David Rose’s October 2012 article in the MailOnline generated a multitude of responses around the blogosphere. The article was titled Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it. There have been so many blog posts about the article it’s not practical to list them all.
SkepticalScience—a blog run by advocates of human-induced global warming, not global warming skeptics—attempted to counter the Rose article a number of times. They included a YouTube video in their January 2013 effort 16 More Years of Global Warming.
The following YouTube video On the SkepticalScience Video “Global Warming over the Last 16 Years” is my reply to it. It illustrates and discusses the blatant errors contained in the SkepticalScience video. I’ll go into more detail in a follow-up post. I simply wanted to upload this video in advance of that more-detailed discussion, which will be an update of and expansion on previous posts.
UPDATE: My apologies to those who are new to this discussion. I tried to limit the time of the video and that meant I couldn’t include a detailed explanation of the mechanisms that cause the natural warming of the oceans. However, I should have provided links to additional information in the post. The primary mechanism for the natural warming of the global oceans is El Niño-Southern Oscillation. It is discussed in detail in the following two-part video series titled “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”. Links: Part 1 and Part 2.
Also refer to the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42MB).
Thank you Bob. Watched. It is important to keep in mind that the clowns who run SKS are facing having their greedy snouts pulled out of the government funding trough in about 6 months. They are going into overdrive to try and influence the gullible.
Thanks Bob. Clear and precise as usual.
Where does the energy come from to naturally warm the water and then keep it there?
You have thoroughly confused SkS with clear and precise factual information. Their ideology will not allow them to process the data. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, they’ll just remove the parts of the equation they don’t like!
Moe asks “Where does the energy come from to naturally warm the water and then keep it there?
I think Bob has explained elsewhere that natural variation in the trade winds over the Pacific (which blow away some of the cloud cover permitting more sunshine to warm the ocean) accounts for the accumulation of warmth in the Pacific Warm pool.
I hope I have this correct!
The 2015 skepsci video (based on Foster et al 2014) will be even funnier (“Sssssssoh. Is there ANY evidence for a slowdown in warming after we remove the Chinese aerosol cooling? Nnnnnnnnnno!). By that time the surface temperature will show even more of a lull (0.1 or less above the 81-10 average). The skepsci commenters will say (besides “awesome!”) that the Desperadoes were only using the satellite record because they want to deny the new GISS enhanced antarctic warming (now headed by Gleick who took over from Hansen).
The steps up from one El Niño to the next is caused by the warm blanket of CO2. As with you book summary, I still can’t see how you are answering that explanation of the asymmetry between El Niño and La Niña.
The step up from one El Niño to the next is caused by the warmer blanket of CO2. As with your book summary, I don’t see how you address that explanation.
Moe says: “Where does the energy come from to naturally warm the water and then keep it there?”
Moe, the short answers are the sun and the trade winds.
The longer answer: I’m traveling this morning, so if I may, I’d like to provide a link that will give you an overview of the initial phase of the ENSO process. It’s from the preview of my book “Who Turned on the Heat?”:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preview-of-who-turned-on-the-heat-v2.pdf
Refer to the initial discussion from Chapter 1—with the cartoon-like illustrations—starting on page 16.
I’ll be back online again in a few hours, if you have any other questions.
Australia is supposed to called the lucky country. Well, we are very lucky to be inundated with AGW propaganda, multiple times, each and every day. These people know their job are now very seriously on the line and will be ditched this general election.
So if I understand correctly, I am new to this, SkepticalScience account for the extra warm water by associating it with their man-made global warming hypothesis when in actuality it’s nature shifting water up to the surface?
Bob:
This isn’t quite right. Wouldn’t “blog run by advocates of recognizing a threat in human-induced global warming” be more accurate? Surely they don’t advocate global warming, just the amount and proportion of assignment of blame.
Excellent video! Thank you!
Bob,
Re; your answer to Moe;
And then what happens to that energy to cause the next ice age?
I read your link, the charts really helped me understand the El and La.
Reading the science causes my brain to freeze up. The charts don’t.
