Scientific material should stand on its own and not require a “peer review” process for a false sense of authenticity.

The difference between climate realist (skeptic) sites and the AGW-true-believer sites is that the former is always willing to engage in serious debate because the search for truth is what motivates skeptic sites. The AGW community is more interested in protecting a theory at all costs.

Because the editorial management of many formerly respected publications have long ago sold-out to the AGW alarmist camp so that any expectation of a meaningful “peer review” process is lost.

While respected journals still exist for some professional associations, when it comes to climate science, a relatively small clique of government-funded scientists routinely “circle the wagons” about the AGW theory through publication in friendly magazines/journals of “peer reviewed” analyses that have merely been subjected to review by fellow-travelers in the alarmist camp who dutifully nod their approval (in order to keep the funding flowing).

The absurd nonsense produced by Mann, et al, (“Hockey Stick” and Antarctic warming studies) cannot withstand serious scrutiny from scientists outside the alarmist camp. Further evidence of panic among the AGW-proponents is the dubious analysis using wind as a proxy for temperature (desperately trying to find the missing tropical mid-tropospheric warming signature) when readily available temperature measurements inconveniently disprove their precious AGW theory. Lest the government funding cash cow be slain, AGW alarmists grind out nonsense that is dutifully “peer reviewed” by others living off the same cash cow!

When it comes to climate change science, blogs such as this one produce greater quality scrutiny than the dysfunctional “peer review” process.

The same cannot be said of AGW blog sites. They have become little more than “lovefests” for AGW-believers and add nothing to scientific debate. However, they have managed to hone to a fine art their “snark”, ad hominem invective, and censoring of any meaningful discourse with skeptics.

I am confident that sufficient online review occurs with every significant article/analysis post on this site.

The Liberal opposition has been supporting action on carbon emissions but now says it wants to delay an Australian vote until the outcome of Copenhagen in December. So now the Government is relying on support from the greens and independents. One of these independents, Steve Fielding, who may have the deciding vote, has been making trouble. He has been putting one question over and over to the government, the opposition, the greens and a hostile media:

If Carbon emissions is the main driver of global warming then why, over the last 10 years, has carbon emissions been going up but global temperature has not.

He says he has ‘graphs’ to show this, but no interviewer seems to be interested in them, nor anyone interested in answering the question – except to say that world temperature has been at the hotest on record over the last 15 years – which is not in dispute.

Finally, the minister for climate change and her science advisers agreed to meet Senator Fielding and his advisers (including Bob Carter). After the meeting Monday afternoon (15/6, Oz time) Fielding said they refused to answer his question and instead re-phrased it. Anyway, it seems that the Government’s Dr Will Steffen played a new card, and this is the relevance to this discussion.

He is quoted as saying that ocean temperatures were a better indicator of the state of the planet than air temperatures. Fielding finds this a new argument on the evidence – not that of the IPCC – and so he now has something new to go away and consider.

So Fielding’s vote on what everyone agrees is a landmark piece of legislation (if only for its taxation and industrial implication) now apparently dependents on whether he can be convinced by ocean temperature data proffered by Steffen.

But what is Steffen pointing to? Most surface temperature graphs that I have seen seem to show a similar story to air temperature, eg:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-co2-model-fig02.jpg

But could it be the much more difficult area of heat content, and so could he have produced the graph discussed here?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/#more-8132

It would be interesting to find out from Bob Carter what data was presented by both sides.

Story and audio here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/16/2599244.htm?section=australia

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-short-term-changes-in-ocean-heat.html

Some general conclusions:

Ocean heat content does not increase monotonically. Records show that 4-5 year periods of short-term decreases in ocean heat content are not uncommon during a long-term ocean warming trend.

A discrepancy exists between Willis’s (2008) data for ocean cooling from 2003-2008 and Leuliette’s (2009) analysis of the same raw Argo data indicating ocean warming during the same time series. Leuliette suggests that poor sampling in the early years of Argo deployments accounts for this discrepancy. A comparison between independent data sets to determine which of the two studies was more correct reveals the following:

2003-2008 appears to be a short-term period of uncertainty, since all other data sources–with the exception of Willis’s Argo data (and I’m including here Loehle’s extrapolation of Willis’s data and then DiPuccio’s extrapolation of Loehle’s extrapolation of Willis’s Argo data since they are all based essentially on Willis’ data)–point to ocean warming during this very short period. Thermal expansion is a measure of total ocean heat content and has continued to rise despite the apparent cooling in the upper ocean, according to reconstructions of steric sea level via GRACE satellites and satellite altimetry.

