The reason for ‘the pause’ in global warming, excuse #37 in a series: ‘trade winds’

Hand%2BWaving[1]

Talk to the hand

Recent intensification of hand waving driving heat into hiding.

Well not exactly #37, but it sure seems like it with all the handwaving we’ve seen lately.

So far, we’ve heard from Climate Science that ‘the pause’ was caused by:

Too much aerosols from volcanoes, ENSO patterns, missing heat that went to the deep ocean, ocean cooling, low solar activity, inappropriately dealt with weather stations in the Arctic, and stadium waves,  to name a few. So much for consensus.

Now, it’s trade winds going too fast that are causing abnormal cooling in the Pacific. A new paper from the University of New South Wales  says that once the winds return to normal speed, well, look out, the heat is on.

One thing for certain, even though the media is going predictably berserkers over this paper, the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2. So much for control knobs.

Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming — for now

The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures. 

This is a schematic of the trends in temperature and ocean-atmosphere circulation in the Pacific over the past two decades. Color shading shows observed temperature trends (C per decade) during 1992-2011 at the sea surface (Northern Hemisphere only), zonally averaged in the latitude-depth sense (as per Supplementary Fig. 6) and along the equatorial Pacific in the longitude-depth plane (averaged between 5 N S). Peak warming in the western Pacific thermocline is 2.0C per decade in the reanalysis data and 2.2C per decade in the model. The mean and anomalous circulation in the Pacific Ocean is shown by bold and thin arrows, respectively, indicating an overall acceleration of the Pacific Ocean shallow overturning cells, the equatorial surface currents and the Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC). The accelerated atmospheric circulation in the Pacific is indicated by the dashed arrows; including theWalker cell (black dashed) and the Hadley cell (red dashed; Northern Hemisphere only). Anomalously high SLP in the North Pacific is indicated by the symbol “H.” An equivalent accelerated Hadley cell in the Southern Hemisphere is omitted for clarity. Credit: From Nature Climate Change

Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.

New research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change indicates that the dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface ocean, while bringing cooler waters to the surface.

“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear” said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

“But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal – as it inevitably will – our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”

Observations are shown as annual anomalies relative to the 1980-2012 mean (grey bars) and a five-year running mean (black solid line). Model projections are shown relative to the year 2000 and combine the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multi-model mean (red dashed line) and range (red shaded envelope). The projections branch o the five-year running mean of observed anomalies and include all simulations as evaluated by the IPCC AR4 and AR5. The cyan, blue and purple dashed lines and the blue shading indicate projections adjusted by the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling estimated by the ocean model (OGCM), under three scenarios: the recent trend extends until 2020 before stabilizing (purple dashed line); the trend stabilizes in year 2012 (blue dashed line); and the wind trend reverses in 2012 and returns to climatological mean values by 2030 (cyan dashed line). The black, dark green and light green dashed lines are as per the above three scenarios, respectively, only using the trade-wind-induced SAT cooling derived from the full coupled model (CGCM). Shading denotes the multi-model range throughout. Credit: Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.

The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.

“The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Prof England said.

This image shows normalized histograms of Pacific trade wind trends (computed over 6 N S and 180W) for all 20-year periods using monthly data in observations (1980-2011) versus available CMIP5 models (1980-2013). The observed trend strength during 1992-2011 is indicated.
Credit: For articles on this paper only. Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.

“Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid.”

The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.

“This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.

“Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.

“We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

###

The paper:

Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus

Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich& Agus Santoso

Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106

Abstract

Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html

About these ads

278 thoughts on “The reason for ‘the pause’ in global warming, excuse #37 in a series: ‘trade winds’

  1. Geez … so what was it that made the trade winds strengthen?
    Is this perhaps some sort of negative feedback mechanism in action?

  2. Anyway where is the catastrof? When it starts? 2090? I’m dead then and my children too. Sarc= Zombies eat me up before that. You have to believe, This has nothing to do with money, believe me. NO it’s not religion it’s science believe me.

  3. There is no scientific basis for the claim that short term correlations manifest into long term correlations. In other words, its just as likely trade winds weaken because of a lack of warming, rather than the other way around. Why bother?

  4. Oh God, this paper is crap. I could dissect it sentence by sentence because there are problems everywhere but Bob Tisdale is the best man for that. Bob, over to you.

    You can just imagine the conversation at the start of this work ‘ OK guys, the great one Trenberth has decreed that the heat must have gone into the deep ocean. So we have to find a way of getting there without it being detectable at the surface. Brain storm. I’ve got it. Strong winds. There aren’t any, where? In the Pacific ! Yeh trade winds. But aren’t they part of the Niña/o process. Yeh but no-one will notice. It has to be^part of this ” it will resume again même” Yeh that’ll work.

  5. Ah yes, I think I have it now … once again we introduce a NEW component to the ‘models’, a component conveniently overlooked until now, sort of a fail safe, in case the agenda needs one, and poof, the projections are back on track. Trade winds DATA, we don’t need no stinking data ! Oh, and please ignore SST’s and the reclusive El Nino’s that are supposed to be ravaging the Western Pacific tropics.

    Yep, this time, our ‘work’ is finished here …

  6. …. and …. how is it we are usually told there is no hiatus ….. until someone comes up with an explanation for it, then suddenly it does exist…

  7. So what appears to be happening, is there are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be offsetting, or regulating, the climate. Rather like a thermostat. The atmosphere warms, then cools, then warms… and so on. as it has always done. CO2 is not setting the climate into a tailspin, there is no tipping point being reached. The climate is accepting our carbon dioxide input and adjusting accordingly.

  8. Interesting.

    They keep telling us that any up-tick in temperatures must be from CO2 released by mankind — and only by mankind — but that the lack of increase or any decrease in temperatures (God forbid!) must be due to natural causes. Come on guys, the average person will see through this double standard if you keep that sort of thing going.

  9. Stronger winds accelerate evaporation which is a net cooling process.

    That is how air dryers work.

    How do stronger winds ‘push’ more energy into the water past the evaporating layer ?

  10. It says that when the trade winds return to normal the heat will come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.

    No, no no. How many more times? The heat in the oceans is at a lower temperature than it was when in the atmosphere. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a low to a higher temperature. This is not only a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, but goes against common sense. This heat cannot any longer come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.

  11. Prof England says “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep“. So, is it covered by the Argo floats? The ones that show no ocean warming. Or is it deeper, below the range of the Argo floats, as Kevin Trenberth claimed? That surely does not warrant description as “not very deep”. Let’s face it, Prof England et al don’t know whether the trade winds have had an effect, they don’t know where if anywhere it ‘blew’ the heat, the heat hasn’t shown up on any thermometers, and they haven’t actually looked for it anywhere. What they are saying is that the models have generated a lot of heat which hasn’t shown up anywhere in the real world, so, if the models are correct, the heat must have gone somewhere where there aren’t any thermometers. The only place they can think of where there aren’t any thermometers is the deep ocean, but winds can’t blow heat all the way down there so maybe a vague clause like “not very deep” can fudge them out of their dilemma. They still aren’t ready to concede the obvious – that the models are wrong and the heat doesn’t exist.

