Data doesn’t support Obama’s claim
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
During the July 2013 U.S. Senate hearing at which Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer gave stellar testimony to the visible discomfiture of the climate-extremist witnesses, none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.
At a fund-raiser for the “Democratic” Congressional Campaign Committee in Chicago May 29, he had said, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”
Well, I deny that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. But I deny it not because I take an aprioristic position opposite to Mr Obama’s aprioristic position, but because science is done by measurement, not by parroting the Party Line. And the measurements do not support the Party Line.
Let me demonstrate. First, what warming does the IPCC anticipate in its upcoming and much-leaked Fifth Assessment Report?
![clip_image002[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0024.jpg "clip_image002[4]")
The graph above, adapted from Figs. 11.33ab in the draft report, for which I am an expert reviewer, shows that from 2005-2050 (most of the past ten years fall within that period) the models expect an approximately linear warming of about 0.4 to 1.0 Cº per 30 years (this range is also explicitly stated in paragraph 11.3.6.3). That is equivalent to 1.33 to 3.33 Cº/century, with a mid-range estimate of 2.33 Cº/century.
The IPCC’s models’ mid-range projection implies that around 0.12 Cº of warming should happen over five years, and o.23 Cº over ten years. An eighth to a quarter of a Celsius degree: those are the benchmarks. Previous IPCC reports made broadly similar near-term projections.
What, then, is the consensus among the monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere datasets about whether the climate is warming “faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago”? Or whether it is warming at all?
There are three terrestrial datasets: HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC. There are two satellite datasets: RSS and UAH. To forestall the usual futile allegations of cherry-picking, we shall look at all five of them.
For each dataset, two graphs will be displayed: the most recent 60 months of global temperature anomalies, and the most recent 120 months.
The graph will display the spline-curve of the monthly anomalies in dark blue, with a thicker light-blue trend-line, which is simply the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Over short periods, no more complex trend need be determined.
Nor is there any need to allow for seasonality, not only because the graphs analyze data over multiples of 12 months but also because globally the seasons cancel each other out, so that natural variability tends to make any seasonal pattern near-impossible to detect.
Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the data-points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line.
The graphs, therefore, give a fair indication of whether global mean temperatures at or near the surface have been rising or falling over the past five or ten years.
Note, however, that – particularly with highly volatile datasets such as the global temperature anomalies – a statistical trend is not a tool for prediction. It indicates only what has happened, not what may or will happen.
And what has happened is, as we shall see, grievously at odds with the Party Line.
We begin with the terrestrial datasets.
GISS, five years:
![clip_image004[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0044.jpg "clip_image004[4]")
GISS, ten years:
![clip_image006[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0064.jpg "clip_image006[4]")
HadCRUT4, five years:
![clip_image008[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0084.jpg "clip_image008[4]")
HadCRUt4, ten years:
![clip_image010[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0104.jpg "clip_image010[4]")
NCDC, five years:
![clip_image012[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0124.jpg "clip_image012[4]")
NCDC, ten years:
![clip_image014[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0144.jpg "clip_image014[4]")
The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, five years:
![clip_image016[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0164.jpg "clip_image016[4]")
The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, ten years:
![clip_image018[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0184.jpg "clip_image018[4]")
Now for the two satellite datasets. RSS, five years:
![clip_image020[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0204.jpg "clip_image020[4]")
RSS, ten years:
![clip_image022[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0224.jpg "clip_image022[4]")
UAH, five years:
![clip_image024[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0244.jpg "clip_image024[4]")
UAH, ten years:
![clip_image026[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0264.jpg "clip_image026[4]")
The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, five years:
![clip_image028[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0284.jpg "clip_image028[4]")
The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, ten years:
![clip_image030[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0304.jpg "clip_image030[4]")
The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, five years:
![clip_image032[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0324.jpg "clip_image032[4]")
The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, ten years:
![clip_image034[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0344.jpg "clip_image034[4]")
The only dataset that shows any warming at all is UAH over ten years. The warming is a not particularly dizzying one twenty-fifth of a Celsius degree over ten years, equivalent to two-fifths of a degree per century.
The RSS satellite dataset, on the other hand, now shows no global warming at all for an impressive 199 months, or 16 years 7 months:
![clip_image036[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0364.jpg "clip_image036[4]")
Not much “acceleration” there. Will it reach 200 months? I’ll report next month.
Finally, here is the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, which compares the projections backcast by the modelers to 2005 and published in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report with the real-world outturn as measured by the two satellite datasets.
![clip_image038[4]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0384.jpg "clip_image038[4]")
The lower bound of the orange zone is the IPCC’s low-end projection. Warming should be occurring at a minimum of 1.33 Cº/century. The thick bright red line is the IPCC’s mid-range projection: warming should be occurring at 2.33 Cº/century.
The real-world trend, represented by the thick bright blue trend line, shows global temperatures declining since January 2005 at a rate equivalent to almost a quarter of a Celsius degree (half a Fahrenheit degree) per century.
You may think that going to the trouble of producing so many graphs is overkill. Yet when I first spoke up at the U.N. climate conference in Doha and pointed out that there had been no global warming for 16 years the delegates were furious. So were the news media. One reason for their unreason: they simply did not know the facts.
One would have thought that among all the hours of hand-wringing on the air and pages of moaning in print about “global warming”, most of the news media would be faithfully reporting the monthly temperature anomalies. But no. The facts do not fit the Party Line, so they are not reported. They are consigned to the Memory Hole.
As for Mr. Obama’s statement about “acceleration”, he was plain wrong. Instead of the warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century global warming that had been “anticipated”, there has really been no change in global temperature at all over the past five or ten years.
Will somebody tell the “President”?
You’re trying to inject facts into a discussion with a “know-nothing” ideologue who is also a Chicago machine politician. The Chicago Way is to use the power of your office (legal or extra-legal) to reward your supporters and punish your opponents
Thank goodness for propane..
this is ridiculous….we all know the heat is there….it’s hiding at the bottom of the ocean
…and telecommuting with our weather with an IPad
the IRS has it bugged
“none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate”
Spectacularly awkward moment:
Thank you Lord Monckton.
There is no trend in temperature over these short periods. There is no correlation of temperature with CO2. If this lack of trend continues or if temperature declines statistically in the next few years, then this will truly falsify AGW.
Lord Monckton, I would like to personally think you for the work you have done and are doing, and pray that your efforts will bear abundant fruit!!
Very nice.
[snip – over the top – Anthony]
Brillant presentation. The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets for ten years along with the IPPC overheated,wished for predictions should be nailed to the walls of every classroon & universty pub (better veiwing than in any classroom) on the side of every overpass, bus, train and truck throughout the world and tatooed on Obamas oversized forehead!!!
Has anyone measured Obama’s hot air contribution to the warming? Its probably similar to Gore’s?
Maybe Obama meant that global warming has been decelerating! Someone hail the Whitehouse. Their climate change policies are working and the emergency is over. Phew.
Well, I consider my self very well (school) educated, and know a bit of physics. I will agree with Obama as far as the fact that it has ‘accelerated’.
However, I do not think Obama knows that acceleration can be either positive or negative.
The trend has (as always through earth’s history) accelerated. Just that it is currently exhibiting a negative acceleration
Fantastic video. In essence. all Ms. Cullen had to say was
“Please don’t look at the data. Please. Please please, don’t look at the data”.
Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
This disconnection to reality, this flight to fantasy land, coming from on high.
I say follow the money, but I’m surely too cynical?
The present stasis period in global air temperatures could lead to a renewed warming trend (what I would like) or to a cooling trend (what I fear). No one can know.
In any case, increasing the world’s energy poverty is surely not the proper remedy. Atmospheric CO2 increase has proven quite impotent, the Global Circulation Models have proven quite incapable of predicting anything well after the last big El Niño in 1998.
Will somebody tell the “President”?
probably not.
CO2 emissions rose faster then anticipated. A reasonable person might assume tempuratures must have rose faster then anticipated as well. The fact that temperature hasn’t is one of those big elephants in the room that many wish to avoid discussing at all.
That video is excellent. The best part of the video is the second part. Heidi Cullen talked about US extremes weather, then when contradicted with graphs when she said it was important to look at global. Haaaaaa haaaaa. This is the position Warmists are now in. Local / global dilemma. She will not want to go through that embarrassment again.
I don’t have much patience with these troublesome priests. Sic semper tyrannis.
=================
Well, I deny that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. But I deny it not because I take an aprioristic position opposite to Mr Obama’s aprioristic position, but because science is done by measurement, not by parroting the Party Line. And the measurements do not support the Party Line.
A very finely crafted paragraph, Lord Monckton.
To support the Party Line, it is common to distort and rewrite History. But whether the rewriting of History is done in the Oval Office or in the backroom of a government funded lab, the measurements of science will ultimately prevail.
Obama: “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”
What hogwash. Most certainly there is at least one person out of 5 billion who anticipated greater warming than what has been measured. But we need not go that far. There are members of Congress who believed so. There are government funded scientists (Mann, Hansen) who expected runaway warming. Anyone who is involved in the 350 org anticipated it, at least at face value.
Obama: “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”
I don’t have much patience for people who rewrite history and ignore scientific procedure and measurement.
He never seems to have the remotest idea what he is talking about.
Lord Monckton, I also wish to compliment you for the work you have done exposing the “President” 😉
Dear Lord Monckton of Brenchley,
Thank you.
Should you ever be at loose ends in the Heart of Texas, you would be welcome at our table. We could shoot guns and eat BBQ and drink beer and go to a rousing Bible thumping Baptist Church service (all of the things that the coasters believe of us here.)
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
@focoloco
A very good point. The rate of climate change might be accelerating, but the sign of acceleration is negative on many time scales. It certainly is over the past 14,000 years. Over the past 500,000 years, the acceleration have been cyclically positive and negative.
Catastrophic Climate Change is a very real danger. The Climate has tipped into Ice Age many times in the past. Negative acceleration is all it takes. It is all it took. An Ice Age would be catastrophic by anyone definition.
My favourite part was actually the final summing up, in which the Democrats were so embarrassed by Republican witness demolition of the “global warming” argument, they tried to reframe their hearing as an “ocean effects” hearing.
We saw in the hearing a microcosm of the progression which Morano highlighted in his hilarious eco scare piece. http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/01/19/time-for-next-ecoscare-already-as-global-warming-movement-collapses-activists-already-testmarketing-the-next-ecofear-laughing-gas-crisis-oxygen-crisis-plastics/
Ah so “accelerated global warming” = a very slight cooling trend.
It is so hard to keep up with modern new speak don’t you know.
One notes that the warmists have no mechanism by which CO2 causes localised weather anomalies. Their claim is that CO2 warms, and as the global temperature has not warmed in 17 years, one wonders how they could then link local temperature extremes to to CO2.
Checking just one of the graphs above with the data shows a conflict with UAH.
For the last five years it has been warming twice as fast as before.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2008
Can anyone explain the difference between the posted graph and the data available in the public domain?
Well way back in the “Old Days” (of WUWT, of course), Anthony did publish a fairly nice essay, on exactly what you just did, Lord Monckton.
Well exactly, in the sense that he did publish the four data sets (sans NCDC). Don’t recall that the “essay” part of it was extensive; just a label I used.
It was discussed for some time, and it served as a good base position, to familiarize us with the then current status. I’m thinking the data sets were longer, than your 5 and 10 year “extended weather reports.”
So it is indeed timely, and appropriate, that you honor us with your “leak” Lord Monckton; specially since it covers a good part of the recent history where “unprecedented high Temperatures”, have been found lurking in the neighbourhood of a local maximum, and where you have recently; and apparently gleefully, thrown sand in everybody’s face. Perish the thought that a cluster of unprecedented highs should rear their ugly head, somewhere else besides a local maximum.
So now we have a brand new anchor point, to go forward with Lord Christopher; and this time, we will remember that the essay part, is of substantially (even unprecedented) more eloquence, than those echoes from the good old days.
The shorter time frame is a bit of a disappointment, but I do understand you were adapting to The President’s stereo teleprompter utterance.
But please don’t play with vacant microphones; and parachuting onto the White house front lawn, is never a good idea; but do enjoy yourself. We enjoy reading about it.
Ben Wilson says:
July 21, 2013 at 8:31 am
Lord Monckton, I would like to personally think you for the work you have done and are doing, and pray that your efforts will bear abundant fruit!!
Very well said, ditto for me.
