming and its vertical structure. Estimates of tropospheric
warming rates encompass surface temperature warming
rate estimates. There is low confidence in the rate and vertical
structure of the stratospheric cooling. {2.4.4}
• Confidence in global precipitation change over land is low prior
to 1951 and medium afterwards because of data incompleteness.
{2.5.1}
• Substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence remains in the
observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends. {2.5.6}
• There is low confidence in an observed global-scale trend in
drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations,
methodological uncertainties and choice and geographical
inconsistencies in the trends. {2.6.2}
• There is low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial)
changes in tropical cyclone characteristics are robust, after
accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. {2.6.3}
• Robust conclusions on long-term changes in large-scale atmospheric
circulation are presently not possible because of large variability
on interannual to decadal time scales and remaining differences
between data sets. {2.7}
• Different global estimates of sub-surface ocean temperatures have
variations at different times and for different periods, suggesting
that sub-decadal variability in the temperature and upper heat
content (0 to to 700 m) is still poorly characterized in the historical
record. {3.2}
• Below ocean depths of 700 m the sampling in space and time is
too sparse to produce annual global ocean temperature and heat
content estimates prior to 2005. {3.2.4}
• Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still
limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global
ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quantification
of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level
rise. {3.2, 3.7, 3.8; Box 3.1}
• The number of continuous observational time series measuring the
strength of climate relevant ocean circulation features (e.g., the
meridional overturning circulation) is limited and the existing time
series are still too short to assess decadal and longer trends. {3.6}.
• In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status
of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and
volume). {4.2.3}
• On a global scale the mass loss from melting at calving fronts and
iceberg calving are not yet comprehensively assessed. The largest
uncertainty in estimated mass loss from glaciers comes from the
Antarctic, and the observational record of ice–ocean interactions
around both ice sheets remains poor. {4.3.3, 4.4}
TS.6.2 Key Uncertainties in Drivers of Climate Change
• Uncertainties in aerosol–cloud interactions and the associated
radiative forcing remain large. As a result, uncertainties in aerosol
forcing remain the dominant contributor to the overall uncertainty
in net anthropogenic forcing, despite a better understanding of
some of the relevant atmospheric processes and the availability of
global satellite monitoring. {2.2, 7.3–7.5, 8.5}
• The cloud feedback is likely positive but its quantification remains
difficult. {7.2}
• Paleoclimate reconstructions and Earth System Models indicate
that there is a positive feedback between climate and the carbon
cycle, but confidence remains low in the strength of this feedback,
particularly for the land. {6.4}
TS.6.3 Key Uncertainties in Understanding the Climate
System and Its Recent Changes
• The simulation of clouds in AOGCMs has shown modest improvement
since AR4; however, it remains challenging. {7.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1,
9.7.2}
• Observational uncertainties for climate variables other than temperature,
uncertainties in forcings such as aerosols, and limits in
process understanding continue to hamper attribution of changes
in many aspects of the climate system. {10.1, 10.3, 10.7}
• Changes in the water cycle remain less reliably modelled in both
their changes and their internal variability, limiting confidence in
attribution assessments. Observational uncertainties and the large
effect of internal variability on observed precipitation also precludes
a more confident assessment of the causes of precipitation
changes. {2.5.1, 2.5.4, 10.3.2}
• Modelling uncertainties related to model resolution and incorporation
of relevant processes become more important at regional
scales, and the effects of internal variability become more significant.
Therefore, challenges persist in attributing observed change
to external forcing at regional scales. {2.4.1, 10.3.1}
• The ability to simulate changes in frequency and intensity of
extreme events is limited by the ability of models to reliably simulate
mean changes in key features. {10.6.1}
• In some aspects of the climate system, including changes in
drought, changes in tropical cyclone activity, Antarctic warming,
Antarctic sea ice extent, and Antarctic mass balance, confidence
in attribution to human influence remains low due to modelling
uncertainties and low agreement between scientific studies.
{10.3.1, 10.5.2, 10.6.1}
TS.6.4 Key Uncertainties in Projections of Global and
Regional Climate Change
• Based on model results there is limited confidence in the predictability
of yearly to decadal averages of temperature both for the
global average and for some geographical regions. Multi-model
results for precipitation indicate a generally low predictability.