  12. Warmist acquaintances do not let an opportunity pass to violently scream at me that the world is not only still heating up but that each and every year is hotter than the previous one. According to them, any paper that speaks of a “pause” is financed by Big Oil and written by deniers. I submit to their 95% infallible wisdom.

  13. This is Matthew England at his worst (best).
    The man is not an idiot, therefore I’d have to conclude that he is being less than honest,

    IF THE TRADE WINDS ARE STRONGER, THERE SHOULD BE MORE RAIN FALLING IN SE AUSTRALIA. Instead the east coast is suffering another drought.
    And if the trade winds are stronger, the Southern Oscillation Index should be well into the positive territory. It isn’t and it hasn’t been for some time now.

    How on Earth did this piece of crap pass review?

  14. AFAIK the ARGO buoys haven’t detected this “missing heat” below the surface of the Eastern Pacific…unless of course the trade winds have somehow converted it into “stealth heat”, or “dark energy”. But if it’s still stealth heat when it “inevitably” surfaces, how will we detect it? :-)

  15. I find it interesting that, spurred on by the need to “explain the pause”, people are suddenly finding all these “new” aspects of natural variation with as much, or more, control over temperatures than CO2 has.

    Yet, only a few years ago, they were assuring us that “it must be CO2 because we’ve accounted for natural variation”.

    Its also a little worrying to see that they’re now looking to extend the possible “pause” indefinitely with words such as “in as little as a decade”. So this paper can be used to square away level, or even dropping, temperatures until the mid 2020’s at least.

  16. Vince Causey Feb 10 1:13am says “It says that when the trade winds return to normal the heat will come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.

    No, no no. How many more times? The heat in the oceans is at a lower temperature than it was when in the atmosphere. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a low to a higher temperature …“.

    Actually, Vince, they used to say that, but they have learned from the mauling they got as a result. If you check carefully what they say now, it is “when the trade wind strength returns to normal – as it inevitably will – our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere“. Note that they are no longer saying that the heat will come out of the ocean.

  17. I like how every team cherry-picks a different one of the countless processes the models don’t simulate in an attempt to bend the projections downward by just the right amount. What happens if we include, oh I don’t know, all of the missing processes?

  18. It seems that the team have discovered ENSO, as I caught an interview about a month ago when a CSIRO spokesman on local television mentioned that the heat will return when El Nino returns, the present pause being a temporary La Nina pattern.
    Lo and behold this thought bubble appears in a paper; do they get together to discuss strategy ?
    They are desperate to explain the pause, but there is a lot of cold water out there.

  19. My theory is that the pause in global warming is caused by – global warming! After all, it causes everything else, doesn’t it?

  20. Don’t you just love the title “Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science”. Does this mean all other centres where they do climate science are of poor quality? No need to answer the question.

  21. Ahh, so we ARE going to broil after all…..Thank The Good Lord for his sweet mercies…

    Phew…..

    Was getting worried there for a second….

  22. Ken Hall says:
    February 10, 2014 at 1:03 am

    So what appears to be happening, is there are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be offsetting, or regulating, the climate. Rather like a thermostat. The atmosphere warms, then cools, then warms… and so on. as it has always done. CO2 is not setting the climate into a tailspin, there is no tipping point being reached. The climate is accepting our carbon dioxide input and adjusting accordingly.
    ———————————————————————————————————

    yep, that akes a lot of logical sense. Or you can try the Party Line version of the same:

    “There are many different climate mechanisms which appear to be exactly offsetting the CO2 warming by pure fluke. There is no regulatory mechanism involved, just all these thousands of processes of things that happen to be occurring by pure random chance at the right time, and the right magnitude, to exactly counteract the expected warming at the moment”

    Personally, if they believe in those odds, I’d suggest they should be buying lottery tickets right now.

  23. And the simple message for Prof England is this –

    “Fortunately, when the hoax ends, the inevitable public floggings look set to be vicious.”

    “You should be very clear: this latest tripe offers no comfort – we are just seeing another frantic excuse before the inevitable rise in global rage.”

    However, in his desperate attempts to find a “sciencey” sounding excuse for the utter failure of the AGW hypothesis, Prof England has got one thing right – the atmosphere cools the oceans.

    – Only SW from the sun heats the oceans, DWLWIR has no effect.

    – The net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.

    – The net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is cooling of the atmosphere.

    In the end nothing Prof England and his fellow political activists try to engineer a “soft landing” for global warming is going to work. The role radiative gases play in cooling our atmosphere is double the work they do in heating it. The global warming hypothesis is essentially a claim that the atmosphere warms the oceans and adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

  24. As an experimental physicist I was surprised and not impressed to see the methods section call the model running/tuning/twerking they did “experiments.” My notion of an experiment has a good bit more involvement of reality.

  25. Ah yes, the University of New South Wales. Home not only to Prof Matthew England, but also to Prof Chris Turney from the Ship of Fools.

  26. If the ‘lost heat’ has disappeared into the depths of ocean why have the ARGO buoys not detected the heated water as it passes them when descending into the ‘not to deep’ regions of the Eastern Pacific? Has this mythical heat developed stealth techniques to avoid detection by all of the Buoys?

    RESnape

  27. It’s interesting that Stephan Lewandowski and Chris Turney are also professors at UNSW.

    “Birds of a feather” or correlation = causation?

  28. of course, Matthew England is from the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, which also boasts has Chris Turney in their ranks. anyone keeping up with the number of papers being published, involving UNSW in the past couple of months?

    Australia may be a small country, population-wise, but when it comes to CAGW, we like to punch way above our weight….more illustrious-in-their-own-minds signatories at the link:

    14 June 2011: The Conversation: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
    Today, The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate…
    Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity…
    We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
    The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence…
    SIGNATORIES:
    Signatories
    Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA
    Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
    Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
    Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
    Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
    Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ
    Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
    Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
    Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW

    http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

  29. “the hiatus in surface warming” “the pause in global warming” ” the stall in global surface warming”
    “slowed the rise in global warming” “slowdown in global warming”
    Never let it be said that we mentioned no rise in 17 years, or that global warming might have stopped. These people make presumptions based on natural phenomena that are quite beyond the pale.

  30. The trade winds have been known for centuries and were instrumental in the expansion of trade by the Europeans

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_wind

    On what basis is this strengthening said to be unprecedented? The winds are consistent in their position but they waxed and waned in strength over the time that ships logs have been used to record sailing conditions.