Anthony,
I would recommend some stickum for Lord Monckton’s essay, so we can dwell on it for some time. It’s a good recent refresher.
I’m generally a Monckton fan, but, this article is just silly. A climate cycle, glacial + interglacial period, is what, 100-150K years long. This article is looking at less than 10 years. The AGW people are looking a what, 50 year–100 years of poor quality data and unvalidated surrogates. If you are trying to do CLIMATE science and you are using anything less than 100 year average you are just looking at noise and picking out the pattern you want to see. Climate science isn’t even possible now. And given the abysmal accuracy of 24 hour weather prediction, even simple meteorology is barely feasible.
Lord Monckton, thank you for all you are doing for science. I believe the president’s meme on global warming is being used to implement a carbon tax. It is the only way to pay for Obamacare.
Jimbo says:
Heidi Cullen talked about US extremes weather, then when contradicted with graphs she said it was important to look at global.
Actually she said the opposite:
“(4:19)It’s really important for us to not look at the nation as this average. But what we’re seeing now is how the warming is impacting us in specific regions. (4:28) So in the southwest…”
In effect she said (I paraphrase) “(She) has to find anecdotal subsets of the data in order to fit (her) preconceived beliefs.”
And left unsaid (again I paraphrase), “the data (nation as an average) as just shown contradicts (her) current statements and belief in global warming.”
well, I knew all that
you should study the graph
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/the data reported here.
made from
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
According to my data set we already dropped almost 0.2 degrees C since 2000….
Global cooling is here and this will actually cause some climate change.
I predict droughts starting in about 6-7 years ago, lasting about 7 years.
However there is an imbalance in the ration of land area to sea area between the north and southern hemispheres. If the temperature changes in the land area and sea area are not identical, seasonality will appear in the global average temperature. I have no idea whether it actually appears in the data and what its magnitude is, it just does not seem to be a valid assumption without some examination of the data.
Since the analyses are all over 12 month multiples, this point amounts to a quibble for this exercise.
“accelerated global warming”
They wish!
Am more worried about sudden cooling when the NH moves towards winter.
The Polar jet has become a little more zonal and has tended to split into two this year. With flowing to the south while the other has been flowing around the Arctic circle. Now during the summer this jet stream pattern is not really a issue.But as we move towards the second half of November and this jet stream pattern is still in place. Then winter could come in hard and sudden. As its this type of Polar jet pattern that l suspect what was going on during the ice age.
Now of cause we are not in a ice age, but if this type of pattern turns up during the winter.
Then the sort of weather you get during a ice age could come a visiting for the season.
I suspect the data he started with, before he garbled it in his head, was that the loss of Arctic ice has been accelerating in that manner, and the %age of CO2 in the atmosphere, or the number of “extreme weather” events (as calculated by warmists, have done so. Anyway, that’s the line his advisors will or should advise him to use if he ever has to explain himself about his blunder.
====================================================================
“We … know that the climate (rhetoric) is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”
OK. I fixed that. Just one little word made a lie into a true statement. Maybe he should fire his speech writers?
I can’t help him with the second quote.
I think you’re being a little unkind. The president’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate is perfectly correct. It’s negative.
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 9:34 am
“Checking just one of the graphs above with the data shows a conflict with UAH.
For the last five years it has been warming twice as fast as before.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2008
Can anyone explain the difference between the posted graph and the data available in the public domain?”
Yes. you didn’t use 5 years. You used 5 years plus 6 months.
Now; you might ask, how is it that you can get such a big difference in trend because of a measly 6 months more. The answer, Izen, is of course that when Obama held his “5 to 10 years global warming acceleration” speech, he had not the faintest idea that 5 years is a totally irrelevant interval when talking about decades long climate trends; and he doesn’t have the faintest idea about that because he wouldn’t know a physical unit if it crawled up his nose and died there.A trend over 5 years is not much better than noise, and detecting an ACCELERATION with such a noisy trend is entirely impossible.
I mean it’s blatantly obvious but your question indicated that you don’t understand it therefore the lengthy explanation.
There’s only two answers for Obama’s move to kill the economy:
1. He’s woefully ignorant.
2. He’s a liar.
Since he’s a politician the correct answer may be both.
cn
Obama was only stating something he thought was politically trendy. Facts and details are always irrelevant in this type of instance.
The problem is the gullible masses tend to support trendy policies until there is a widespread realisation that they are as expensive, as they are pointless.
Goofy politician then puts the blame on being badly advised and never on his own gullibility.
It is now, as it ever was, and it will always be.
Five bucks says Obama’s sycophant advisors will never allow him to see the reality of global temperature trends, as shown by Moncton here.
@John West – wrt to the Youtube link of the hearing:
OMG, that Cullen statement is soooo bizarre. “The warming of the atmosphere has slowed (she meant stopped, but just couldn’t get that out of her mouth), greenhouse gasses have gone up and the warming has continued but the warming has gone in other aspects of the climate system, like the deep oceans.”
Que??????
So, the atmosphere is not warming, yet the greenhouse gasses now mysteriously have found a way to warm the bottom of the ocean. I would really like to hear a scientific explanation for that.
Until then my conclusion is that this woman has NO idea what she is talking about, and the bad thing is, looking at her facial expression and other signs, she knows it herself too.
tgasloli says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:15 am
“I’m generally a Monckton fan, but, this article is just silly. A climate cycle, glacial + interglacial period, is what, 100-150K years long. This article is looking at less than 10 years.”
You did notice that it was the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama who posited that the warming accelerated over the last 5 years; and that this post is a refutation of his Excellency Barack Obama’s claim, nothing more?
Thanks for paying attention.
Senator Boxer @ 5:36
That about sums it up for me.
From the post:
‘At a fund-raiser for the “Democratic” Congressional Campaign Committee in Chicago May 29, he had said, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”’
Well Mr. President, let me tell you something. I am an American voter and taxpayer. As such, I don’t have ANY patience for lame-brained politicians like you who don’t even understand what the issue here is in the first place. As Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT said at a Congressional hearing some years ago, this isn’t about the fact that the climate has changed and warmed in the 20th century (up to the mid 1990s when it stopped), or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The issue here Mr. President is how sensitive the climate is to the GHG effects of CO2, got that? I am not a scientist, but it is my understanding that the Earth cooled from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s, and temps have now been flat since the mid-1990s. So we have only about 20 years of warming in some 68 years. Don’t see any significant sensitivity there, do you Mr. President? Dr. Lindzen further stated that a doubling of CO2 should produce at most–at most–a 1 degree C rise in temps by the end of this century. Still don’t see anything to panic about there Mr. President, do you?
Secondly Mr. President, as an American voter and taxpayer, I don’t have a hell of a lot of patience for lame-brained politicians who are squandering billions of our tax dollars on idiotic “green energy” projects like wind and solar which are incapable of meeting this country’s electrical energy needs. Read my lips, Mr. President: There is only one energy technology capable of displacing our fossil fuel power plants, and that is nuclear. How much advanced nuclear energy research could we have funded with all those billions? This nation’s energy policy needs to be one which promotes nuclear technology (like LFTR, GE’s PRISM, and the pebble bed reactor) rather than one that wages war on existing energy sources and technologies.
Lastly Mr. President, as an American voter and taxpayer, I don’t have any patience for lame-brained politicians who don’t understand that there is no meaningful relationship that I know of between economic growth and prosperity on one hand and high or higher energy prices on the other. Stating as you did in your 2008 presidential campaign that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket, you obviously don’t have a clue.
With you in charge of it, I fear for the direction this country is going to take between now and January, 2017 when you are finally gone. Among other things, your energy, climate and environmental policies are out of whack and leave a lot to be desired, as does my patience with you.
There, I feel better now.
We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.
Like most everything Obama says, I have no idea if he actually believes this or not.
His actions tell me that he believes in an all powerful socialist government and he’s doing everything he can to to turn the U.S. into a socialist nation.
Everything is political with Obama. He doesn’t do or say anything that doesn’t advance the agenda. I suspect we’ll never know what he actually believes on individual issues because his public position is whatever advances the agenda. His personal beliefs on the issues are irrelevant.
We are dealing with an ideology here pure and simple. Just the very kind Kenneth Minogue in the UK and Jean Francois Revel wrote about so clearly. It’s what you do when you are pushing a notorious political philosophy and don’t want to admit it.
There is no interest in the facts because nothing is to falsify the memes. Because the memes give power and money and drive action once the memes get used to create influential false emotional beliefs in education. Which the media then bolster.
Years ago when Nobel Prize winner in Medicine Sir Peter Medawar took on the cultish nonsense surrounding another UN pus, Teilhard de Chardin, he came up with one of my all=time favorite lines. Fits with Heidi’s testimony this week too.
“the spread of secondary and tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.”
Amen to that observation. And they all want a job with the government or an NGO.
R. Shearer says:
July 21, 2013 at 8:30 am
There is no trend in temperature over these short periods. There is no correlation of temperature with CO2. If this lack of trend continues or if temperature declines statistically in the next few years, then this will truly falsify AGW.
———————–
Sure, I agree, but it won’t matter to those in power.
cn
@- DirkH Re:- discrepency of trends,
“Yes. you didn’t use 5 years. You used 5 years plus 6 months.”
Wow, so a difference of a few weeks makes a small negative trend into a positive trend an order of magnitude greater!
@-“Now; you might ask, how is it that you can get such a big difference in trend because of a measly 6 months more. The answer, Izen, is of course ….A trend over 5 years is not much better than noise, and detecting an ACCELERATION with such a noisy trend is entirely impossible.”
So pointing out a negative trend is just as much confirmation bias as a positive trend because it is impossible to detect a significant trend, the time period is too short.
@-“I mean it’s blatantly obvious but your question indicated that you don’t understand it therefore the lengthy explanation.”
Well I understand it much better now thanks to your lucid explanation. I expect others now understand the futility of deriving rates of change of a trend from such short time periods as well.
Some of the longer trends in the graphs above also depend on a specific start date. Would it be correct to infer that also indicates that any trend is not much better than noise and it is impossible to reach a conclusion about whether any trend is changing ?
Is a longer time period a better indication than a shorter one, what would be the minimum time period to avoid the ‘noise’ obscuring any trend?
The Chicago Way is all about making down the new up……for money of course.
The Flat Earth Society: Still going strong.
Obama the spokesman, so what can go wrong?
All his “Carbon pollution”
is a Marxist collusion.
It’s food for the hungry, so let’s get along.
So the major point that the Warmists appears to be making is that a warmer atmosphere can carry more water vapor and that in turn leads to more severe weather events ?
But if the atmosphere is NOT warming how does that fit with the narrative of blaming severe weather events on the extra water vapor in a warming atmosphere ? Yes I know the answer. It can’t they are mutually exclusive outcomes.
As for the Deep Ocean story it’s a meme that smacks of desperation :
1) We can’t find the “missing” heat in the atmosphere
2) It has to be here as if it isn’t our entire CO2 theory falls apart, it has to be somewhere.
3) Aha ! It’s gone from the atmosphere and infiltrated the deep ocean.
4) We know we can’t show that by measuring it to any meaningful degree, but trust us, it’s there.
Yeah, right. That’s not a scientific argument.
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:52 am
“Well I understand it much better now thanks to your lucid explanation.”
Well that is just great, Izen.
” I expect others now understand the futility of deriving rates of change of a trend from such short time periods as well.
So we can agree that His Excellency Barack Obama and the honorable Ms. Heidi Cullen were both talking out of their nether regions.
Agreement at last!
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:52 am: “…Is a longer time period a better indication than a shorter one, what would be the minimum time period to avoid the ‘noise’ obscuring any trend?…”
Answer: 199 months, or 16 years 7 months. You’re welcome.
“Will somebody tell the “President”?
Whyever tell the President something he already knows? Indeed the press corps all probably know that the Earth has not warmed in more than 15 years. This is an artifice to justify taking more taxes and more control: part of Agenda 21 in which the President and the press have a ‘Common Purpose’.
What we are also witnessing is the death throes of the dinosaurs of the ‘Fourth Estate’ their monitoring is a complete failure. They are being rapidly replaced by blogs like this one but do not fully realize how they are hastening their own demise.
The typical Chicago greeting: Who sent you ?
Did anyone ask the attractive Bubblehead for the Data that shows ‘The Heat going into the Deep Oceans’ ? Major missed opportunity!
Interesting that Sen. Boxer should mention Alice in Wonderland. Perhaps she was confusing it with the companion work Alice Through the Looking Glass.