At the end you thanked me for buying your book so I owe you 🙂
Thanks,
Ron Richey
to cancel out natural variability you actually need to know all factors, we don’t. If we did the models would not fail all the time.
Let’s encourage SKS to produce more videos, more forecasts and bs for posterity.
Unlike humans or any other media, the internet is a perpetual record of yesterday & today’s failed predictions.
Bob you are a STAR!
j ferguson take the human out and they have no interest in ‘warming’ for without that their is no fat research grants , no chance of political power and no way in hell people are going to sign up to any ‘green deals ‘
The ‘human’ is central to the ideology so yes its right to say ‘blog run by advocates of human-induced global warming’ for they want it to be true otherwise they have much to lose .
berniel: It would be in your best interest to forget that “warm blanket of CO2.” There’s no such thing. Additional CO2 simply adds to the downward longwave radiation reaching the ocean surface.
But, there is no evidence that infrared radiation from manmade greenhouse gases had any impact on the warming of ocean heat content data over the past 55 years or satellite-era sea surface temperatures. I’ve added an update to the post that includes links to two more videos that go into much more detail on the mechanisms that cause the natural warming and a link to an essay that provides a more detailed overview.
Regards
A simple question from my scientifically-untrained mind would be: Why would the video try to eliminate natural forcings such as ENSO and and solar activity to predict a climate future when we know these variables will continue on into the future? Maybe I’m a little naive about the intentions of skepticalscience but it’s a fundamental question worth asking these fellows.
Perhaps we should not confuse the warmists any more by introducing a question of heat from the core rising and heating oceans, anyone want to guess that heat input, let alone the underwater eruptions and upwelling of superheated water?
The 20th century atmospheric temperature data supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th/21st century warming has not due to CO2 emissions. I support the assertion that a portion of the warming could be due to ocean oscillations, however, it should be noted the 20th/21st century warming is following the same pattern as the past warming and cooling cycles that are called a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (D-O). As the all of the past D-O warming/cooling cycle have correlated with solar cosmogenic isotope changes, it is likely that changes to the solar magnetic cycle have in the past and are currently causing the planet to cyclically warm and cool. What is missing is the mechanism. In the past when the sun abruptly changed from a very active stage to a Maunder minimum there was a delay of 10 to 12 years before there was cooling.
The graph linked to below shows the cycles of warming and cooling that are captured in the Greenland ice sheet core proxy data.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
This is the site were the above graph was taken from.
http://www.climate4you.com/
It appears other independent technical analysis supports the assertion that the majority of the 20th/21st century warming has not due to CO2 emissions.
The following an excerpt from the EPA report (see below for a link to the very interesting EPA report).
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
“2.9 The Missing Heating in the Tropical Troposphere
Computer models based on the theory of GHG/CO2 warming predict that the troposphere in the tropics should warm faster than the surface in response to increasing CO2 concentrations, because that is where the CO2 greenhouse effect operates. Sun-Cosmic ray warming will warm the troposphere more uniformly.
The UN’s IPCC AR4 report includes a set of plots of computer model predicted rate of temperature change from the surface to 30 km altitude and over all latitudes for 5 types of climate forcings as shown below.
The Hadley Centre’s real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below, however, does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
This is a link to a review paper that was prepared by the EPA’s own scientist. The EPA and IPCC of course are completely ignoring the data and logic that indicates the majority of the 20th/21st warming not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
I have (William: ‘I’ is the independent EPA scientist) become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view:
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.
Obviously the atmosphere cannot warm the oceans, so for GHG to be responsible for higher SST’s, it can only be the downwelling radiation, which as Bob says only penetrates to a few mm.
Is there not a simple equation which can theoretically measure the amount of warming this could cause, taking into account that any theoretically warmer water would be mixed with 100m + of ocean below it?
Should the plurals be Los Niños and Las Niñas?
Yep, Bob. A milestone video. Interesting modulation in the voice over (maybe you should ditch him on your next effort). At the time of writing been seen a massive 229 times 🙂 I was so convinced I didn’t need to watch all of it. So, take-homemessage – it’s ENSO that is responsiblefor ‘global warming’ (that and Cosmic Rays)