    Unfortunately this article is paywalled. Anyone have access and can confirm if the study has looked at historic ships logs to see if this strengthening is unprecedented or not?

    tonyb

  31. Actually there is an old Yiddish saying that Professor Matthew England may be aware of and that is when things don’t happen like you said any excuse is as good as another. But I am sure that students from the Uni of NSW probably know not to blame the dog when they haven’t done their homework but rather that the wind blew it away.

    But I love these excuses from taxpayers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom for not getting their tax return in on time:

    1. My pet goldfish died (self-employed builder);
    2. I had a run-in with a cow (Midlands farmer);
    3. After seeing a volcanic eruption on the news, I couldn’t concentrate on anything else (London woman);
    4. My wife won’t give me my mail (self-employed trader);
    5. My husband told me the deadline was 31 March, and I believed him (Leicester hairdresser);
    6. I’ve been far too busy touring the country with my one-man play (Coventry writer);
    7. My bad back means I can’t go upstairs. That’s where my tax return is (a working taxi driver);
    8. I’ve been cruising round the world in my yacht, and only picking up post when I’m on dry land (South East man);
    9. Our business doesn’t really do anything (Kent financial services firm); and
    10. I’ve been too busy submitting my clients’ tax returns (London accountant).

    But how about these excuses from drivers when picked up by the Canadian Highway Patrol:

    Ticketed driver – “My dad could buy you.”
    Officer – “Get him to buy two of me, I could use the help.”

    Driver – “I wasn’t speeding and you didn’t see a phone, it was a hamburger.”
    Officer – “That you held to your ear and is gone?”

    Driver – “I’m a lawyer.”
    Officer – “Excellent, I’m a policeman.” Long silence.

    Driver stopped by police exits car and says “I wasn’t driving”. Still seated passenger points at self and says “I was”.

    School zone speeder – “You only stopped me because I’m in a Porsche!”
    Officer – “No because you are a *&%$ in a Porsche.”

    I don’t think Professor England is a *&%$ or drives a Porsche but we WILL be watching the Pacific trade wind speeds with great interest from now on.

  32. “the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2. So much for control knobs.”

    The reason CO2 can not be a control knob is because ocean absorb most of sun’s energy, and CO2 has no control how much energy the ocean absorbs.

  33. If a trace gas can have such a huge impact then what about microseconds .

    by year 1973 the LOD (Length of day was aprox as 86400.0030 sec.
    by year 1994 the LOD (Length of day was aprox as 86400.0025 sec.
    by year 2005 the LOD (Length of day was aprox as 86400.0005 sec.

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=343608

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day_.svg

    It is the surface that collides with the air. It is a rotating Earth that creates ocean currents

  34. I can certainly understand why Chris Turney from the Ship of Fools.would be interested to know that winds can suddenly pick up and have important effects on the weather.

  35. The people that wrote this are making Celestial Spheres arguments. Every time a flaw is found add another Sphere. The design becomes more and more elaborate until it collapses when a simple and correct explanation is found.

  36. I am not an expert in this area, but the full article does not seem to go back further than about 1900. As far as I can tell, the trade winds are obtained by “reanalysis” which seems to use model tuning to sea level atmospheric pressures and regression on IPO phases, all of which means very little to me. They do not mention historical log books or actual wind speed measurements as far as I can tell.

    The reference they give for the wind trends, L’Heureux, M. L., Lee, S. & Lyon, B. Recent multidecadal strengthening of the Walker circulation across the tropical Pacific. Nature Clim. Change 3, 571–576 (2013), does not seem to support the reanalysis as described in full. The abstract of L’Heureux et al. is as follows:

    “The Pacific Walker circulation is a large overturning cell that spans the tropical Pacific Ocean, characterized by rising motion (lower sea-level pressure) over Indonesia and sinking motion (higher sea level-pressure) over the eastern Pacific1, 2. Fluctuations in the Walker circulation reflect changes in the location and strength of tropical heating, so related circulation anomalies have global impacts3, 4. On interannual timescales, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation accounts for much of the variability in the Walker circulation, but there is considerable interest in longer-term trends and their drivers, including anthropogenic climate change5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Here, we examine sea-level pressure trends in ten different data sets drawn from reanalysis, reconstructions and in situ measurements for 1900–2011. We show that periods with fewer in situ measurements result in lower signal-to-noise ratios, making assessments of sea-level pressure trends largely unsuitable before about the 1950s. Multidecadal trends evaluated since 1950 reveal statistically significant, negative values over the Indonesian region, with weaker, positive trends over the eastern Pacific. The overall trend towards a stronger, La Niña-like Walker circulation is nearly concurrent with the observed increase in global average temperatures, thereby justifying closer scrutiny of how the Pacific climate system has changed in the historical record.”

  37. I just wanted to see if they based this on actual observations, but ’cause the Nature paper costs, I scanned the references. Most are for model based evidence, so not much use but one (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract) seemed to be based on actual measurements and it says “The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.”
    Is that for real? Can our mobile instruments like the Argo buoys really make measurements with such accuracy that we can say 0.09C? Seems small to me but I guess the volume is massive so if true it represents a lot of heat.
    It seems to me that this trade wind explanation is more model based evidence rather than based on actual measurements of heat in the ocean.

  38. A peer reviewed paper on ocean atmospheric relationships, by scientists who don’t even understand the basics of ENSO? Where is genuine peer review?

  39. As the carbon dioxide religion carries on its decomposing, the climate hysterics are getting more and more desperate. They are thrashing around for any explanation, no matter how ludicrous, to explain the failures of all their predictions and the failures of every climate model they have ever produced. This is their latest effort to keep the global warming gravy train running.

    This is from a report from

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/scientists-find-explanation-for-global-warming-pause/5248456

    I have added my own comments in order to point out their more ridiculous and absurd assertions, their weasel words (which remove the certainty of their predictions) and to make some points of my own. Any student of mine presenting such a paper would undoubtedly score an F.

    *****

    Global warming: Australian scientists say strong winds in Pacific behind pause in rising temperatures

    By environment and science reporter Jake Sturmer

    Over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed – and more recently almost stalled. Sceptics say the slowdown suggests warming is not as bad as first thought, while most climate scientists say it is just a natural climate variability.

    Now an Australian-led team of researchers has found strong winds in the Pacific Ocean are most likely to be behind the hiatus.

    The study found that the winds were churning the Pacific like a washing machine, bringing the deeper colder water to the surface and pushing the warmer water below. [The laws of the universe being reversed when convenient to climate hysterics.]

    But University of New South Wales (UNSW) researcher Matthew England, part of the team which carried out the research, said he did not expect the effect to last : “The phase we’re in of accelerated trade winds particularly lasts a couple of decades,” Professor England said. [Strange nobody mentioned it before.]