That seems more appropriate to her insistence that down is really up, that global warming “is happening now” and making the world COOLER.
President Obama’s blattently misleading and untruthful statement that warming has been “accelerating” over the last 5 or 10 years when it has been slowing.
Heidi Cullen is right beside the Red Queen, saying we can’t see the warming because it’s now happening down the rabbit hole. That the only reason that the average is flat is because some parts are getting hotter, while others are getting cooler.
Hell, that’s not “weird weather”, that’s what averages are for. That kind of statement will always be true unless climate really does get screuwed-up and it ends up being the same temperature everywhere.
Having peddled the global average concept as “proof” of global warming for the last 30 years, it’s somehow not the right metric any more. Having screamed about the warming of the surface temperature record for the last 30 years, suddenly it’s not what matters any more. It now hidden in the deep ocean, where the records are even more unreliable and sparse.
These people are not stupid or untrained or uninformed, they know they are not speaking the truth. They know they are lying to us. They just think that we are so stupid, untrained and ignorant that we will believe their BS.
Lies, damned lies, and climate statistics.
YA BASTA!
Actually the reason 5years 6 months makes such a huge change is because lord monckton was using the seasons to cancel each other out in his 5 year example. Starting in the winter and ending in the summer means you have 6 winters and 5 summers so they have a hard time cancelling each other out. So you started from a very cold time and ended in a hot, which means the trend has to be positive. Lord Monckton balanced his by starting in one season and ending in the same season. Really its simple no need for the sarcasm.
@- Pablo an ex Pat
“As for the Deep Ocean story it’s a meme that smacks of desperation :
1) We can’t find the “missing” heat in the atmosphere
2) It has to be here as if it isn’t our entire CO2 theory falls apart, it has to be somewhere.
3) Aha ! It’s gone from the atmosphere and infiltrated the deep ocean.”
Seems a reasonable hypothesis. It matches Bob Tisdales’ idea that the present La Niña pattern is one of the oceans gaining energy.
@- “4) We know we can’t show that by measuring it to any meaningful degree, but trust us, it’s there.”
It can certainly be measured to a degree.
the measured rise in sea level has as one explanation the thermal expansion of the oceans. Inevitably there is great uncertainty, but the less influence you ascribe to thermal expansion the more land based ice you have to find to explain the rising sea level.
The GRACE satellite measurement put constraints on how much ice has melted. It tracked the increased rainfall in 2010/2011which briefly led to a fall in sea level.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2011-la-ni%C3%B1a-so-strong-oceans-fell
But floods eventually return to the sea and the continued rise in sea level over the last ten years is a difficult datum to square with claims of no warming or slight cooling over the last decade. Perhaps it depends on how meaningful you regard an expanding ocean.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
@-“Yeah, right. That’s not a scientific argument.”
Okay, so what would be a scientific way to test the hypothesis that energy has continued to enter the oceans over the last decade?
One of the Climate people (climate something or other), claimed the heat was now in the deep oceans due to circulatory changes.
Obama didn’t say global warming is happening faster than ten years ago, he said faster than anticipated. Linking to AR5 is pointless. You have to compare to the projections made in AR4 and TAR.
Also, showing a negative trend over ten years might not be good enough for the Tamino level word parsers. You have to show that global warming is not happening as fast as thought previously. ‘Happening’ can be many different things. If the AR5 forecasts are for higher warming than before, then Obama’s statement is still true.
“… Will somebody tell the “President”?”
It would seem that no one can tell His Omniscience anything.
Thanks for the great post.
what a mess this man/president is…..
…he doesn’t even know when he’s admitting he’s a failure
Jun 3, 2008 – “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” — Barack Obama
==========================================================================
I bet your favorite game when you were a kid was "Twister".
Alarmists are already switching gears for some time, from global temperatures to weird weather. So in five years we might pretty much be reducing “carbon pollution” to make days sunnier and grass greener and everybody will be surprised why these skeptical eccentrics are still discussing temperatures. And in ten more years we might find ourselves fighting global cooling again using pretty much the same means we are fighting global warming today (and were fighting global cooling in ’70s).
Jun 3, 2008 – “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” — Barack Obama
That time he got it about right. It may have been nearer 2005 but he was about right. Now he’s off in cloud cuckoo land.
Trying to associate this with his coming to office (which I believe is what he was implying in that speech) is either delusional, dishonest or both.
The proper translation of
“global warming has gone into the deep ocean”
is: CAGW has gone in the tank.
That would be roundish type tank with a flushing action.
A skeptic might ask what happened some 15 or so years ago that caused the warming (such as it was) to switch from the atmosphere to the deep water of the world ocean.
———————————————–
CD (@CD153) says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:36 am
“I am an American voter and taxpayer.”
Many readers can make the same claim. However, unless you donate large sums of money or “bundle” money from others you will not reach the ‘ear’ of the man. Neither will he appoint you to an ambassadorship nor seek to reward you in any other manner. He will guess that you did not vote for him but he does approve of you being a taxpayer.
————————————————
DirkH,
I note you are at the top of your game today.
I needed a good chuckle.
MikeN on Monkton: “Linking to AR5 is pointless. ”
Yes, I thought that choice rather odd but the point in moot since whether it’s AR4 or AR5 they are a still predicting “alarming” and “catastrophic” warming when the reality is ZERO.
And ZERO is not “faster” than anyone expected five to ten years ago.
tgasloli says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:15 am
I’m generally a Monckton fan, but, this article is just silly. A climate cycle, glacial + interglacial period, is what, 100-150K years long. This article is looking at less than 10 years…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
The Essay is in response to
2.3% of all warming goes into the atmospheric charts you are showing.
The rest of the 97.7% of warming goes into the rest of the world.
This can most easily be demonstrated by analyzing the components of the sea level rise over the last 4 decades.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/fig_tab/nature07080_F3.html
The overwhelming majority of the sea level rise has been associated with thermal expansion of the oceans from 0-700 meters and from 700 to 2000 meters of depth.
This accounts for 65% of total sea level rise over the last 4 decades with the other components being land-based ice melt in antarctica (yes, land based ice levels are dropping even as sea ice levels are expanding) greenland and land-based glaciers.
It is also important to note that the amount of land based storage component of sea level rise has had a negative effect, which follows predictions of increased precipitation as temperatures rise, humidity increases and water vapor in the atmosphere creates an additional greenhouse effect that is slightly higher than that caused by anthropogenic CO2.
so, yeah, it is really convenient that ocean surface temperatures have gone down since the 1998 el nino due to wind patterns but that extra heat going into the ocean is just as much a component of warming as air temperatures.
Let me put it another way, if 2.3% of the warming went into the oceans and 97.7% of the warming went into the atmosphere, we would all be dead right now due to the warming that occured over only the last 5 years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg
Another excellent essay by Lord Benchley!
Here’s a link to a document released a couple of days ago (July 18) as a minority report of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. The report is entitled “Critical Thinking on Climate Change”. On Page 5 is a chart that compares the actual satellite measurements vs the averaged predictions of 44 models from 1979 to the present. A very interesting 21-page report.
http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CriticalThinkingOnClimate.pdf
Chris4692 says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:20 am
…However there is an imbalance in the ration of land area to sea area between the north and southern hemispheres. If the temperature changes in the land area and sea area are not identical, seasonality will appear in the global average temperature. I have no idea whether it actually appears in the data and what its magnitude is, it just does not seem to be a valid assumption without some examination of the data…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are correct, John, the Inconvenient Skeptic, goes into that Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly (See second graph)
This is well worth the read and Anthony might want to approach John about cross posting the essay. (Yeah it is that interesting)
All one has to do to establish a much longer downward regression for temps is to refer back to the 1930s,. the hottest period of the last 100 years. Despite cyclical ups and downs, temps today are substantially lower than in the 1930s – a period of 80 years, not 10 years, of an overall downward trend in temps. Notably also, the warm temps of the early 1990s – the last -peak – were considerably less than the 1930s.
Dr Heidi in the ocean Cullen: “… with respect to President Obama’s specific comment, I can’t comment on that, but …”
Why can’t you comment Dr Cullen. Do you have trouble understanding the numbers?
“I think now we need to focus on the fact that the warming is happening very, very quickly…”
Bare-faced lie in front of Senate committee. Very impressive Dr Cullen, very, very impressive.
You will be getting a call from Mr Nutter the beginning of next week confirming your grant for next years work.
Seriously, with the amount of predictions the IPCC makes, sooner or later they’ll get it right by blind-guessing. I discovered something astonishing yesterday that I don’t believe any anti-CAGW blog has to my knowledge yet covered and it completely blows the idea that humans are primarily responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 out the water. I took the estimates of oceanic warming from 0-2000m and applied Henry’s law of solubility (there’s an equation on Wikipedia’s Henry’s law page for determining this) to see how much this would decrease the aqueous concentration of CO2. The most difficult part by far was calculating the CO2(aq) concentration between 0-2000m because the retrograde solubility of CO2 means the oceans progressively hold more CO2 with depth as they decrease in temperatue. It turns out that when applying Henry’s law almost 80% of the observed increase between 1900-2000 can be explained by outgassing. The only paper I found that has estimated oceanic temperature to a depth of 2000m as far back as 100 years was Viktor Gouretski’s 2013 paper. Other papers imply a similar thing, i.e. CO2 increases in the atmosphere can be explained largely by the warming ocean. In fact, there is no other explanation, unless Henry’s law of solubility is wrong.
@- JimF
“Answer: 199 months, or 16 years 7 months.”
Thank you that is most helpful.
would it be even MORE reliable to add a few more months, round it up to 17 years?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996.5/to:2013.5/trend/plot/wti/from:1996.5/to:2013.5
Latitude says:
July 21, 2013 at 8:24 am
this is ridiculous….we all know the heat is there….it’s hiding at the bottom of the ocean
=======================================
Is it on the shell of the snail, on the tail of the frog, on the bump on the log, in the hole at the bottom of the sea?
Robin says: @ July 21, 2013 at 10:39 am
….Years ago when Nobel Prize winner in Medicine Sir Peter Medawar took on the cultish nonsense surrounding another UN pus, Teilhard de Chardin, he came up with one of my all=time favorite lines. Fits with Heidi’s testimony this week too.
“the spread of secondary and tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.”
Amen to that observation. And they all want a job with the government or an NGO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
And just think, 50% of those with secondary and tertiary education have IQ’s @ 100 and below and they are now running the government. Worse, because they are part of the un-fireable bureaucracy we are stuck with them until they retire. Politicians come and go but the petty little tyrants in our bureaucracies hang on busily consolidating their power, building empires and strangling the economy with red tape while they suck out its lifeblood.
I always figured the fall of empires was due to the ever expanding bureaucracies and red tape.
….Interestingly the mean length of an empire is 220 years….
Some do manage to last a long time, but most do not. I figure those that last are the one that managed to allow their citizens freedom from smothering red tape and taxes.
In reply to the Obama administration’s assertion they do not have patience for scientific discussion:
“I (William: The Obama administration of course means all fellow warmists do not have patience for scientific discussion as the warmists cannot win the argument based on science) don’t have much patience for people who deny (William: deny in this context means to present facts that disprove the faulty hypothesis) climate change.”
There has been 15 years of climategate science papers/journal blocking, IPCC shenanigans, and propaganda to try to push the incorrect extreme warming hypothesis.
Global cooling climate change and bankrupt cities will be the principal issues for the next presidential election. Ignoring reality and name calling does not change reality. Obviously the fact that trillions of dollars have been wasted on green scams and job killing regulation to fight the war on ‘climate’ change is a significant reason why cities and countries are going bankrupt. The well meaning ‘liberals’ have a never ending list of programs that they would like to fund. Bankrupt countries must unfortunately cut entitlements.
The solar magnetic cycle is rapidly changing, it appears the sun will be spotless based on observations by the end of this year. 23 out 23 times, the planet cooled when the solar magnetic cycle changed from a grand maximum to a Maunder like minimum. The planet stopped warming roughly 16 years ago. The planet has started to cool.
Izen says:
“…would it be even MORE reliable…”
No. You have it backward. You will just have to wait until 17 years has elapsed.
But nice try, and thanx for playing.
Rich , perhaps you could show you workings for that calculation. Gosta Pettersson presented three papers here recently, one of which looked at this question but did not look at that long scale.
Also the rate of change being proportional to temperature is basic relationship that comes from the temperature variability of Henry’s coefficient and this is very close to what is seen in the recent data.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
However, I am still unaware of any calculation of the century long dependence. If you have done something , let’s see it.
jai mitchell says:
July 21, 2013 at 12:12 pm
2.3% of all warming goes into the atmospheric charts you are showing.