Short-term climate projection is also limited by the uncertainty in
projections of natural forcing. {11.1, 11.2, 11.3.1, 11.3.6; Box 11.1}
• There is medium confidence in near-term projections of a northward
shift of NH storm track and westerlies. {11.3.2}
• There is generally low confidence in basin-scale projections of significant
trends in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity in the
21st century. {11.3.2, 14.6.1}
• Projected changes in soil moisture and surface run off are not
robust in many regions. {11.3.2, 12.4.5}
• Several components or phenomena in the climate system could
potentially exhibit abrupt or nonlinear changes, but for many phenomena
there is low confidence and little consensus on the likelihood
of such events over the 21st century. {12.5.5}
• There is low confidence on magnitude of carbon losses through
CO2 or CH4 emissions to the atmosphere from thawing permafrost.
There is low confidence in projected future CH4 emissions
from natural sources due to changes in wetlands and gas hydrate
release from the sea floor. {6.4.3, 6.4.7}
• There is medium confidence in the projected contributions to sea
level rise by models of ice sheet dynamics for the 21st century, and
low confidence in their projections beyond 2100. {13.3.3}
• There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of
global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community
about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}
• There is low confidence in projections of many aspects of climate
phenomena that influence regional climate change, including
changes in amplitude and spatial pattern of modes of climate variability.
{9.5.3, 14.2–14.7}
Ibrahim
Good to see copy and paste working so well for you. Of the AR5 detailed doc that came out last year. And is the type of debate had by people who know what they are talking about. Nobody that I've ever met who believes in science behind global warming thinks all parameters of each model and observation is ties down. Not sure what Onbyaccident thinks here but this seems to be an example of the scientific community having an honest debate with itself. Something you guys could learn from.
BTW – just occurred to me that you just proved my earlier comment – any evidence of “weakness” is latched onto and promoted. Anything sent by say Onbyaccident is only confronted with a scepticism about meaning of his/her evidence. Numpty. With friends like you your fellow trolls need no enemies..
Wijnand and Richie D and splitpin. Childish. Wijnand in particular – why do I have the image of the little fat kid hiding behind the bullies…:). Get yourself over to RC and man up for once in your life…
Nov 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM | Whack a Mole
Why are you wasting your time here amongst the trolls?
Get yourself over to RC and man up for once in your life…
Whacka mole,
Because I have experienced first and second hand (see their bore hole: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013 ) what "real discussion and valid debate" at realclimate means the minute you ask valid uncomfortable questions or choose to not follow the consensus herd.
So instead of taunting and insulting people here, while refusing to properly engage (such as for instance addressing the question put to you concerning the lack of causation between the favorite alarmist talking points and human CO2 emissions), why don't YOU man up, get out of your comfort zone and try to actually have a discussion with people who disagree with you instead of pretending a discussion like that can be held on realclimate?
Honesty in climate science will return when the climate clique admit that natural variation is far more powerful than they assumed and that they actually don't have a clue what drives global climate but a linear, 2-variable simplistic relationship between CO2 and temperature was just too sexy for them to pass up on. James Lovelock recanted beautifully but then his livelihood didn't depend on it.
If they are really honest then they will note that skeptics have been right about everything all this time, having predicted the current pause, smaller sensitivity, the influence of the pdo, declining hurricanes, coral regrowth, rebounds in the so-called Arctic death-spiral, the greening of the planet and much more - simply by being properly skeptical of all the sheer bullshit that passes for science. All scientists and journalists need to be far more skeptical. What stops them seems to be the idiotic notion that a hypocritical hatred of the fossil fuels that their lives depend on somehow puts them on the moral highground. Sure it would be just wonderful if renewables could eventually do the job but just how many folk have to suffer in this forced transition from reliables to unreliables before the penny drops?
Already there Billy boy. Already there....
Onbyaccident - do your sanity a favor and quit this place! I know it's tempting to look through the trees and glimpse the trolls. They will consume your time and energies.
Although maybe you have already...good man!
Guacamole's anxiously expressed desire for Onby not to engage in discussion here clearly betrays a deep rooted fear of it being made apparent that their faith has no basis in physical evidence.