    “We’re about 12 to 13 years in to the most accelerated part of the wind field. [Which field is this? The field you just made up?]

    “It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse back to their normal levels [What are these "normal" levels? You never commit a number by which you can be judged.], we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise.” [Great expectations?]

    Professor England rejects the argument from sceptics that the slowdown suggests global warming is not as bad as first thought and that the climate models are not working : “We want the community to have confidence in the climate models,” he said. [Which models would that be? So far, despite the billions spent, all they have ever produced is garbage.]

    “They are very good but in this instance the wind acceleration has been that strong and that much stronger than what the models projected.”

    Scientists used satellite measurements and an array of floats in the Pacific to observe two-decades worth of temperature and current information. The CSIRO’s Steve Rintoul said understanding the oceans was the key to understanding climate change. [And I thought it was all about carbon dioxide! Isn't that what you grant junkies have been preaching all along?]

    “What’s not commonly understood is that when we talk about global warming, we mean ocean warming,” Dr Rintoul said. [So it's nothing to do with atmospheric warming, after all? Does the IPCC know this?]

    “Over the last 50 years, 90% of the extra heat that’s been stored by the earth is found in the ocean. [Where, exactly, in the ocean is this massive heat storage to be found? And how did it get there? Describe this mechanism and why it might suddenly reverse itself.]

    “So if we want to track how climate is changing, we need to be looking in the ocean to understand it.” [Or better still, stop trying to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.]

    The research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change. [Which should be ashamed of itself.]

  40. “” Baa Humbug says:

    How on Earth did this piece of crap pass review?”

    Well, I suppose some call it “Pal Review” while others even think of
    “PayPal’d Review”.

  41. Everybody! Go outside, face North and wave your hands! We can offset the Polar Vortex and save the planet!!1!!!!!

  42. So, err…….what you’re saying is that, err………you don’t know ALL there is to know about the Earth’s Climate System, then?

    Amazing how a new discovery is made about the Climate system every now & then, that WASN’T included in the last model print out!!!!

  43. The bottom line is the science isn’t settled. The CAGW model probably contained only what are called main effects and no interaction terms (aka feedback and feed forward effects). What’s an interaction term? Oh something like the combination of increased clouds or aerosols decreasing the effect of CO2. Therefore the model is incapable of prefidicting anything.

    They don’t understand what’s causing the pause therefore they don’t know how long the pause will last which could be indefinitely long.

  44. Unfortunately both verified and unverified computer models are called the same thing. When “model” is mentioned in something like this article, I read “calculation” which does not imply experimental verification. Once “model” is replaced in this way, it becomes a lot more difficult to move onto the usual conclusions.

  45. so basically a smidgeon of warming leads to 17+ years of static temps, so when the smidgeon of warming returns we go back to 17 +years of static temps.

    haha what’s the worry.

  46. Nature Climate change is not a Scientific Journal of any standing. Its run by the team, they review their own stuff it should not be allowed in University Libraries etc….

  47. Perhaps the heat is holding hands with Higgs Bosons or perhaps it is hiding in another dimension? One day we will find it with the help of a particle accelerator?

  48. The answer is blowing in the wind! (Thanks to that great climatologist, Bob Dylan.)

    “Blowin’ In The Wind”

    How many roads must a man walk down
    Before you call him a man?
    How many seas must a white dove sail
    Before she sleeps in the sand?
    Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
    Before they’re forever banned?
    The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Yes, how many years can a mountain exist
    Before it’s washed to the sea?
    Yes, how many years can some people exist
    Before they’re allowed to be free?
    Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
    Pretending he just doesn’t see?
    The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Yes, how many times must a man look up
    Before he can really see the sky?
    Yes, how many ears must one man have
    Before he can hear people cry?
    Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows
    That too many people have died?
    The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Ira Glickstein

  49. Sometimes, hand waving is very effective. Late Boris Yeltsin, as everybody knows, hand waved the USSR out of existence. Amazing feat for a man who barely could speak (when sober), leave alone write! Today, President B. Hussein Obama is hand-waving the USA out of existence, and has already almost succeeded. How could a mere “global warming hiatus” survive a well-coordinated, public grant-driven hand waving?

  50. The chart is an interesting manipulation, the cognitive dissonance these people exhibit is astonishing. Why the need to present the observed anomoly as a 5 year rolling average? Are the models also presented on 5 year rolling averages? And why is 1980-2012 chosen as the datum? Why are the annual observed anomolies presented as bars whereas the other series are presented as lines? And don’t we have temperature anomoly data going back decades before 1980? Why is this not presented on the chart?

  51. P.S. Bob Dylan’s “poetry” is a poorly rhymed attempt to push socialist buttons. If there would be any music to speak of, accompanying this jabber… but there ain’t.

  52. The Trade Winds have strengthened some lately.

    I once wrote a post here called the “The Trade Winds Drive the ENSO”. Today, I would rename it to “The Eastern/Central Pacific Ocean Temperatures Drive the Trade Winds which Acts as an Amplifier to the ENSO”. The ENSO amplifies itself through the Trade Winds.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-trade-winds-drive-the-enso/

    Well, what have the Trades and the ENSO been doing lately. Same correlation continues, up to January 2014.

    And there is NO discernible trend in the Pacific Trade Winds going back to 1871. (Not surprising since there is no trend in the ENSO going back to 1871 and given the tight correlation between these two, there should be no trend in the Pacific Trade Winds either).

    But they have strengthened some lately on average, probably because of the extent of cool water in the Eastern/Central Pacific for the past 8 years, on average.

    But this is Natural Variability. The Pacific Winds and the ENSO have doing this for at least 400 million years.

  53. Since, according to the true believers there is in fact no pause, what you are actually exposing is the growing list of anti-science traitors posing as scientists./sarc off.
    It is not so much that AGW believers rely on post hoc excuse making. It is that they seem to sincerely offer these sad excuses, and that so many in the public square still take those excuses as credible.

  54. - Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
    – Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
    – Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there, and shouting “I found it!”
    Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a switch. The light will reveal a cat… if there is one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_cat_analogy

    By that analogy, climate science is a branch of theology.
    But we knew that already, didn`t we?

  55. No climate model predicted this “strengthening” of the trade winds. Therefore the models are wrong. Or the models are right and the professor is clueless. Or both.

    Ask him: why now? Why suddenly this so-called strengthening in the early 21-st century? Why did it not happen (did it?) in the eighties? And if he doesn’t understand why, how can he make any statement about it?

    “Clutching at straws” comes to mind.

  56. ColdinOz says:
    February 10, 2014 at 2:52 am
    A peer reviewed paper on ocean atmospheric relationships, by scientists who don’t even understand the basics of ENSO? Where is genuine peer review?