The rest of the 97.7% of warming goes into the rest of the world….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean like this graph shows? Then I am in agreement.
The problem is that President Obama does have the background in science to understand that a global temperature computer projections are not the same as the reality found in the temperature data, He probably looked at a diagram such as Figure 1 that project the warming as increasing
(accelerating). If he looked at the data in the above graph he would conclude that it is faster than we thought from the data. This is the problem enjoyed by the warmist crowd. Ignore the temperature data because the projections are what we want to happen.This includes the many predictions of dire consequences of global warming that are projected to occur but haven’t yet manifested themselves. The temperature of the planet has been increasing since the 1890’s. In that time period there have been changes in the rate. However, a rate of change of global temperature of nearly zero for 15 years may be the most significant point to make in opposition to the meme that all the global warming is due to CO2 release to the atmosphere.
Rich says: @ July 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rich you need to write it up and submit it to Anthony to publish here.
There are certainly a lot of scientists, engineers and those with math backgrounds to look over the work and offer help and advise. Who knows maybe like Willis you will get a paper out of it.
What a brilliant article. Lord Monckton, I believe you’ve wrapped it up. Very neatly, too, it’s all here.
Me Lard,
Another one of your well crafted pieces with crystal clarity to counter the absurd and well worn and outdated Obama statement.
As an outsider to the US I had high hopes for Obama. I have to admit I liked the man. He has totally disappointed me on this issue. His earlier statements indicated to me he was wavering on the climate “debate” and all I can now conclude that his “advisers” have truly nobbled and bombarded him with junk science. Well either that, or is he just scientifically illiterate or is there some other motive?.
Gail, “Politicians come and go but the petty little tyrants in our bureaucracies hang on busily consolidating their power”
The tyranny was established long ago. Abuses of the United States Constitution began with the administration of Abraham Lincoln when they entered into war against other genuine Americans resulting in establishment of a strong central government not authorized by the constitution. Each successive administration added layers of tyranny until the USA has reached the intolerable with George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has now or has ever had any effect on climate here on earth. As far as atmospheric physics is concerned H2O provides ample negative feedbacks to the the addition of CO2 so as to trivialize any effect on climate. The real problem is selling these ideas. President Obama’s first priority is suppose to be job creation yet he takes so many anti job stances. President Obama is pushing a lose lose agenda. That is who we are dealing with.
The President said that the White House dog would be a mutt, “like me”, from a shelter yet the dog they got was a purebred who has never set foot on a shelter. The President is suppose to be the most powerful man in the free world yet he could not keep his word osomethingng as trivial as the White House dog. President Obama is in the habit of saying things that sound good at the time but that turn out to be nothing but bs. So President Obama does not really care about true science..What he is most interested in is the politics to support his lose lose agenda.
I personally believe that there are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but global warming is not one of them.
Robin, 21 July at 10:39 AM:
Wonderful summary; it there any additional documentation on your quote? Can you give some background on the other individual (de Chardin) and the circumstances? The quote sums up so much in regard to the whole of the CAGW meme. Consider sending it to JoNova, if able!
Regards,
Mark H.
A very good job of demolishing President Obama’s latest foray into science, Lord Monkton.
President Obama has always resorted to equivocation when the truth wasn’t working for him. He could have avoided making any specific claims about climate, after all he is not a climatologist, he is a politician. But, instead, he chose to make an unsupportable claim in an attempt to make his case, and scare everyone into action. Equivocating appears to be his go-to tactic when he needs to recruit people to his cause. What would be interesting to know is who, if anyone, informed him that warming was accelerating? Did he talk about it with Cullen, who thinks the heat has decided to hide in the oceans, or did he realize that most people would accept whatever he said unquestioningly? Inquiring minds need to know.
Keep an eye on the MSM to see if they report his “mistake”. My money is that they won’t go near it.
It’s part of the plan, when you’re out to fundamentally climate change America.
Jai Mitchell.
From the British Antarctic Survey:
Around the coasts of Antarctica, temperatures are generally close to freezing in the summer (December–February) months, or even slightly positive in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula. During winter, monthly mean temperatures at coastal stations are between −10°C and −30°C but temperatures may briefly rise towards freezing when winter storms bring warm air towards the Antarctic coast.
Conditions on the high interior plateau are much colder as a result of its higher elevation, higher latitude and greater distance from the ocean. Here, summer temperatures struggle to get above −20°C and monthly means fall below −60°C in winter.
So, temperatures NEVER approach the 0 C where ice can melt, over virtually the entire continent. On the Peninsula in summer sometimes temps get slightly above freezing. So how is all this ice melting and creating SLR? Sublimation maybe? That is a pretty slow process, check in your ice-maker in the freezer…
” We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”
jai mitchell says: uhm, yes, but, oh……look there!
ITs even worse than we thought!!!
@Downdraft –
Far from reporting it as a mistake, the major networks are reporting der Fuehrer’s statements as gospel and have been all along. Unfortunately, neither Lord Mockton’s incisive piece nor all the contrary evidence in the universe will ever get him to back off – it’s his primary justification for his attack on civil liberties and his plan to turn the US into a socialist dictatorship..
My apologies for my bad typing and misspelling Lord Monckton’s name.
I wish to formally register a strong protest at your laws of censorship!
Please set up a special section where comments by Tucci78 can be viewed by adults of sound mind and good character. Wimps can stay away!
Comments by “Mr. Vituperation” himself are always highly entertaining, frequently accurate, always to the point, sometimes enlightening, and unlikely to cause any lasting damage to anything except fragile egos.
Keep it up Tucci; your input is greatly missed. Don’t let the **stards grind you down! (some chance 🙂
Best wishes.
Farmerbraun.
[snip – twice now – if there’s a third you’ll go to permanent bit bucket – Anthony]
Can anyone explain why large area’s of the western lndian ocean surface are rather cool at the moment ?.
There seems to be a lot weather activity over on the eastern side of the ocean at the moment along with strong wind shear. Which looks to be increasing the amount of cloud cover over on the western side. But am not sure this would explain all the cooling am seeing.
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm
According to Hansen you only need to wait 8 years because that was how long the world was warming for back in 1988, when the world was apparently facing CGW.
The 17 years is nonsense, made up rubbish that has no support of anything. Only periods that have not warmed longer than that length are the long cooling ones. (in fact these are shorter than 17 years)
Michael Moon,
The west antarctic ice sheet is losing more mans than the east is gaining, also the peninsula is losing land-based ice somewhat, but more gradually.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:52 am
Is a longer time period a better indication than a shorter one, what would be the minimum time period to avoid the ‘noise’ obscuring any trend?
Santer talks about 17 years. As the article mentioned, RSS is at 16 years and 7 months. However in addition, Hadsst2 is at 16 years and 4 months and HadCRUT3 is at 16 years and 2 months. So just a bit of patience is needed.
Gail Combs
no, not like the picture you show. More like if you place a bowl of ice cold water in a room it will gain more heat than if you place a jar of air that is only .5 degrees fahrenheit cooler in the same room.
heat is transferred between two objects according to their differences in temperatures. when the sea surface temperature has a slightly greater mixing, its surface stays cooler and it can acquire more heat than it did before.
Pablo an ex Pat says:
July 21, 2013 at 11:01 am
As for the Deep Ocean story it’s a meme that smacks of desperation :
4) We know we can’t show that by measuring it to any meaningful degree, but trust us, it’s there.
On another post, the following was quoted.
“0-2000 m (last 8.3 yrs): (0.80 +/- 0.09) e22 J/yr”?
It sounds huge, but when you translate that into a temperature change, it seems to disappear!
From an earlier article by Bob Tisdale:
“That obviously means that about 48% of the ocean volume is above 2000 meters.”
The volume of water from 0 to 2000 m is about 48% of 1.37 x 10^9 km^3 or 6.58 x 10^8 km^3. With 1000 m in a km, this would be 10^9 m3 in a km3, for a total volume of 6.58 x 10^17 m^3.
So let us assume that the last 8.3 years got 0.80 x 10^22 J x 8.3 = 6.64 x 10^22 J.
The specific heat capacity of sea water is 3850 J/kgC.
The density of sea water is about 1020 kg/m3, so a volume of 6.58 x 10^17 m3 has a mass of 6.7 x 10^20 kg.
Plugging in these numbers into Q = mct gives:
6.64 x 10^22 J = 6.7 x 10^20 kg x 3850 J/kgC x dt
This gives a change in temperature of 0.0257 C if I did not make a mistake.
Well, Matt G–Look at it this way:
CO2 is the most important gas in the world.
Want proof? Just remove oxygen equal to the weight of CO2 from the atmosphere and nobody would notice any difference.
Remove the same weight of CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e., all of it) and we’d all be dead in short order. We’d all starve to death in a few months.
So pound per pound, CO2 is the most important, and hence the most valuable gas in the world.
And Obama wants to curtail it.
He’s completely daft, along with his “science” advisors.
Obama’s statement is perfectly understandable. All politicians understand “The Big Lie”.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Robin
My favourite line from Medawar’s demolition of the very much not UN Teilhard de Chardin is: “it’s author can only be excused of dishonesty on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.”
I shall leave it to you to decide who is the self-deceived.
OT but urgent:
DC Superior Court judge has been placed under the severe mis-impression that nearly one dozen formal investigations have examined the scientific merits of Michael Mann’s work and that it has always been “found to be proper”.
Since most of the so-called (pseudo) investigations did not even pretend to examine Mann’s work, this is of course an enormous misconception which has been pressed upon the judge. [cross-posted at CA, with h/t to Matthu at Bishop Hill for the link]
I realize that the legal vs. scientific distinctions go in varied ways, and also that this blog typically avoids the use of the “F” word in relation to Mann’s work. However, it may be time for someone (I’m not suggesting Steve, but maybe a close follower of Mannian issues who knows a lot more than I do) to write a succinct summary of why and how the various “investigations” have done little or nothing to prove that Mann’s work is “found to be proper.”
The legal status is simply that Mann’s suit can go forward in September. It would be a shame if anyone at NR or CEI stopped defending Steyn or fighting the case, simply because the issues were not well enough understood.
DC Superior Court thinks Michael Mann’s work has been investigated by nearly one dozen investigative bodies and “found to be proper”
It is evident that the temperature did not rise since 2000.
at this web-site:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
you find the latest updated figures comparing both HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature records and the IPCC model projections. The figures also show a comparison with the model that I propose which is made of specific harmonics + a significantly reduced anthropogenic effect, which works much better than any IPCC GCMs in reconstructing past temperatures and projects a significantly lower 21st century warming.
All details are found in my latest “invited review” publication
Scafetta N., 2013. Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs. Energy & Environment 24(3-4), 455–496.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/Scafetta_EE_2013.pdf
RR says “And Obama wants to curtail it.”
Well he’s going to have to invade China and India then. 🙂
All he will be doing is moving even more industry to these areas, at the expense of American industry.
Thereby pushing the GLOBAL CO2 level up even faster.
Which is GOOD !!!
Thank you Mr Obama for considering the biosphere.
Obama is not credible as the people he uses to obtain and skew it are part of the “agenda”.. The world would be such a better place if we were truly honest with one another. Man being flawed and corrupt is the problem. Sadly the reasons for religion are being swept under the rug to allow corruption to run unabated.
There is a reason that the signers of the Declaration of Independence Pledged their HONOR and their LIVES under GOD… The preamble of the US Constitution also alludes to this fact and why three separate branches were tightly constrained in there job duties. Specifically limiting each and using the checks and balanaces was the way to keep men honest. Our form of government has become corrupt.
The EPA is an abomination of an organization as it negates a branch of government (congress) and places itself above them because “they know best”.. Time for congress to take back the reigns of this runaway unaccountable organization. Until We the People get a clue about what the founders meant for us and why we will most certainly loose this country.
Facts are dammedable things. You are not entitled to your own set.. Those in that senate hearing looked like deer in the head lights when Spencer presented facts. Many Thanks to a Brit who knows our system of government better than most Americans and is willing to present the facts.
rogerknights says: July 21, 2013 at 10:23 am
I would like to see what script his advisors would provide for Obama in case he ever has to explain his more recent sermonizing in Soweto, where he told his audience that if the world continues on our current path, “the planet will boil over”.
Yes, he really did say this! (Audio-visual evidence available here. Scroll down for video; Obama segment begins at approx.6:45)
‘was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.’