Whack a Mole
I note and thank you for your earlier observations. I had worked some of this out re the nature of this site but good to have it confirmed. Sadly not the only one – witness the GWPF site for example.
To answer your and other question – I’ve a PhD in Mathematical Physics. Spent most of my career modelling in various areas (Physics/Maths/Finance) – from imaging problems re HST; chaos theory to more latterly having accepted the penny to move over to derivative modelling in finance. Am fully conversant with strengths and limitations of complex system modelling. And I could add to the IPCC list (but without compromising the big and middle picture claims of AGW before I have the deniers fluttering in).
Re your other ask after Ibrahim’s posting (yes lazy but at least he was looking in the right place) – I fully concur with your view on how the scientific process works. You have to be brutally honest in your assessment of where the gaps are. It’s the old saying of reasonable people being allowed to disagree. Final note on Ibrahim’s posting – also noted that all the low confidence items were copied but none of the medium/high and virtually certain findings of the research review.
Ibrahim – a couple of exercises for you.
a) List those uncertainties you cite in order of largest to lowest impact. Clue: has nothing to do with levels of confidence.
b) Make a list of the items that the IPCC state as virtually certain….I won’t ask you to go much below that as would take you much longer than the above copy & paste
Speaking of honesty I’ll now deal with JamesG. Warming seas and CO2 source versus sink maybe more Chemistry 102 (can’t be bothered to educate you much here) than Physics 101 but I will graciously put your comment here down to “not knowing”. However your postulate that there has been no heating of the upper 700m of the ocean layer is utterly wrong. I reference again the Levitus Geophys Rev Lett paper I cited above (and this is by no means the only one). It is actually explicitly raised again in the most recent IPCC summary (and again I welcome Ibrahim’s introduction of at least a relevant source). About a .35 degree rise since early 70’s. This lies in their virtually certain category (in their terminology which I must admit to finding a tad laboured). Seems a small number doesn’t it but given the specific heat capacity of water (admittedly saline) this is a vast amount of energy. There is a sparsity of data at depths below 2000m so jury out there. You state items as facts but never back them up. Again I await citations/evidence/god help me something! But still nothing. Applies also to your posting later this afternoon. Less than nothing. As Whack a Mole asserts – just a waste of time. So I’ll refrain from your history and geology 101s. Economic 101 – now that would be interesting but just not with you.
By the way Whack a Mole – great name. Especially relevant here. See you over at the RealClimate site.
Although I daresay I’ll pop back here from time to time. It’s a bit like rubber necking a car accident…no matter how much you intend not to look you just can’t fail to gawp. But I guess that is their function – to cause the traffic to slow beforehand. Ho hum.
Whac a mole, Onbyaccident
A recent paper about models:
CMIP5 historical simulations (1850-2012) with GISS ModelE2
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html
I'm curious about your opinion on this
My bhands are roasting after a 0.35 (very poorly measured) temperature rise....These scientivists are comedy gold. They really belong on Real Climate where, one month, Uncle Steph Rahmsdorff says..."watch Ocean heat Content" and then the following month, "Ocean Heat Content is a rotten indicator". Pure comedy gold. Almost impossible to make up a bunch of people so comically absurd.
Ibrahim
I guess much context can be lost in postings so if this is a genuine attempt at dialogue using a relevant source then I welcome it. Fireworks duty meant not had a look yet but will give it a scan at some point as I've not seen. Was aware of new GISS model built on previous evolutions (I am assuming evolution not a dirty word on here either ?).
Sometimes one has to bear in mind that too much can be published - especially in the US. Worked with good US based researchers who would have published every small data point and minor improvement to model. We'll see if the case here.
Thoughts?
Onbyaccident
diagones
A little thought experiment for you.
Imagine concentrating the energy that caused that "tiny" 0.35 degree warming in the upper oceans in a volume a km cubed around your little hands. An approximate cheat answer will do:-
Adjust for volume of upper ocean to the 1 km cubed box. Assume average depth of 4km cf upper ocean 700m.
Adjust for relative specific heats of air and water.
Scale the temperature!!!!