    No, it is better…

    “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.

    How about ‘scientist’ who do not have a grasp on thermodynamics.

    I ought to put the above quote on a the basic thermodynamics course that all Mech Engineers take.
    I can ask them if hte statement is wrong and if so why. Pretzel time since most have been indoctrinated n AGW.

  57. The plethora of “reasons” for the pause all comes down to a simple explanation:

    One thing for certain, even though the media is going predictably berserkers over this paper, the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2.

    They (alarmists) rolled a string of 7s in a row, and declared a new normal of all 7s. But the string had to stop sometime.

  58. jakee308 says:
    Everybody! Go outside, face North and wave your hands! We can offset the Polar Vortex and save the planet!!1!!!!!

    Thread Winner!

  59. Robert Westfall said:
    February 10, 2014 at 2:34 am
    “The people that wrote this are making Celestial Spheres arguments. Every time a flaw is found add another Sphere. The design becomes more and more elaborate until it collapses when a simple and correct explanation is found.”

    You are so, so correct. Once again they demonstrate there is no deep, underlying understanding of how the climate works, just a stapled-together mess of what they are familiar with and what they can model. Nothing more.

  60. The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans;
    Could read no more, the above doesn’t happen.

  61. They can’t predict what the trade winds are going to do, but everything else they have down to an exact science.

  62. The problem of course is that even if this is a reasonable explanation, the fact that they didn’t understand the climate well enough to see it coming gives us little to no confidence that they can also see whatever other factors may affect their unreliable predictions for the next fifteen years… or thirty… or fifty… or a hundred…

  63. Welcome to the negative PDO. The -PDO is described by changes in pressure systems and, yes, this does increase the trade winds. What they are ignoring, intentionally I suspect, is the weaker trade winds of the +PDO were the biggest factor behind the warming from 1975-2005.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/plot/rss/from/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend

    The reason they looked at data starting in 1980 is because most of that period was a +PDO so the winds would be lower. This paper is basically a complete and total LIE. These people should be stripped of their academic degrees as an example to anyone else who would intentionally lie. Throw in the reviewers and the editor for good measure. Wouldn’t that make a difference in the crap we’re seeing out of climate science peer review.

  64. The paper admits to the “hiatus” AND to the fact the models are wrong (do not take into account trade winds). And yet it still adds to the consensus.

  65. “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    C L Dodgson was ahead of his time, and he did this all without government, intergovernmental or super governmental funding.

  66. “….So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”

    They are buying more time to continue their snouts in the funding trough. I wonder whether the heat from the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period are still lurking in the deep?

    The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming.

    Well that’s just fine and dandy. So during the ‘hottest decade on the records’ the Pacific trade winds strengthened.

    Letter To Nature – 2006
    Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing
    ……….Observed Indo-Pacific sea level pressure reveals a weakening of the Walker circulation. The size of this trend is consistent with theoretical predictions, is accurately reproduced by climate model simulations and, within the climate models, is largely due to anthropogenic forcing. The climate model indicates that the weakened surface winds have altered the thermal structure and circulation of the tropical Pacific Ocean. These results support model projections of further weakening of tropical atmospheric circulation during the twenty-first century4, 5, 7.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/abs/nature04744.html

  67. http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/quick-comments-on-england-et-al-2014/

    Informative as always Bob. Thanks. Since I’ve been reading your eBooks it didn’t take me long to reach the same conclusion about this ‘paper’, albeit not as eloquently expressed as in your post. It was a wonder to me that they never acknowledged the existence of the ENSO nor did they really offer an explanation for what caused the ‘unprecedented’ (my BS alarm starts sounding whenever I see the term ‘unprecedented’ in a purportedly ‘scientific’ paper. Such terms have no business in a scientific paper) strength of the Trade Winds. If you don’t know why they increased (if, in fact, they did) then how could you just blithely assume that they will, at some point in the future, decrease back to ‘normal’ levels (not that there is any evidence presented to establish that Trade Wind strength prior to the satellite era was ‘normal’. What if Trade Wind strength prior to the satellite era was unprecedentedly weak (by historical standards) and the current ‘strength’ is ‘normal’?

  68. I should add that one of possible causes of the PDO cycle is changes to the speed of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC). When it speeds up it brings more cold upwelling water to the surface along the coast of South America. The cold water cools the air above it creating a strong pressure gradient with the warm water over the Pacific Warm Pool (PWP). This sets up the structure of the -PDO. With these stronger trade winds it is more difficult for El Niño events to be initiated. This leads to fewer of them which leads to less warm air released into the atmopshere. The planet cools.

    I suspect the reason for the increased sea ice around Antarctica is also related to this increase in upwelling cold water. This may be a leading indicator for the PDO phases.

    I suspect what we saw in 2012 is related. It looked like an El Niño was starting to form in the summer but it fizzled out. This was likely due to the enhanced strength of the trade winds. If these winds really are stronger than earlier -PDO winds, then we may go a long, long time before we see another El Niño.

    Another factor may be due to the long term warming we have seen. If this warms the PWP to a higher value that would also factor into increasing the pressure gradient and thus the trade winds. This would be a natural enhancement of the -PDO, or a negative feedback.

    I wonder if this also ties into increasing the probability of Polar outbreaks?

    Brrrrrrrrrr.

  69. Thanks, A. Good article.
    England et al. (2014) looks like an attempt to make ENSO disappear, to replace a fundamental cause of the Earth’s climate with some its effects. Not surprisingly, it is some some sort of hockey stick for the oceans.

  70. So now we have two disasters awaiting us in the future. Dr Trenberth’s “heat hiding in the deep oceans which will come back to the atmosphere due to some unknown process at some unknown time in the future” and this gentleman’s “heat pushed into the near ocean that will come back to the atmosphere due to some unknown process at some unknown time in the future”.

  71. I thought all the excess heat was being stored in the oceans deep, deep abyss. This story tells us that it’s just below the surface. Menacing. Like a blood thirsty shark. (sarc)

  72. I think climate scientists have now been defined as the 21st century “welfare queens”. The term certainly fits the crime.

  73. The idea that the missing heat is going into the oceans is ridiculous!

    Quite obviously it is the land that is absorbing the missing heat — and this is causing faster continental drift. The continents have become highly energized and, like a group of five year olds at play, they can’t sit still. The continents will eventually wear themselves out and nap time will come and the missing heat will be returned to the atmosphere with a vengeance.

    Is that clear to everyone?

    Eugene WR Gallun

  74. “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere”

    I do not believe this proposition may hold water. According to NOAA NODC OCL OHC — Basin time series heat content of the upper 700 m layer in the Pacific ocean is decreasing at an average rate of 8.7×10^20 J/year since the beginning of 2003. That date is about the introduction of ARGO floats, all data before are unreliable.