Ok, let me be perfectly clear here. Ok, well, somewhat clear. Ok, well, maybe clear. Ok… Anyway, I don’t think a defense must really be mounted in favor of the truth. Well, that’s not true, but skip that last statement for now. See, what Obama was really referring to was the acceleration of Air Force One. He super secretly modified it (where did you think that measly 800 billion stimulus really disappeared to?) to where it’s the fastest accelerating obscenely large presidential jet compared to all the other incessantly growing obscenely large presidential jets. Now, even Obama couldn’t foresee just how fast the AF1 acceleration program would proceed. But proceed it did because he needs it. His time is valuable. (If you think that last sentence was hard to read just think of how hard it was to type.) So, that’s what he was talking about. Obama’s assertion is really that over the past decade (Obama always rounds to the nearest highest number…unless it’s advantageous to always round to the nearest lowest number) global jetting has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.
Does the foregoing sound really stupid? Well, does it sound any stupider than putting the fate of over three hundred million people in the hands of one man? And, in consequence, both overtly and covertly, indirectly the fate of one whole helluva lot more than 300,000,000 people? Does it sound any sillier than putting the fate of the economy and energy sources for over 300,000,000 people unilaterally in the hands of one man – one man – who really doesn’t know diddly squat about economics and energy? Does it sound thoroughly insane to put one man – one man – in charge of national security for 300,000,000 people when the only time he ever fired a gun it was for a photo shoot and it was obvious he didn’t know how to aim it? Does it sound like pure lunacy to put one man in charge of disaster relief for 300,000,000 when the only thing he knows what to do for disasters is put on a leather bomber jacket and grin for the cameras? Does it sound like the highest attainment of idiocy to put all these functions for 300,000,000 people in the eenie meenie mieney moe pen of self serving executive orders? Does it…
Welcome to Detroit.
@Nicola Scafetta
When even the highly adjustable HadCrud cannot show a warming trend,, it must be getting cold !!!
@Nicola Scafetta
To me, Figure 2 in your pdf illustrates the problem that the models have.
HadCrud intentionally removes the peak around the late 1930’s by using what they call adjustments.
They then “hindcast” (ie fiddle their fudge numbers) to match this highly manipulated fabrication.
They CANNOT hope to get projections correct., EVER.
William Astley says:
July 21, 2013 at 12:51 pm
The solar magnetic cycle is rapidly changing, it appears the sun will be spotless based on observations by the end of this year.
Clairvoyance beats science every time…
“Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.”
Certainly Mr. Obama is correct with his assertion, as the “rate of acceleration” of approximately 0 or even negative acceleration has been occurring. Zero and negative numbers are also valid rates of acceleration. Mann fools while Nature Rules!
The zero and negative rates of acceleration where certainly “unforeseen” by the Soothsayers of Co2 Climate Doomsday. Unforeseen since they are overly dedicated to their CAGW Nature Falsified hypothesis.
Interesting.
Dr. Cullen’s testimony makes many statements that sound like “it can be shown that”, when in fact there should be easily referable studies that do show that warming is increasing.
If that’s the point she’s trying to make, which is not at all clear. What it instead sounds like is: we could make a case for warming, if we wanted to. Because weather is changing. We are for instance recording many more heavy downpours now with our more extensive weather stations than we did a century ago. Some places, are seeing much more drought than e.g. Oklahoma did in the 1930s. The oceans are maybe warming, which we could easily show you but won’t. Weather is changing, which of course means that we’re changing it.
It all sounds very dodgy.
I wonder if his advisors told him that. If so, it would be in character. The temptation to do so would be strong.
Many thanks to everyone who has taken the trouble to comment. Some responses to commenters’ queries:
One or two have complained that the periods of study – five years and ten years – are too short to draw definitive conclusions. I agree, but I generated the graphs in response to Mr Obama’s specific statement that global warming had accelerated over the past five or ten years at an unforeseen rate.
I have conducted sensitivity analyses on the data, and the most rapid period of warming lasting more than ten years is in HadCrut4, which shows a warming rate equivalent to 2 K/century from 1974 to 2006 inclusive, a period of 33 years.
However, the warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from 1976 to 2001 accounted for all but seven of those 33 years. Inspection suggests that the ocean oscillations appear to follow a 60-year cycle, with approximately 30 years’ warming followed by 30 years’ cooling. For an interesting discussion of this, see Nicola Scafetta’s remarkable recent paper, and also Tsonis et al., 2006.
Therefore, one should either take 60-year periods so as to cancel out the visible naturally-occurring influence of the ocean oscillations or take periods centered on a phase-transition in those oscillations.
Taking the most recent 60-year period, from June 1953 to May 2013 inclusive, the trend on the mean of the three terrestrial datasets (GISS, HadCRUt4 and NCDC) is 0.74 K over the 60 years, equivalent to a not very terrifying 1.25 K/century. And if Michaels & McKitrick’s intriguing economic analysis of the startling correlation between regional rates of industrial growth and of increase in temperature is correct, half of the land-based warming in recent decades was caused by inadequate adjustments in the datasets for the urban heat-island effect.
Some commenters have questioned whether seasonality is evident in the global temperature anomalies. I have conducted sensitivity analyses recently in response to a private commenter who raised the same question, and the answer is that no seasonality is detectable in the temperature datasets, while it is of course detectable in the CO2 concentration dataset, precisely because of the asymmetric distribution of land masses between the northern and southern hemispheres that the commenter had mentioned. That asymmetry does not appear to cause a discernible seasonality in the temperature data.
I have looked at the temperature records in the round, and I cannot discern any unmistakable signature of manmade warming. There has been some warming over the past century, though it stopped about a decade and a half ago. The 60-year quasi-periodicity in the temperature data is plainly not caused by CO2, because it has increased monotonically, not cyclically, and absence of correlation between the CO2 and temperature datasets necessarily implies absence of causation between one and the other as far as the cyclicity is concerned.
That is not to deny the possibility that CO2 may have contributed something to the warming of the past half-century: indeed, it may even have contributed as much as half the warming, or less than 0.4 K, as the IPCC suggests. But one cannot definitively discern this supposed anthropogenic effect from the temperature data.
Some ground-breaking work on the far more interesting correlation between changes in solar activity and in global temperature is now being done in Australia by at least two separate researchers, following Herschel’s observation in 1801 that the fluctuations in London grain prices and in the sunspot number over the 11-year cycle were anti-correlated. The research appears to indicate that the short-term fluctuations in solar activity, though they discernibly cause the short-term cycles global temperatures in a manner that the monotonic increase in CO2 manifestly does not, are absolutely predictive of global temperature change on all timescales provided that the time-integral of the solar-activity change is taken.
Since multiple time-scales are being researched by both parties (I have not yet persuaded them to talk to each other, for they would each learn much if they did), both parties are using a mathematical weapon ideally suited to such studies – Fourier analysis. This technique is well beyond the capacity of most climatologists. It may – I stress may – allow a definitive determination of climate sensitivity. The difficulty, if the researches now in train come to a successful conclusion, will be in explaining to climatologists who simply do not have enough math to understand the method that climate sensitivity is remarkably low, as both researchers have provisionally concluded.
However, it is these careful, meticulous, lengthy mathematical analyses – and not the half-baked modeling used by the IPCC – that are more likely to produce a reliable interval of climate sensitivity. That remains the holy grail of current climate research. Watch this space: the cry-babies and bed-wetters are going to hate the results, but few of them have the necessary knowledge to refute what is coming.
John West said at 8:29 am
“none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate”
Spectacularly awkward moment: [YouTube]
Dr.Cullen says around the three minute mark and again around 4:30 that there’s been an increase towards drought in the Southwest.
A quick check at NOAA’s “Climate At A Glance” page
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
shows us that precipitation in the Southwest has trended upwards over the last century, 50 years and 25 years. It looks like Dr. Cullen doesn’t know what she is talking about.
As always, I am impressed and humbled by Monckton’s dedication to this subject. Thank you.
Anyone who claims that above 400ppm co2 and below 500ppm of co2 in the atmosphere will damage the biosphere is lying to you. Same goes for up to 600ppm and 700ppm.
Sorry for this OT comment but I just realised it has to be a lie. Paleo and current greenhouse crop measurements tell me so (up to 1,000ppm).
References: recent global observations of co2 fertilization effects.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/5/2492
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gbc.20027/abstract
I have more references deflating this lie.
But that mass loss (assuming the Grace calculations are correct, which I don’t) is happening, it could be because of the random fits and starts of glacial acceleration and deceleration, which is temperature-independent (presumably).
Corals? They evolved during much higher levels of co2 than today.
Polar bears? A jaw bone found during the Eemian interglacial and they survived the Holocene Climate Optimum of ice-free Arctic Ocean.
It is good to see the graphs we are so familiar with on WUWT being used so effectively. They speak visually, and demolish 10,000 words of waffle. I hope that now the committee have completed taking the evidence they will look at those graphs again and start to ask themselves if they really believe the strange explanation that the heat has suddenly, unconveniently, started to hide in the ocean deeps.
Emperor Penguins? There are DOUBLE more than we previously thought!
OK, I could go on, but I’ll stop for now.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 21, 2013 at 3:55 pm
William Astley says:
July 21, 2013 at 12:51 pm
The solar magnetic cycle is rapidly changing, it appears the sun will be spotless based on observations by the end of this year.
Clairvoyance beats science every time…
William:
You have a good memory. Yes the sun will be spotless by the end of this year. Sunspots are being replaced by pores. The next step in the progression is no pores.
You have not responded with an explanation as to why sunspots are being replaced with pores.
I am curious why 11799 and 11800 are labeled as sunspot group. That is rhetorical question as obviously the warmists are trying their best to avoid a rapid drop off in sunspot number.
I dread the NASA announcement. ‘Anomalously spotless sun, weird super deep solar magnetic cycle minimum’ as I know what the weird super deep solar magnetic cycle minimum will lead to. This is the most important scientific event in the history of humanity.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
Region 11799 [S16E35] was quiet and stable.
Region 11800 [S11E38] was quiet and stable
Jimbo says: July 21, 2013 at 8:49 am
…
The answer is simple, ‘temperature’ is doing a U-turn … changing direction … therefore accelerating 😉
Jimbo says: July 21, 2013 at 8:59 am
…
Heidi sounds too raspy … needs to cough that ‘hare’ out of her throat.
@Robin –
Tour reference to Sir Peter Medawar’s comment that some people are educated beyond the point of being able to think rationally brings back memories of my brief stint as a university history professor 40 years ago. For the most part, my colleagues’ education made them less able, not more able, to perceive the world around them accurately, or respond to it in any sort of rational manner. This disease clearly infects the likes of Heidi Cullen and others of the alarmist presenters, in addition to the ideological disease that afflicts them..
@Jimbo –
If you really want to put it in perspective, until about 2 to 1-1/2 billion years ago, before photosynthesis by blue-green algae converted almost all of it to oxygen, the Earth’s primordial atmosphere was about 20 percent CO2, about the same percentage as oxygen is today, and the Earth certainly didn’t burn up them even with 500 times as much CO2 in the air as there is today.
@Bill H –
I’ll take it a step further and say that the EPA is a hate group – it’s way beyond even a rogue agency.
jai mitchell says:
July 21, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Gail Combs
no, not like the picture you show….
heat is transferred between two objects according to their differences in temperatures. when the sea surface temperature has a slightly greater mixing, its surface stays cooler and it can acquire more heat than it did before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you are saying the heat [energy] transfered from the air to the sea is greater than the energy from under this curve given that NASA has recently found a difference in the distribution of energy by wavelength even though TSI stay relatively constant. graph of difference in spectral irradiance by wavelength(2004 to 2007.)
Also what causes the “slightly greater mixing” NASA answers that too:
Drat didn’t close first blockquote….
This ignorance of the president here reminds me of the whole WMD thing in Iraq.
Ideas climb up the social and political chain to the point where what the president hears and knows is only what those along the chain want them to hear and know.
I suggest sending in a team of UN inspectors to report that there are no WMDs in the temperature trends, and that what was formerly reported was based only on rumour, hearsay, and ‘bad intelligence’ (if there is such an oxymoron).
Data?
Who needs data?
Just reading an article By Gordon J. Fulks in the Oregonian.
Going over some of the comments, they are like zombies, no matter what data you give them they just drone on about Global warming, Climate change, extreme weather, Koch, Heartland, oil companies, Republicans……
Continuous Ad homonyms is the modus oprandi for most of them.