A relatively weak El Nino followed by a strong La Nina accounts for the recent slight cooling in the upper ocean (2007-Present), since warm water from trade winds is blown and piled up to thicken in the west Pacific leaving a depression, allowing for the upwelling of deeper cooler water from the ocean depths to rise to the surface to cool the upper ocean where these measurements are predominantly taken. The long-term trend is still ocean warming.

Some additional interesting tidbits (from comments):

There does not appear to be any study that refutes observations of Recent Bottom Water Warming in the Pacific Ocean (Johnson, 2007):

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/gcj_3f.pdf

Moreover, this abysmal warming appears to be occurring in many different parts of the ocean (please refer to first link for abstracts):

Johnson GC et al. (2006) Recent western South Atlantic bottom water warming Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14614

Johnson GC et al. (2007) Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean J. Climate 20, 5365-5375.

Johnson GC (2008) Warming and Freshening in the Abyssal Southeastern Indian Ocean J. Climate 21, 5351-5363.

Ozaki H et al. (2009) Long-term bottom water warming in the north Ross Sea J. Oceanograph. 65, 235-244.

Johnson GC et al. (2009) Deep Caribbean Sea warming Deep Sea Research. 1 –Oceanograph. Res. 56, 827-834.

Johnson GC (2008) Reduced Antarctic meridional overturning circulation reaches the North Atlantic Ocean Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22601

Another interesting point discussed by a few commentators above and in the article was that as SST rises and evaporates, the increased salinity and the increased density of the upper ocean pulls heat downward toward the ocean depths:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=311982

Since Willis’ discovery of bad data from the Argo floats, two more errors have been found which is not unexpected given that they are relatively new technology. At least Willis attempts to contextualize this data from the wider context of climate and many other independent data sources. Yet the entire argument for ocean cooling on WUWT appears to be based on one data set–Argo data–while excluding evidence from other data sources that suggest ocean warming. Not only that–but without contextualizing this apparent cooling from the wider context of a 40-year long-term trend for ocean warming, and without mentioning that many 4-5 year periods of short-term temporary cooling have occurred in the past.

That being said, there is still much uncertainty in the reconstruction of ocean heat. For this reason one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling, but independent analyses point to a statistically significant warming trend over the past half-dozen years.

*This is just a TEST to see if my comment will be deleted by the moderator as reported elsewhere. Hopefully it will not, because I would like to get some feedback*

They also deny that ocean heat temperature has dropped.

Thank you, Jim. <<

You’re welcome.

>> I take it that your answer is “yes”, but, not being a scientist, I do not understand the significance of what you refer to as “minutiae.” <<

It’s “minutia” to argue endlessly about whether the CO2 15 micron absorption band peaking out from behind the H2O absorption band is significant. I designed my model to not care, but that argument continues. There are other arguments, but it would be “minutiae” to list them all here.

>> My source was “The Missing Hotspot” by Dr David Evans, although others have referred to it. The models predict, what the models predict is not observed, therefore the models are invalid. <<

This isn’t exactly what I said. I said the models don’t support the GHG hypothesis (and by extension, the AGW hypothesis). I didn’t say that the models were invalid (however they probably aren’t correct—which is something else again).

>> It seems to me that if the models are invalid, that’s final. Maybe an altered model might be valid, but that is not the issue. <<

That should read: the GHG hypothesis is invalid for explaining the current warming trend.

Jim

I take it that your answer is “yes”, but, not being a scientist, I do not understand the significance of what you refer to as “minutiae.”

My source was “The Missing Hotspot” by Dr David Evans, although others have referred to it. The models predict, what the models predict is not observed, therefore the models are invalid.

It seems to me that if the models are invalid, that’s final. Maybe an altered model might be valid, but that is not the issue.

I’m not a scientist, but …

The IPCC’s models (= hypothesis) predict a “hotspot” in the atmosphere over the tropics in the warming 1975-2000, due to an increase in carbon dioxide. Temperature measurements found no hotspot. Therefore the warming was not signicantly caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic or not.

. . .