    How can heat be pumped to a shallow depth and not show up in measurements is anyone’s guess.

  75. “I want to know how warm water sinks. Someone please explain this to me.”
    It is easy, it is the same mechanism whereby the cool oceans are going to give up their heat to the warm atmosphere making it even warmer.
    Please realise, that with AGW only the laws of physics apply that support it, it is completely acceptable to turn the ones that don’t support it on their head!

  76. Berényi Péter says:
    February 10, 2014 at 5:43 am How can heat be pumped to a shallow depth and not show up in measurements is anyone’s guess.

    ===================================

    Well obviously it’s ‘hiding’, just like Dr Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ is ‘hiding’ itself in the deep oceans. My question is, when exactly did heat become sentient?

  77. How long before it’s claimed that recent reductions in GHG are the cause of the hiatus? Our policies are working!

  78. University of New South Wales? Isn’t that the Chris (Tmas) Turkey’s University?

    AMAZING we get not one but THREE alarmist papers within a couple of months of the publicity trip scientific expedition by Green Party Elect, Janet Rice, The BBC and the Groniad?

    Climate Craziness of the Week: only the ‘cooler’ models are wrong – the rest say 4ºC of warming by 2100 – From the University of New South Wales and Dr. Steven Sherwood…

    Counting Your Penguin Chicks Before They Hatch The BBC, which as I understand it is an acronym for ”Blindly Broadcasting Cra- ziness”, gives us its now-standard tabloid style headline, that Climate change is ‘killing penguin chicks’ say researchers

    Any bets she and a couple of reporters were on the ill-fated trip getting those all important publicity shots when the Turkey disobeyed the ship’s Captain and disappeared for 2 1/2 hours?

    Let us not forget this little gem:

    [PASSENGER Janet Rice - After 1 am on December 24 ]
    “The third drama of the day is the one which is still unfolding. Because of the Argo mishap we got off late, and had one less vehicle to ferry people to and fro. I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in. As I write we are continuing to make extremely slow progress through what looks like a winter alpine snow field – it’s yet another surreal part of this journey that we are in a ship trying to barge our way through here! I’m sure the Captain would have been much happier if we had got away a few hours earlier. Maybe we would have made it through the worst before it consolidated as much as it has with the very cold south- easterly winds blowing the ice away from the coast, around and behind us as well as ahead.
    (wwwDOT) janetrice.com.au/?e=98

    “I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon” seems to indicate Janet Rice was not there on ship “late in the afternoon” to observe the Captain’s irritation first hand.

    It would also explain why Turkey disappeared, not for 45 mins (the length of a round trip) but for 2 1/2 hours.

  79. Seriously, why the F* is this article being taken seriously by anyone?

    Look at their first graph again, then look at this

    (which can be compared to http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/arx/ENSO/ElNino.png )

    They are apparently just now on the cusp of figuring out what a La Nina / Negative phase PDO is.

    This is the problem when you base absolutely all of your assumptions off a very short, specific amount of time, and never even ponder natural cycles. In their case, they have a start date of 1979, the very beginning of a Positive/ElNino phase (a strong one at that, with two “Super El Ninos”). And when all your inputted data is from the beginning of a certain cycle, what eventually happens? The cycle switches and everything you think you knew is turned completely on its head…

    The Phases themselves are apparently very consistently 31 years long, and the new Negative one began in 2008 according to NASA (which perfectly lines up with the 1977 change to Positive, the last Negative which began in 1946, and I suspect a 1915 cycle period as the claimed 1925 switch doesn’t seem to line up well with trends before or after it) Since the 2008 flip, La Ninas have been seen in 5 of the 6 years (following a pounding of El Ninos in the preceding decade). With La Nina, of course, being… the conditions they are describing as being “unprecedented”

    End results:

    Now the problem for them is, it is going to last until 2039

    And then the next, even bigger problem for them becomes the fact <b<this Negative Phase is coinciding with a possible new Dalton or worse, Maunder Minimum instead of the PDO Cycle+Modern Maximum we saw from 1915-1996.

    Remember what they all said during a slight return to normal Solar Activity when it was coupled with a Negative Cycle during the early 1970s? We were all going to die from Global Cooling because the Arctic Ice was increasing at an ‘unprecedented pace’ and the cold winters were destroying crops around much of the world. What if that had happened with a real, actual “sleeping Sun”, as we apparently are about to experience now?

    All I can say is, good thing we accumulated a bit of heat during that Modern Maximum! I do hope it sticks around a little while longer though, as this Negative Cycle could end up being a real nasty one

  80. “Men say they know many things;
    But lo! they have taken wings, —
    The arts and sciences,
    And a thousand appliances;
    The wind that blows
    Is all that any body knows”

    – Henry David Thoreau

  81. For this model to work the heat must be in the upper part of the ocean. If it goes into the deeper ocean, as some have suggested, then it ain’t comin’ back.

    We can find data for ocean heat content by basin here:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
    Looking at the top layer of the Pacific Ocean (0-700m) we find no significant trend in OHC since the turn of the century, and the trend since 2002 has been (non-significant) negative.

    2004-2013 10yr -0.064 Not significantly different from zero
    2002-2013 12yr -0.023 Not
    2000-2013 14yr 0.058 Not

    So, where did the heat go?
    Answer: the Indian Ocean, but that isn’t what the England et al. paper appears to be claiming.

    DB2

  82. Its really the temperature of the water in the eastern equatorial Pacific which drives the Pacific Trade Winds.

    When the eastern equatorial Pacific is colder than average (still warmer than your backyard, but cooler than normal for the region), there is less convection, more wind blows to the west as a result instead of getting caught up in convection cells.

    The stronger winds pull up more cooler water from below at the Galapagos Islands, and the surface gets even colder. In addition, when the east is cooler than average, the western side is usually warmer, so there is more convection on the western side and the winds blow even stronger to the west to replace the rising air. Nice self-amplifying oscillation.

    Here is the upper ocean temperature anomaly in the eastern Pacific versus the Trade Wind Index. Not hard to see what is going on. It leads the Trade Winds and the ENSO itself.

    And then the upper ocean temperature anomaly versus the Nino 3.4 Index.

    Upper ocean Pacific temperature data.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt

    I don’t see no global warming.