No data, just bile.
A commenter called ‘jim moran’ sounds like somebody on drugs…….
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/the_dishonesty_of_climate_chan.html#comments
Global Warming is eating itself!
AndyG55 says:
July 21, 2013 at 3:15 pm
RR says “And Obama wants to curtail it.”
Well he’s going to have to invade China and India then. 🙂
All he will be doing is moving even more industry to these areas, at the expense of American industry…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
And for those who think this is about the ‘Environment’ and about ‘Pollution’ I suggest taking a look at the latest Treaty the [self-snip] turkeys in DC are working on right now.
Unfortunately there is not much else out there telling the ordinary citizen what is going on behind closed doors.
There is this from a radical website. http://www.citizen.org/TPP
It lists several other links
Heidi Cullen’s explanation that, although the temperatures averaged out, it was only averaging out because it was hotter in one place and cooler in another, and that those were the exact places we should expect it to be hotter and colder, was a wonderful bit of waffling. The simple fact of the matter is that Alarmists always talked about temperatures “world wide.” Hansen said temperatures “world wide” were suppose to be a full degree above normal by now. In fact July may be right down around normal, to up around a fifth of a degree above normal, “world wide.”
Rather than Heidi just coming out and being honest, and saying, “We have blown the world wide forecast,” she obfuscates, talking about the Southwest.
She is good at that shell game. As Mr. McIntyre says over on Climate Audit, “You have to keep an eye on the pea.”
The problem is that more and more people understand it is a shell game. When she turns Hurricane Sandy into hype, more and more people have the historical data at their fingertips to refute her assertions and allegations.
“You cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” is attributed by many to Abraham Lincoln, but it also has been attributed to P.T. Barnum. Barnum knew when to leave town, despite the fact that when, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” was attributed to him, Barnum didn’t deny it, (and went on to thank the critic for the free publicity.)
The following is from Wikipedia, so take it as it you will: “According to David W. Maurer, writing in The Big Con (1940),[5] there was a similar saying amongst con men: “There’s a mark born every minute, and one to trim ’em and one to knock ’em”. Here ‘trim’ means to rip off, and ‘knock’ means to persuade away from a scam. The meaning is that there is no shortage of new victims, nor of con men, nor of honest men.”
Using this terminology, I would say our president sees the public as a “mark,” and himself as the “trim.” However when Obama says, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago,” Lord Monckton is the “knock,” persuading the gullible away from the scam.
Gifted con-artists knew when the jig was up, and snake oil salesmen knew when to leave town, but the Global Warming hoax got too big for its britches, and the perpetrators involved so many towns that they have no towns left to run away to. Expect them to stand their ground no matter how ludicrous their logic gets.
Also, consider the “leaked” AR5 to be a red herring.
Other_Andy says: @ July 21, 2013 at 7:27 pm
A commenter called ‘jim moran’ sounds like somebody on drugs….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually he sounds like a paid troll. The attacks on WUWT and Anthony are especially interesting. If any of those people ever dropped by WUWT the discussions here would be completely over their heads.
HadCRUT 3 is still being updated at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly in addition to HadCRUT 4 at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
HadCRUT3 has a negative slope from April 1997 to May 2013. HadCRUT ( version 3 and 4) data generally comes out approximately 4 weeks after the end of the month. E.g. maybe July 28th or so.
“…put in anything you want. Alice in Wonderland, put in anything you want…”
Seems to me that anything by Mann fits that example neatly.
“…Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,” the Mock Turtle replied; “and then the different branches of arithmetic – Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision…”
If you put his Tiljander results up to the looking-glass, then the truth comes out…
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm
“…Thank you that is most helpful.
would it be even MORE reliable to add a few more months, round it up to 17 years?…” You are very cute, a credit to the cult of CAGW or whatever. But like Humpty Dumpty with words, when I say 16 years, 7 months, that is exactly what I mean. Until next month when I say, 16 years, 8 months, and so on.
Let me think about this. How many years had the planet been warming in 1988 when Hansen first claimed we were heading towards a catastrophe? Izen … can you explain why 10 years was good science at that time?
tgasloli,
“I’m generally a Monckton fan, but, this article is just silly. A climate cycle, glacial + interglacial period, is what, 100-150K years long. This article is looking at less than 10 years. The AGW people are looking a what, 50 year–100 years of poor quality data and unvalidated surrogates. If you are trying to do CLIMATE science and you are using anything less than 100 year average you are just looking at noise and picking out the pattern you want to see. Climate science isn’t even possible now. And given the abysmal accuracy of 24 hour weather prediction, even simple meteorology is barely feasible.”
Actually, the Gorebull Warmers like Hansen were looking at NO DATA. When Hansen got up in front of that committee around 1987 they had exactly ZERO data to indicate that we were having ANYTHING happening!!! Go back and get the temp data from that period, which is PRE- ADJUSTMENTS and there is no reason at all to have been worried about ANYTHING!!!
If they had been looking at 50-100 years that would have extended back past the Smoking Hot 30’s with the dust bowl and made the temps at that time look quite cool as opposed to the claims of dangerous warming!!! Gorebull Warming really has been a Propaganda War on the WORLD!!
With all this about “Alice in Wonderland”, why didn’t somebody bring up “Chicken Little”?
This thread is amazing.
So now, I imagine they will begin measuring sub-3000m ocean temps around known volcanic vents.
Watch for it. I know, they wouldn’t do that. (sarc)
Jai Mitchell,
Did you go down there and measure it yourself? Having done so, now you could explain how ice below freezing melts? NO?
Oh, maybe you are citing “data” from the un-calibrated, un-corroborated, unique-to-“Science” GRACE satellites? Upon which results you propose to destroy the economies, standards of living, and life expectancies of the Western world?
You go girl…..
Would someone please explain to me how Trenberth imagines that a fraction of a degree C which “should” be in the air but isn’t instead gets into the deep oceans without heating surface layers, & how anyone could even measure such a minuscule amount of heat spread throughout oceanic masses? I’d be grateful. Thanks.
Jai Mitchell,
“satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets”
What?
You read it on the Internet so it must be true? Once again, it is pretty cold down there, and the Antarctic Peninsula is a quite small percentage of the continent, and it is not elevated as is the main body of the Continent.
How does ice, at a temperature below freezing, melt? It does not, no matter what you read on the Internet. It just stays there, and when it snow some more, it accumulates.
There is a word that applies here, “Credulous,” I state this with all due respect…..
Jai Mitchell,
Let me state this more succinctly: In the industrial world, where I live, where unanswered questions about data result in failures, canceled contracts, and terminations, we must ask this question: “How, exactly, is this data traceable back to NIST standards?”
If that question is not answered unambiguously, a new vendor must immediately be found, or we must produce the component ourselves to our own satisfaction.
Do you deal with any sort of scientific/engineering data professionally, yourself? Or are you just another amateur, dabbling in a field in which you have no competence? We are busy here, run along…..
Gail Combs
I like your articles, but they don’t really say what you are implying, they are good don’t get me wrong, it is just that the Pacific Decadel Oscillation doesn’t follow along with the solar cycle and it is the PDO and the El Nino/La Nina cycles that are much more effective at dictating surface temperatures in the pacific. These and the Atlantic Meridonal Oscillation are both influenced heavily by the presence of (or lack of!) atmospheric sulfates either by pollution or by volcanic sources.
Michael Moon
since about 40X as much heat energy goes into the oceans every day it would not take very much changes in the oceans system to delay or even cause considerable cooling in the atmosphere.
There are tons of real studies done by real science folk in the normal peer reviewed channels to check. It is really just too bad that you people here are so ideologically pent up with your agendas that you can’t allow even the basic science to take root. This is not complicated stuff! It IS, however, life threatening to YOUR grandchildren. so I suggest you bone up.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
rogerknights
interesting, I am not sure exactly what you mean, the analysis of the data was peer reviewed and provided an accuracy margin of error that concluded the results past strict statistical tests. The amount of LAND based ice loss is correct and increasing. The sea ice is expanding, I have heard it is being caused by a slowdown of the Thermohaline but also may be caused by increased cloudcover at during the summer as regional seas are warming and more moisture is entering the atmosphere. I haven’t checked this one to be sure. It turns out that increased sea ice in the winter in antarctica actuall helps to keep heat in the oceans as the ice acts as an insulation barrier.
Michael Moon says:
“Do you deal with any sort of scientific/engineering data professionally, yourself? Or are you just another amateur, dabbling in a field in which you have no competence?”
From twenty centuries in the distant past, the great Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius speaks of the jai mitchells’ of our world:
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
jai mitchell is nuts. That’s just the way it is. So we work to help educate the undecided public. For the mitchells’ of this world, there is no hope. They are Believers, not scientists.
[I worked with NIST, successor to the National Bureau of Standards, for 30 years. And I note that NIST takes no position regarding runaway global warming.]
I am really struggling to understand this – I only have a PhD so I must not get it.
The surface temperature of the plant has not risen for (say) 11 years – I hate cherry picking the 1998 el nino.
So explain this to me please – if the temperature is not rising – why is there recently such a focus on extreme weather is it;
a) Because the system took a while to respond to previous warming?
b) The lack of warming means pro- AGW people need to look around for some other indicator? or
c) They’re just making it up as they go along.
d) The planet is actually warming and all of our thermometers are taking a vacation.
Next – what evidence is there for deep ocean warming and if it is occurring how does that communicate with the weather to make it extreme?
Next – If the surface temperature of planet isn’t warming – why is ice melt an issue – for options see the previous question.
And – finally
If the previous models are unskilled at predicting the current hiatus in surface warming and this is really because the warming has gone into the oceans then exactly how long will this take to come back and bite us in the bum?
Jai Mitchell,
“Since about 40X as much heat energy goes into the oceans every day it would not take very much changes in the oceans system to delay or even cause considerable cooling in the atmosphere.”
As much as what? What are you trying to say? What does this have to do with ice below freezing, deciding to melt anyway? What is the difference between the specific heat of water and air? What, “specific heat,” what the hell is that?
You are some sort of advocate, but with little-to-no understanding of the topic, why would you embarrass yourself this way? Peer-review-“ed” science articles reviewed by this “Climate Scientist” clown posse, you want to spend your grand-children’s money on this?
It is so simple, for the third or fourth time: Antarctica is really really cold, too cold for any ice to melt except on the West Antarctic Peninsula, a tiny fraction of the continent. How is this possibly contributing to SLR? Address this simple issue or be revealed as the idiotic poser wanna-be pseudo-scientific lightweight you clearly are….
henry@goldie
a) in a way yes, the warmer gulf stream is still melting some ice, but global cooling has started.
It just takes years for oceans to lose energy from the previous (natural) warming period.
b) yes
c) yes
d) no, it is cooling, for at least the equivalent of one solar cycle.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
it won’t stop cooling until around 2040, and along the way, we will experience some serious climate change, i.e. droughts.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
henry@richie
sure, we all knew this: prof Carter showed that CO2 increase followed warming periods, it does cause warming. People were confused always seeing more CO2 when it was getting warmer, assuming a relationship. There is a relationship of course but it is causal: something like: cancer is caused by smoking, but smoking is not caused by cancer.
jai mitchell says: July 21, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“…This can most easily be demonstrated by analyzing the components of the sea level rise over the last 4 decades. ..”
Sea level rises – a complicated issue – inadequate satellites, atmospheiric pressure adjustments, GIA adjustments (o.3 mm per year right there!), and it all adds up nicely ….
…except then these guys come along and find an extra 0.7 mm/year from aquifer depletion, mining of underground water:
And sea level measurements are also affected by groundwater extraction, not accounted for in earlier IPCC reports:
“…. have found, groundwater depletion is adding about 0.6 millimeters per year …. to the Earth’s sea level….” a team of Dutch scientists led by hydrologist Yoshihide Wada, Utrecht University.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120531-groundwater-depletion-may-accelerate-sea-level-rise/
And;
“..We find that, together, unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins have contributed a sea-level rise of about 0.77 mm yr−1 between 1961 and 2003, about 42% of the observed sea-level rise. ….. the unsustainable use of groundwater represents the largest contribution…”
Nature Geoscience | Letter Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storageYadu N. Pokhrel http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1476.html
@- Goldie
“Next – what evidence is there for deep ocean warming and if it is occurring how does that communicate with the weather to make it extreme?”