Toasty little diagones hands.... :-D
ps - you do realise that measuring the temperature of the ocean is not just about sticking a thermometer down there?
Ok enough. I hear WaM lamenting!! Think I'll go join RC.
I promise to be back though now and again ....seeding a little doubt in your cozy Canute-world.
It's been emotional.
OnbyA
Onbyaccident
Try measuring 0.35 degrees with an accuracy of 0.01 degrees as implied? Try measuring real temperature with an accuracy of less than 0.5 degrees. Good luck with that.
Try thinking for a second how an ocean wide set of measurements are taken and what it means to have a consistent data set?
Now think about this change in forcing measured to 0.19 W. Do you think that's a "real measurement"?
When you work all that out and realise how hard it is to get consistent data, welcome to being a real scientist rather than a theorist. And say hello to your new friend: humility.
Micky H
sorry could not resist for one last time. Hands up I'm a theorist and not an experimenter. However I knew that none of my models were ever valid unless they bore a much better than by-chance description of colleagues' observations. Often the leaps were made when I made the mistakes and had to understand better.
Temperature measurements. There you all go again. They had that level of accuracy at the turn of the last century so don't tell me it's difficult now. The problem back then wasn't accuracy of measurement it was coverage of meaurement. I knew that you would think that .35 degree was small. Hence my linking it to the energy needed to raise a vast body of water by that average level. Timely to have to respond to this as I have just read some on this (I know I need to get out more...;). Google "protected reversing thermometers". Used since 1900's. Accurate to .01 degree. Used to an extent even up to the 70s I believe but mainly up to WW2. I have refs but quite frankly I doubt any of you have bothered to look at anything I've sent (very little math in I promise!) - don't worry not bitter. Of course they have the Argo floats now.
As my daughter would say..."Boom - you're being destroyed". Don't tell me to be humble until you guys start reading something. Embarrassing.
In the last 24 hours here nobody, nobody has even approached the question of why wouldn't it be getting warmer if we're adding a GHG to teh atmosphere. Very improbable.
Micky
lol you blew the gaff off the clisci idiots' parade
but it is quite weird how hard it is for scientivists to realise that putting one thermomenter in the sea is not revealing of anything at all
so I have as herd of cows....I hyave a really accurate thermometer...I pit it into one cow's rectum and read the temperature. So that is the temperature of the Earth today. LMFAO...the scientivists get funnier every day
Onby: You tell us. It's not for us to explain why global average temperature has not changed significantly. It's for those who promised us it would do.
Nobody (well hardly anybody) disagrees that burning coal and oil produces CO₂. Nobody (well hardly anybody) doubts that CO₂ molecules absorb and radiate IR photons and its spectral characteristics have been precisely measured.
The dynamics of the interchange of CO₂ between atmosphere, ocean surface, deep ocean, lithosphere and biosphere are far from well understood - although there is little doubt that natural emission of CO₂ has increased with the 20th century increase in global temperature. The extent to which the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is natural and the extent to which it has resulted from fuel use is problematic, so the certainty about what causes what is already evaporating.
Despite the detailed knowledge of the spectral characteristics of CO₂, calcuation of so-called 'radiative forcing' due to CO₂ depends on idealised and unvalidated models. The computed 'radiative forcing' is too small to be calculated from satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation from the Earth (the difference between the satellite measurements is too large to be believable, so climate science has to work with the calculated but unverified value).
Instead of fretting about "the missing heat", I don't know why climate science does not accept that it is probably Nature's way of hinting that their assumptions may need further examination.
Martin A,
What "missing heat"? The oceans are warming.
I wholeheartedly agree that if we were measuring the temperatures of the atmosphere, at the surface, and the oceans, and we found that altogether these weren't warming, then there would be a problem with the theory. But.. that's not what we find.
OTOH, if we can't accurately measure an important part of the heat budget - say, the oceans - then we can't easily conclude whether GHG are causing heating or not. At least, it would take us a lot longer to reach conclusions, because the noise in our remaining measurements would more readily dominate the signal.
Examples of such noise: solar variability, ENSO, volcanoes / aerosols. Variations in these can indeed change the rate of heating of the Earth, and particularly the atmosphere, particularly over short periods of time.
Windchasers, thank you for the comment.