  83. Forgive me if I’m being stoopid here, but I didn’t think there was ANY notable reported increase in Pacific SST or deeper temperatures. Am I wrong? If I’m right how is this heat hiding in plain sight? Help, my brain hurts…

  84. l think the cooling in the eastern Pacific is linked to the increase in the jet stream activity above that area. l have noticed this by watching the global jet stream maps and the full disk satilite images over recent years. What seems to be happening is that the pushes of cold air southwards over north America and in the Pacific are powering up the jet stream over the eastern Pacific. So what’s been happening is that quite often a powerful jet stream starts to form over the eastern Pacific and is taking warm moist air from the eastern Pacific over the Atlantic and into Europe. Which has been the reason for the UK mild and wet winter this year.
    Also with the increase in the jet stream pushing south over the Pacific there has been increase in where the jet stream crosses over from the NH to the SH and the other way round over the eastern Pacific. Which in turn increases the weather activity, wind speeds, and flow of warm air from this area and so is helping to cool off the eastern Pacific.

  85. Ad hoc explanations of failures of theory to pass tests…another of Irving Langmuir’s signs of pathological science.

  86. Yet another “explanation” in a string of explanations. Stripped of all the convoluted rationalizations, this tells me that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

  87. Anecdotally, could an increase in trade wind velocity have contributed to the demise of Amelia Earhart in 1937? In her flight planning she probably would have calculated a best guess for anticipated head wind at low altitude coming across the Pacific, (she flew low because you can’t spot little islands from above a lot of clouds), based upon average data likely collected from the prior 2 or 3 years before which could have by 1937 have dramatically increased unbeknownst to her?

    Such an increase would be consistent with this study explaining a “hiatus” from ~1938 to ~1946. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1930/to:1950/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1938/to:1946./trend

    I would suspect that Japanese Navy weather reports for that region from that era (early 1930’s through 1945), along with battle group and supply ship time enroute forecasts ought to confirm whether or not there was any dramatic change in tradewind velocity that would have occurred during the years leading up to and during WW2?

  88. If they are convinced that the sneeze is due to the Pacific trade winds, then perhaps they should complain to the World Trade Organization, and not blame carbon dioxide.

  89. So, to make sure I understand, they are claiming that 1, evaporative cooling is the cause of the pause, and 2, this wasnt in the models. Evaporative cooling is a well known and well understood phenomenon. This was not in the models in the past? And the are still claiming their models land surface temperature are valid? And people still claim these climate scientists have basic scientific competency?

  90. F.A.H. says: @ February 10, 2014 at 1:45 am

    As an experimental physicist I was surprised and not impressed to see the methods section call the model running/tuning/twerking they did “experiments.” My notion of an experiment has a good bit more involvement of reality.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Welcome to post normal science, where methods and data are not only not needed but jealously guarded, computer runs produce “Experimental Data” and the get out of peer-review free card. “Mankind is to blame” is mandatory for publication.

    {:>)

  91. Reading further into the report, I see the author states that the models “are still better at predicting what might happen by the end of the century than at the end of the decade.”

    Without even going into the logical fallacies of claiming that the prediction can be completely wrong at the 10 year point and reasonable correct at 100 years, you have to wonder why he is using short term models that he knows are wrong to produce his claim.

  92. markx says:
    February 10, 2014 at 12:49 am

    Geez … so what was it that made the trade winds strengthen?
    Is this perhaps some sort of negative feedback mechanism in action?
    ============================================================

    Al Gore took a trip to the EU and was speaking while facing west. :-)

  93. My head hurts from all this nonsense coming out of the mouths of people intent on destroying the credibility of ALL scientists.

    Let’s clear this up right now.

    Has anything the AGW people have predicted 10 years ago come true?

  94. Box of Rocks says: @ February 10, 2014 at 4:27 am
    ….“This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains….

    I ought to put the above quote on a the basic thermodynamics course that all Mech Engineers take.
    I can ask them if the statement is wrong and if so why. Pretzel time since most have been indoctrinated n AGW.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Even better put that quote on an exam with the addition: “Please explain the thermodynamics involved.”

    Then watch the heads explode.

    If you are real nasty, like my thermo teacher was, you make it a 25 point question.

  95. I can’t help but notice, despite being willing to convolute the explanations and the models beyond anything that resembles reality, no one has theorized that some heretofore unknown process is allowing heat to escape the Earth’s atmosphere into space. Funny that.

    More wibbly wobbly, climey wimey…stuff.

  96. Brilliant. Wish I had thought of this one. Forget glaciers and polar ice and poles warming faster. That only leads to discomfort, embarassing rescues and such. I want money to follow the tropical trade winds around the Pacific. And while it is important research it can also be a public statement. No diesel steel hulled behemoths. No, my grant money will go to a sustainable sailing yacht and to save money will be crewed by coeds that just happen to be my grad class students.

  97. Taking their research at face value:
    1) There’s no evidence that human CO2 plays any role in changing trade wind velocity thus it introduces a new totally natural factor that they have in general up to now, always DENIED as being possible to exist in any explanation of late 20th century warming.
    2) It suggests a possible parallel reason for the similarity of warming from 1910 to 1945 to that of 1965 to 2000, thus introducing more doubt as to the role of CO2 given that the latter warming period was less in magnitude despite a higher concentration of CO2. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend

    I see no reason to get worked up about this study – it may turn out to be a bullet that goes through their foot.

  98. And if this new factor helps explain the cooling from ~1945 to ~1960 their attribution to aerosols takes a serious hit too.

  99. This paper brings up a point I have pondered recently. Much effort is given to examining El Nino and La Nina events in terms of their effects on air temperatures. Little attention is paid to El Nado and La Nada conditions. However, I wonder if gold lies in them thar hills. It is understood that El Nino, with its quiet waters and cloudy skies, layers warm water to the surface where it can be evaporated away (hence even more clouds). These clouds prevent the full strength of SW infrared from getting into the oceans. Under La Nina, clouds and that warm layer are blown away, allowing full strength SW infrared into the oceans. It can be deduced that these conditions are not opposites of each other just as Bob has said many, many times. And much is known about their immediate effects. What I ponder are the inbetweens (La Nada’s and El Nado’s plus neutral) in terms of their ability to forecast impending decades long trends. Might these conditions tell us more about impending long term trends than the shorter oscillations on either side?

  100. Rob Dawg says: “No, my grant money will go to a sustainable sailing yacht and to save money will be crewed by coeds that just happen to be my grad class students.”

    Oh do I have the perfect craft for you!

  101. In the IPCC’s latest report they admit that they don’t know why Antarctica’s sea ice extent has been trending up since 1979.

    AR5
    D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
    Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..
    Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……
    —–
    There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

    It looks like today we have “incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of” the surface temperature standstill. Their models are hopeless.

  102. Trrenberth says the heat is hiding deep, below the Argo depths. But this paper says the heat is hidingin shallow water, just waiting on the winds to subside and then re-emerge.
    It cannot be both. The answer is very likely that it is neither.

  103. “No, no no. How many more times? The heat in the oceans is at a lower temperature than it was when in the atmosphere. Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a low to a higher temperature. This is not only a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, but goes against common sense. This heat cannot any longer come out of the ocean and warm the atmosphere.”