Apart from the ARGO data there is the GRACE and JASON data on sea level rise which can only be explained by some amount of thermal expansion. The warmer oceans are one factor in melting the Arctic summer ice. That has disrupted the jet stream causing the blocking patterns that caused the extreme droughts and floods seen recently. That may be just one of the changes in the pattern of weather caused by the rising energy added to the climate system by rising CO2
@- “Next – If the surface temperature of planet isn’t warming – why is ice melt an issue – for options see the previous question. ”
The poles are and have been warming even while the global average has been static, they show amplification of the greenhouse effect and are less influenced by the La Nina cycle that has suppressed global warming. The ice is a significant albedo factor, its loss is an additional positive feedback.
@- “If the previous models are unskilled at predicting the current hiatus in surface warming and this is really because the warming has gone into the oceans then exactly how long will this take to come back and bite us in the bum?”
The previous and present models do project the possibility of a hiatus in warming, most commonly because increased wind shear over tropical oceans can transfer more energy into the oceans especialy during the La Nina phase of the ENSO cycle.
Another five years will determine it either way, the process that has led to the present hiatus is unlikely to persist that long, and the weather extremes that the warmer oceans and shifts in floods and droughts will of course continue.
izen says
that has disrupted the jet stream causing the blocking patterns that caused the extreme droughts and floods seen recently.
henry says
no that is not the reason.
the melting ice is due to the warmer gulfstream, which collected warmth from the warming period which ended at ca. 2000
Climate on Earth is ruled, among others, by the Gleissberg solar/weather cycle
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Those still pointing to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out due to oceans acting as energy reservoirs.. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? read the whole report. Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
as explained in my previous post.
This is here is a good summary of all my investigations
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
and what we must do, before the droughts start again. we have about 6 or 7 years left before (7?) the drought years start.
jai mitchell says:
July 21, 2013 at 12:12 pm
You greatly overestimate the amount of heat going into heating the ocean and the land. The amount of energy necessary to raise the ocean temperatures by the amount given by Levitus averages about a quarter of a watt per square metre over the last 50 years. Compare that with the stated increase in the radiative forcing, which is about twice that size over that period. So your numbers of 2.3% and 97.7% are unsupported by the measurements.
w.
@ Henry P and Izen
Thanks for that – I think.
Some commenters have suggested that the additional heat supposed to be generated by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions is going into the deep oceans. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently-resolved measurements for enough time to confirm that hypothesis. There are some 3500 ARGO bathythermograph buoys, but – as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out – they are doing no more the equivalent of taking a temperature and salinity profile of the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year.
There are tens of thousands of subsea volcanoes and volcanic vents. No global survey to determine variability in the direct output of heat to the deep ocean from these sources has been attempted. Ian Plimer and others have suggested that El Ninos – whose origin has not yet been explained – may be caused by increased subsea volcanic activity in the tropical eastern Pacific, on the ground that each El Nino is preceded by six months of enhanced seismic activity in the region.
For reasons such as these, the usual suspects do not impress when they say the heat they had so confidently predicted for the atmosphere has gone into hiding deep beneath the waves, and that one day it will come out again and say, “Boo!”
The atmosphere is bounded by space above and the ocean below. Any additional heat in the atmosphere, therefore, will tend to radiate out into space (an infinite heat-sink) or into the oceans (which, being 1000 times denser than the atmosphere and having an enormous volume, are a near-infinite heat-sink). This is why homeostasis is the key feature of global absolute surface temperatures, which have fluctuated by little more than 1% either side of the long-run mean in the past few tens of thousands of years. The problem with the IPCC’s model-based approach is that the models – like all models – are less interested in homeostasis than in change, so they inadequately represent the former.
It is possible that the main reason why the time-integral of solar variability is of more importance to global temperature change in the medium to long term than short-term solar-energy variability is that, over time, half of any net increase in heat will accumulate in the oceans (the rest will radiate out to space), and the oceans, being a little warmer, will maintain the atmosphere at a warmer temperature than it might otherwise have exhibited.
All of these considerations suggest that greenhouse gases are unlikely to have much influence on global temperatures in the short term, though they might do so in the long. But if the warming is spread over a long enough period we have plenty of time to adapt to it, which is one of many reasons why the correct climate policy at the moment is inaction.
@- “There are tens of thousands of subsea volcanoes and volcanic vents. No global survey to determine variability in the direct output of heat to the deep ocean from these sources has been attempted.”
Wrong, look up Gerlach et al. There is also the little matter of the seismic network. Set up during the 1950s cold war to detect bomb tests in the USSR it is quite capable of detecting the seismic activity associated with subsea volcanoes and vents. That puts a strong upper constraint on the amount of tectonic activity happening under the oceans. It is MUCH less than the energy entering from above by several orders of magnitude. Thermal energy from the inside of the Earth is insignificant because of the extreme insulating properties of rock.
Raising the possibility of a tectonic contribution to ocean heat content when it is well established from seismic studies it is irrelevant is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
In support to:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 22, 2013 at 1:47 am
Some commenters have suggested that the additional heat supposed to be generated by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions is going into the deep oceans. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently-resolved measurements for enough time to confirm that hypothesis. There are some 3500 ARGO bathythermograph buoys, but – as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out – they are doing no more the equivalent of taking a temperature and salinity profile of the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year.
William: The heat is hiding in the ocean hypothesis fails as the ocean level is not rising. The heat hiding in ocean will soon be passé, old news, a defunct hypothesis, as the planet has started to cool due the solar magnetic cycle change. It will be very difficult to promote the ‘heat is hiding in the ocean’ scam when the public are demanding an explanation for global cooling. Crop failures due to cold, wet summers and massive power failures due to winter storms, and road/airport closures due to winter storms will get the public and media’s attention.
(Succinct introduction. Best wishes William.)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/sea_level_not_rising.pdf
Sea level is not rising by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Main points:
– At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.
– Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.
– The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.
– The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level
change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.
– These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.
– Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.
– In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.
– Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic
“global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.
-We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”
It’s a sad day when the most powerful man on earth can so easily be caught out telling an absurd lie. Maybe he actually believes it and he has been taken in by his advisers such as John Holdren, who has been a serial doom monger since the seventies (needless to say, none of his predictions came to pass).
That video is superb. That uneasy silence following the question speaks volumes. And congratulations to Senator Vitter, who actually showed real empirical scientific data. As Anthony easily showed, the downpour data for the region Heidi Cullen mentioned showed no such increase.
And did you notice that, when confronted by real data, she quickly switched to future predictions rather than commenting on what has already happened?
Once again, congratulations to Christopher, Anthony and Senator Vitter.
Chris
@- “This is why homeostasis is the key feature of global absolute surface temperatures, which have fluctuated by little more than 1% either side of the long-run mean in the past few tens of thousands of years. The problem with the IPCC’s model-based approach is that the models – like all models – are less interested in homeostasis than in change, so they inadequately represent the former.”
Homeostasis is a neo-Victorian, Roussouian concept of the ‘Balance of Nature’ applied incorrectly to reality. The climate is a thermodynamic system, it reacts to energy changes, ascribing it abstract properties like ‘homeostasis’ is arbitary reification.
The IPCC models neither neglect homeostasis nor favour change, they try to accurately model the real physical relationships between the sources and sinks of energy in the system. They do not invoke abstract qualia like homeostasis that are not just useless, but misleading when applied to the climate. The stability of the last ten thousand years of theHolocene climate is NOT the result of some mystical inherent quality of ‘homeostasis’, it is the inevitable outcome of very few,and small forcing factors on the climate. The Milankovitch cycle is changing the solar input slowly and by very small amounts at present, there has been a low level of tectonic activity and the solar output is extremely stable over this period.
That is the reason for the stability of the climate during the Holocene that enabled human civilisation to develop.
Not some abstract conceptual nonsense about Nature’s balance or homeostasis.
izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:39 pm
“Another five years will determine it either way, the process that has led to the present hiatus is unlikely to persist that long, and the weather extremes that the warmer oceans and shifts in floods and droughts will of course continue.”
The weather extremes will “continue”? You mean, a year will in the future have a warmest and a coldest day? Yeah, I think so as well. Are you warmists now training to make ominous noises with zero information content?
Related to topic obliquely…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/feeling-the-heat-on-climate-change-2013-07-22?pagenumber=1
By a witnesses at the Senate hearing….Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
Izen, Gerlach et al in 1991 used around 12 volcanic sources for their estimate. Since then it has been found that nearly 3 million volcanic sources exist. It would take a review of around 1800 to have any kind of statistical validity. Are you always this out of date with your information?
@-DirkH
“ You mean, a year will in the future have a warmest and a coldest day? ”
No, I mean that record hottest days will continue to outnumber coldest records by a large ratio.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/06/26/warm-temperature-records-dramatically-outpacing-cold-records-in-washington-d-c/
@- Richard M
“Gerlach et al in 1991 used around 12 volcanic sources for their estimate. …Are you always this out of date with your information?
No, perhaps you are unaware however of his more recent work? This is from 2011.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
Michael Moon says:
July 21, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Jai Mitchell,
….: In the industrial world, where I live, where unanswered questions about data result in failures, canceled contracts, and terminations, we must ask [answer?] this question: “How, exactly, is this data traceable back to NIST standards?”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AMEN! Been there. Done that too.
Try all that waffling in front of an FDA inspector and you will get shut down. (Why did every darn company I work for have me give the plant tour to the inspectors, grumble….)
Lord Monckton, Thank you for your detailed work.
Particularly the inclusion of the video.
Now I’m confused completely. Heidi is saying, if i understand this correctly, that the long term data is not data to be considered, yet localised effects are data to be considered as signals that the data that is to be considered (whatever that now is) is only considered when it supports a case against the long term data that isn’t to be considered.
Additionally, somewhere, presumably in the deep dark ocean, there is a warming process occurring that appears to have slipped the notice of NOAA since 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html
“The recent changes in ocean temperature run deep. A small amount of cooling was detected at the ocean’s surface, consistent with global measurements of sea-surface temperature. The maximum amount of cooling was at a depth of about 1,300 feet, but substantial cooling was still observed at 2,500 feet, and the cooling appears to extend deeper.”
And..
“Lyman (NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle), said the cause of the recent cooling is not yet clear. Research suggests it may be due to a net loss of heat from the Earth. “Further work will be necessary to solve this cooling mystery,”
On a side note.
Based on the apparent contention that the warmer it gets, the cooler it becomes, I left my refrigerator door open. Sadly, i now have ruined produce and warm beer. Perhaps it was a localised event.
You should do an equivalent one on the sea level next, 7 inches a century compared to Hansen’s 3-6 metres (or whatever he picked this week), within a far more linear field than temperature. The sea level figures are virtually impossible to increase much more under current conditions as the laws of physics and massive rise in temperature which would be required to melt that much in such a short period eliminate such conditions. Hansen invented a new law of physics where they melt logarithmically, hardly anything for 80 years then all in one go, for which he should be committed.
Far more importantly than a world movement to steal money under a false cause, how can all his peers allow such a blatant breach of their precious science to occur as it will only continue to remain on the books, like an unremoved dog present on the carpet, waiting for someone with the balls and qualifications required to point it out. It may be politic to allow it in the short term while it gets lost in the noise, but such a direct challenge to the truth could and should destroy his entire reputation and career as ice melts steadily (as does water evaporate) under Newton’s laws. Any deviation from basics even I managed to handle in school are too obvious even for the climate mafia to slip through the system.
It really does make me wonder why our political leaders in Europe and the USA persist in trying to feed everyone with this never-ending bull crap about the supposed horrors of ‘catastrophic man-made global warming’, when in fact there hasn’t been any at all (catastrophic warming, that is). They are so dishonest that they can’t just put their hand up and say “OK, we got it wrong – panic over. Let’s continue to watch this space, but in the meantime let’s get back to business as usual”.
I suppose it must come down to the dual problems of vested interests wanting to continue lining their pockets, and the fact that the CAGW hoax has been a very useful ‘Trojan Horse’ for imposing all sorts of restrictions and additional sources of tax revenue (not to mention the UN’s sinister Agenda 21). It’s an absolutely rotten state of affairs when politicians can make things up and spread disinformation with impunity, especially on such as massive scale.