Doesn’t that falsify the hypothesis? <<

Yes. The warming of the atmosphere is a requirement for the GHG model to work. The diagram from Kiehl & Trenberth 1997 (KT97) represents the quintessential model of the GHG theory. If it fails, then the theory fails.

One of the problems about arguing minutiae is that we lose the big picture. I programmed KT97 as a simple computer model, and it demonstrates this failure. If you narrow the atmospheric window (which is how any GHG is going to affect things—so we can ignore the specifics of whether we’re talking about water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) and keep all other factors equal (don’t change sensible and latent heat flux and keep the upward-downward ratios of the atmosphere the same), then the surface temperature does go up, but the atmospheric temperature goes up faster (129% minimum). If you use the bulk aerodynamic formula for sensible heat flux (as KT97 did), increase the latent heat flux at the same rate the surface heats up, and alter the upward-downward ratio of the atmosphere, then the atmosphere warms up even faster (from 160% to 190% of the surface—almost 200%).

This missing heating of the atmosphere destroys the GHG theory. Trying to hide the warming atmosphere with aerosols is nonsense. It’s like trying to warm a pot of water on the stove by blocking the burner. If the burner’s energy doesn’t reach the pot, then the pot won’t get warmer. The GHG model requires the warmer atmosphere to work—period.

The numbers on the KT97 diagram represent sloppy science. These numbers are uncertain, and there should be ranges to demonstrate that fact.

What’s interesting is if you reduce the albedo (make the Earth darker) and alter the other values as before, then my model also shows a surface heating, but the atmosphere only warms by about 70% to 90% of the surface—exactly what we see.

Jim

The IPCC’s models (= hypothesis) predict a “hotspot” in the atmosphere over the tropics in the warming 1975-2000, due to an increase in carbon dioxide. Temperature measurements found no hotspot. Therefore the warming was not signicantly caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic or not.

See the U.S. Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works Page – minority page, dealing with the more than 700 scientists who dissent who have signed that they dissent over man-made global warming claims.

Relevant to “The Missing Hotspot”, about halfway down, it states;

” “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”
– UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.”

Doesn’t that falsify the hypothesis?

I’m reminded of a sign seen in a hospital: “The chart is not the patient.” I use models to give me answers to problems. If I can’t model it, then I probably don’t understand the process. A good model will make predictions. It’s also important to know where a model fails. Reality is sometimes hard to quantify. Quantities are what models do best.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F = m*a) is a very effective model. It obviously fails when we can’t assume mass is constant (relativistic mass).

Rhetorical questions, such as yours (along with your other comments), usually signal the end to a discussion. I thank you for your time and effort. I look forward to more discussions in the future.

Jim

See Pielke, http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
“We now have data to assess what actually occurred in terms of this metric of global warming up through the end of 2008 (i.e. see the Figure in Pielke (2008), Figure 1 in Willis et al (2008) and personal communication from Josh Willis to extend the data to the end of 2008).”

Let’s not miss the forest through the trees. As mentioned above, even the NOAA data and Levitus study shows that the curve has flattened significantly since mid-2003. If the 10 years prior was considered confirmation of the hypothesis, then we need to ask what is the significance of this more recent trend.

NOAA Graph: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Assuming the graph is drawn accurately, if you examine it carefully (I enlarged it and drew guidelines), from mid-2003 to 2008, there is a difference of about 2 from endpoint to endpoint. That is the period covered by my study. I did not analyze the data myself so I cannot explain why there is a variation between Willis, Loehle, and NOAA. But it is obvious that following the sharp rise there is a flattening.

Sorry. But your graph shows (Willis and Loehle) a change OHC of minus 0.4 and 1.5 between 2003 and 2008. NOAA shows plus 6. I think 100% different is significant. Interestingly GISS is plus 5. Please help me with my interpretation

No, Willis hasn’t evaluated if your extrapolation of the Willis-curve is in line with observations past 2007, and granted permission to extrapolate based on such an evaluation. I asked Willis about this, and he answered that the trend line shown in the plot (the green “willis-curve” in your plot) simply was a fit to his data through mid-2007 when the ocean heat content was a bit low. He also said that there is a significant amount of interannual variability in ocean heat content, which causes problems when you try and compare just a few years of OHC-observations with IPCC projections.

In your “paper” you haven’t really made it clear that the green Willis-curve is an extrapolation. You should do that the next time you try to write something
scientific.