I also wonder whether it will ever end…
izen says
Raising the possibility of a tectonic contribution to ocean heat content when it is well established from seismic studies it is irrelevant is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
and also your subsequent post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/21/ten-years-of-accelerated-global-warming/#comment-1368449nd
refers
henry says
clearly the argument here was not about how much CO2 is added by volcanics but how much HEAT is added, into the oceans, mostly …e.g pacific rif, atlantic rif…..all volcanic …
Your attack on the good Lord is not warranted, as clearly he only suggested this as another possible source of heat coming at regular intervals coming from the center of earth…
Now, unless you claim to know exactly how much heat is coming from all external and internal sources of heat (which I think even includes the planets and the moon), I would expect you to make some sort of an apology after making such a blatant accusation.
Looking at the video – Heidi was amazing actually – remind me of the adage ” If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bulls@$t”. Which she was amazing at trying to do. There were so many weaves and contradictions it was hard to keep up. And it was only 6 minutes worth
LMB,
You said,
Some commenters have suggested that the additional heat supposed to be generated by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions is going into the deep oceans. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently-resolved measurements for enough time to confirm that hypothesis.
I am, as far as I can tell, the only commenter who has asserted this fact. So I will consider my new name to be “some commenter”. Thank you very much.
In response to your declaration quoted above, I provide to you the following papers for your review. I understand that you have absolutely no background in science and that your positions on scientific fact are strictly ideological. However, I will provide this information so that, in the somewhat unlikely event that an observer of this dialogue has the time and scientific capacity to grasp the information provided, he or she will be able to determine for themselves that you are stating blatant falsehoods, based on your non-scientific ideology.
———–
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014013
Predictability of twentieth century sea-level rise from past data
However, in combination, the use of proxy and tide gauge sea-level data up to 1900 AD allows a good prediction of twentieth century sea-level rise, despite this rise being well outside the rates experienced in previous centuries during the calibration period of the model. The 90% confidence range for the linear twentieth century rise predicted by the semi-empirical model is 13–30 cm, whereas the observed interval (using two tide gauge data sets) is 14–26 cm.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrc.20268/abstract
Northern North Atlantic sea-surface height and ocean heat content variability
Altimetric SSH is dominated by an increase of about 14cm in the Labrador and Irminger Seas from 1993 to 2011, while the opposite has occurred over the Gulf Stream region over the same time period. During the altimeter period the observed 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) in the subpolar gyre mirrors the increased SSH by its dominantly positive trend.
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/10/923/2013/osd-10-923-2013.pdf
Monitoring ocean heat content from the current generation of global ocean observing systems
we present an inter-comparison of the three of these global ocean observing systems: the ocean
temperature/salinity network Argo, the gravimeter GRACE and the satellite altimeters.
Their consistency is investigated at global and regional scale during the period 2005–
10 2010 of overlapping time window of re-qualified data.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4
Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
The mean radiative restoration strength over this period for the CMIP5 members examined is 1.16 Wm−2K−1, compared to 2.05 Wm−2K−1 from the observations. This suggests that temperature in these CMIP5 models may be too sensitive to perturbations in radiative forcing, although this depends on the actual magnitude of the anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the modern period. The potential change in the radiative restoration strength over longer timescales is also considered, resulting in a likely (67 %) range of 1.5–2.9 K for equilibrium climate sensitivity, and a 90 % confidence interval of 1.2–5.1 K
Leif said <blockquote"Clairvoyance beats science every time…"
Alarmingly prescient of you !
You might be more right than you know.
Dear God… When you get round to buying me that Mercedes Benz can you also provide WordPress with preview. Thankyou.
Leif said
Alarmingly prescient of you !
You might be more right than you know.
Well they are predicting 2C tonight in Central South America (Tropics-subtropics) as I have said many times on this site, I believe that the highly significant constant increase in antarctica ice extent and thickness may begin to affect the reach of polar air into the southern latitudes if it happens to be directed in the right direction making it go farther north than usual. For example see here
http://wxmaps.org/pix/sa.00hr.html
Temperature humidity and wind direction graph) The 0C isobar 600mb is currently reaching 20 degrees south latitude. Of course it could all be a coincidence!
@- henry says
“clearly the argument here was not about how much CO2 is added by volcanics but how much HEAT is added, into the oceans, mostly …e.g pacific rif, atlantic rif…..all volcanic …”
There is an obvious link between the amount of CO2 coming from tectonic sources and the amount of heat coming from the same sources. The known limits on one put close constraints on the other.
“Your attack on the good Lord is not warranted, as clearly he only suggested this as another possible source of heat coming at regular intervals coming from the center of earth…”
My attack was not only warranted, but a good deal more benign than the facts would justify.
The knowledge that tectonic heat from the core reaching the surface is insignificant in this context has been known for many decades. Extensive research measuring the amount of thermal energy that diffuses through the crust have been undertaken and other measurements made of how much energy is transferred to the ocean at hot-spots like thermal vents.
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/globalhydro.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v334/n6183/abs/334604a0.html
This is not ‘controversial’ climate science, it is basic geophysics developed long ago at least in part by the oil and gas extraction industry.
http://www.tdi-bi.com/our_publications/ogj-hf-july02/marine-heatflow.htm
That the ‘good Lord’ can claim that this is a factor that should or needs to be considered is either the product of gross ignorance of the basic facts, or malicious deception.
I will be generous and presume it is ignorance.
“I would expect you to make some sort of an apology after making such a blatant accusation.”
The person pointing out the mistake or misleading statement of another is not the person who needs to make the apology.
The person who committed the error is the one who should apologise and correct their misinformation.
But given the lack of past apologies or corrections for many egregious statements from the ‘good Lord’ I wont be holding my breath.
Izen says I was wrong to point out that the activity of the thousands of subsea volcanoes and volcanic vents is not monitored. Only a few such volcanoes have been studied. Izen suggests that measurements of seismic activity are a respectable proxy. Perhaps, or perhaps not. Nor can one be confident that the contribution of subsea volcanic variability to deep-ocean temperature change is negligible in comparison with that from the atmosphere, particularly when the relative densities of the two media and the distance of the benthic layers from the atmosphere are taken into account.
He goes on to challenge my statement that “The problem with the IPCC’s model-based approach is that the models – like all models – are less interested in homeostasis than in change, so they inadequately represent the former.” He says that homeostasis is “Victorian” and is “abstract conceptual nonsense”. The online etymology dictionary says the word was coined in 1926. Queen Victoria died in 1901. The concept has a clear meaning in science: it is the tendency of an object to remain in a steady state under certain conditions or within a certain interval notwithstanding an influence acting upon it that might otherwise have been expected to change it.
Numerous objects – for instance, the elasticity of a spring, acceleration in a viscous medium, the phase-changes of water at various temperatures) exhibit homeostasis. I did not say homeostasis was the cause of the very small changes in atmospheric temperature over the last few tens of thousands of years, as Izen seems to assume. I said it was a consequence of the fact that the two boundaries of the atmosphere – outer space above us and the ocean below – are an infinite and a near-infinite heat-sink respectively, which helping to keep the atmospheric temperature within a narrow interval.
Jai Mitchell, in a characteristically nasty comment that ignores the ancient logical principle that attacks upon the man rather than his argument are illogical and, therefore, unscientific, imagines (incorrectly) that I. like him, have no background in science. If he had a proper background in science he would have avoided the logical fallacy of deploying an ad-hominem argument.
Could someone with no background in science program a computer to take the satellite and terrestrial data from five sources in different formats, import them, display very clear graphs from each or all or any subset of them and write a subroutine to calculate the least-squares linear-regression trends and the determination coefficients? Let us have no more of this childish ad-hominem nonsense: it is an intellectually inadequate as well as factually inaccurate contribution to the debate. One understands that the failure of the world to warm as ordered is an embarrassment and that those who had confidently but erroneously predicted extreme temperature increases are feeling more than a little foolish at the moment, but, even allowing for that, more civility and humility would surely now be sensible.
Jai Mitchell disagrees with my statement that “Some commenters have suggested that the additional heat supposed to be generated by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions is going into the deep oceans. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently-resolved measurements for enough time to confirm that hypothesis.” He cites five papers. However, not one of these demonstrates that the measurements are sufficiently resolved to obtain an accurate picture of the change in ocean heat content. Some of them try to determine the change in ocean heat content indirectly by reference to supposedly rising sea level. But according to the Envisat satellite the sea level in its eight years of operation rose at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century: scarcely overwhelming evidence of sea-level rise, whether or not it was caused by thermosteric expansion of the benthic layers of the ocean.
One of the besetting sins of the climate-extremist movement is its propensity to attempt to obtain results on the basis of manifestly inadequate data. The ARGO bathythermograph measurements, for instance, present results to a precision of 1/1000 K. My science background has taught me that to claim a precision beyond what is appropriate casts doubt upon the reliability of the calculation. There is no way just 3500 buoys deployed in the vast oceans can determine global mean benthic temperature changes to that precision, or to any precision that might truly demonstrate that there is any “missing heat” and that it is hiding in the deep oceans.
Indeed, any attempt to model the climate to a sufficient precision to determine climate sensitivity is doomed to failure by the fact that the climate object is not only complex and non-linear but also, mathematically speaking, chaotic. Its evolution cannot be accurately projected because we have manifestly inadequate data not only on its initial state at some chosen starting point but also because we have manifestly inadequate knowledge of the existence and relative strengths of the influences acting upon it over time.
Scientifically, then, the correct approach is to wait and see. And that, whether the climate extremists like it or not, is what the world’s governments are now going to do. Even Australia has now announced the abandonment of the absurd carbon tax. The climate scare is over, and no amount of ad-hominem screeching from any troll will either alter that fact or delay for a single instant the dismantling of the farcical regime of totalitarian control that had been erected in the specious name of Saving The Planet.
izen says
( I am just quoting one of his letters to nature that he quoted to me)
The circulation of seawater through newly formed ocean crust at mid-ocean ridge spreading centres is important in the oceanic heat and chemical budgets. The heat transfer in submarine hydrothermal systems accounts for ˜25% of the total global heat loss1. The transfer of mass resulting from basaltic alteration affects the geochemistry of seawater2 and is responsible for the formation of ore deposits on and beneath the seafloor3. Various geophysical techniques have been employed in efforts to determine the heat output from hydrothermal vent fields4–9; however, the magnitudes of the heat and chemical fluxes through these systems remain uncertain. Here we introduce a geochemical approach for estimating the flux from a vent field based on radon (222Rn) measurements in the overlying effluent plume. This method was applied successfully in September 1986 during a 23-day expedition to an active vent field on the 170-km Endeavour segment of the Juan de Fuca Ridge (Fig. la). We estimate the heat flux from this site to be l–5×l09 W.)
henry says
25% is not a lot?
“….remain uncertain”?
how many places exist on earth that add heat to the atmosphere?
(remember that most volcanic activity on earth takes places underneath the ocean floors)
what planet do you live on?
lord Monckton of Brenchley says
Scientifically, then, the correct approach is to wait and see.
henry says
there was a time that I would probably agree with you on that but not anymore.
The truth is that all current results show that global cooling will continue, especially when you look at things from 2002 (which includes one full solar cycle)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
Those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the global cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever.
I have now finished my own investigations into all of this
namely
1 I took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data
2 I made sure the sample was globally representative (most data sets aren’t)
a) balanced by latitude (longitude does not matter)
b) balanced 70/30 in or at sea/ inland
c) all continents included (unfortunately I could not get reliable daily data going back 38 years from Antarctica,
so there always is this question mark about that, knowing that you never can get a “perfect” sample)
d) I made a special provision for months with missing data (i.e. not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats, but to average the results of that month in the year preceding and following )
e) I did not look only at means (average daily temp.) like all other data sets, but also at maxima and minima…
3) I determined at all stations the average change in temp. per annum from the average temperature recorded,
over the period indicated.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked//…
5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time,
ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling
6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
y= -0.000049×2 + 0.004267x – 0.056745
r2=0.995
That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball…
7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?) showed a curve:
happening around 40 years ago,
8) ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom…
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
the means table confirms that there is a bit of lag between maxima and means but even with means I can make parabolic fit with 95% confidence.
Altogether, that means that we are cooling. Unfortunately, global cooling is not “good”.
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of warming, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind. According to my calculations, this will start around 2019 or 2020.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).
if you will argue with me on my results that we did not see anything catastrophic happening around 1972, when we also had a standstill, in the speed of warming, I would agree with that but remember this was at the height of warming causing more natural clouds and moisture. Now we are approaching the bottom, and there simply will be a lot less moist air going around…..
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of warming, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place,
henry says
for those that expect everything to be technically correct,
that should perhaps read (since we are cooling…)
“I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of COOLING, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference AGAIN at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place,…”