    By the time the hyperactive trades winds tire we’ll be so freezing cold that the hidden heat will be blazing in comparison.

  104. nutso fasst says: “Strong winds have intensified ocean currents, disturbing settled science.”
    – stirring up the bottom, reducing visibility and thus making their predictions …. very murky.

  105. They admit that previously the models did not include the trade winds, but trust us, they were still completely accurate.

  106. good that they made a prediction. when the tradewinds return to normal, the heat will return.

    It would be nice to have a WUWT reference page devoted to trade winds.

    When theories dont work ( which is always ), there are three options.

    1. ignore the “wrongness” because its small and doesnt really matter
    2. declare the theory wrong and replace it with a better one.
    3. Suggest testable improvements.

    They have done #3. That’s a good thing. Whether it is the correct choice.. time will tell.

  107. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.

    As always, the test will be future, out of sample, data.

  108. “So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”

    This, of course, gives them at least another 10 years to be wrong.

  109. Stronger winds do drive more evaporation, which is a cooling mechanism for the WATER, but NOT a cooling mechanism for the SYSTEM.

    Regarding the question of how more heat gets in the ocean (not having read the paper and frankly I can’t imagine finding the time to do so) is that the cooler water can now absorb more heat from the atmosphere. So the ocean warms back up and the heat comes back out of the atmosphere. If the heat comes back out of the atmosphere then the water vapor comes back out of the atmosphere and re-releases it’s latent heat of evaporation back into the atmosphere. The “souped-up” process they claim would INCREASE second/third law devolution of system energy contained in modes other than heat into heat, by definition. This mechanism CAN’T cool the earth system; it can only increase entropy.

  110. dbakerber says:
    February 10, 2014 at 6:49 am
    Reading further into the report, I see the author states that the models “are still better at predicting what might happen by the end of the century than at the end of the decade.”

    On its face, it is an extremely interesting claim, yes. But it gets really comical if you move it forward. I mean, calculate out the PDOs.
    2000-2007 Positive (temp stalled)
    2008-2038 Negative
    2039-2069 Positive
    2070-2099 Negative (it flips in 3000)

    That is 61 years of Negative PDO, 39 years of Positive PDO – where the first 8 years of positive left us with 0 warming.

    And the IPCC has us at an overall increase of between 2.3 degrees by 3000, right? So between 2039-2069, we are going to see all of the 2.3 degrees and even more, to offset whatever the 61 years of negative take off and all. That’s right, apparently England feels it is likely we see about +1 Degree/Decade from 2039-2069

    Cant wait to see his new model prediction of that!

    In fact, I believe it will look a hell of a lot like this (using 1876-1976 as a comparable PDO time period. Just make believe it says 2000-2100)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1876/to:1915/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1916/to:1945/detrend:-3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1976/offset:3

    What do you think the reaction will be when the first Modeler puts that out as their prediction?

    [2100 vs 3000? Mod]

  111. Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what to do with observations of nature. Here is an observation: there has been no warming in the twenty-first century. Here is another one: carbon dioxide has steadily increased during this century. Can you tell me how these observations are connected? No? Then you must be a climate scientist. These people were told by Hansen that putting more carbon dioxide in the air warms it Greenhouse effect is what he called it. IPCC picked it right up and has been promoting the greenhouse effect for 25 years now. It is impossible for them to believe observations that absolutely deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. By now there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 17 years. That is two thirds of the time that IPCC has even existed. Probably billions of research money has gone into futile attempts to prove the reality of a non-existent greenhouse warming. Their “proof” of greenhouse warming leans on Hansen. In 1988 he asserted in front of the Senate that the greenhouse warming had arrived. Hansen had no idea what he was talking about. He just observed an El Nino and thought it was greenhouse.

  112. The warmista can hindcast almost everything perfectly, once they know what they want to hindcast and find the buttons in the models.
    They can also forecast exactly as they want it to look like.
    So where is the problem?

  113. From my research their most common explanations for the pause are:

    1. It was caught in a mudslide
    2. Eaten by a lion
    3. Got run over by a crappy purple scion.

    I’m leaning toward number 3.

  114. Amazing the dimwits have discovered ENSO – I think a month or so ago another genius discovered the PDO maybe one day they will look out of the window and notice the sun but that is probably a step too far [for] the modelers.
    It is time for the climate community to move to another approach based on pattern recognition in the temperature and driver data and also on the recognition of the different frequencies of different regional weather patterns on a cooling ( more meridional jet stream ) and warming (more latitudinal jet stream ) world.
    For forecast of the coming cooling based on the 60 year (PDO) and the 1000 year quasi-periodicities seen in the temperature data and the neutron count as a proxy for solar activity in general see several posts at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    for an assessment of a thirty year forecast made in 2010 see

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html

  115. tonyb: On what basis is this strengthening said to be unprecedented?

    They have some model output (this is presented at Bob Tisdale’s web page), but they admit that the model output for earlier years is not very “constrained” by actual measurements. The claim does not have what might be termed a “strong foundation”.

    I can’t get behind the paywall either. rats. The paper is probably worth reading.

  116. Notwithstanding the inaccurate rendition of the Hadley circulation… that does not touch surface in Mid Latitudes… See Leroux.

  117. Steven Mosher: When theories dont work ( which is always ), there are three options.

    1. ignore the “wrongness” because its small and doesnt really matter
    2. declare the theory wrong and replace it with a better one.
    3. Suggest testable improvements.

    They have done #3. That’s a good thing. Whether it is the correct choice.. time will tell.

    It looks to me like a paper worth reading. I hope that the authors or journal release it from behind the paywall. time will tell, as you wrote.

  118. I think I finally understand Global Warming. It’s simple, really. You see, the globe is warming because the science is settled. Except when it isn’t, and then the science is ad hoc for a moment and THEN the science is settled again. Sadly, you can never converse with the CAGW cultists while the science is in the ad hoc stage; that stage only happens for a very brief time, far too brief for debate.

    Even more sadly, when you speak with CAGW supporters, they are absolutely certain that THEY understand real science! Sigh…

  119. I’m sorry, maybe I’ve missed it.

    Is there any data actually showing the stronger trade winds, or is this just something they fed into the model?

    Also; it’s kind of a chicken and the egg question; couldn’t the decrease in the temp trend result in stronger trade winds?

    Just curious.

  120. “This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue…”

    Well that covers projections of the pause until 2020. Will Ben Santer object that it exceeds his 17 years?

  121. Bob Tisdale’s studies indicate that the Pacific Basin has not warmed. So, where is the heat that is piling up?

  122. “Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid.”

    I think it is a significant advance that the hiatus is acknowledged by people who previously denied it. It is an admission by climate scientists, however indirect and muted, that the dire predictions of Hansen et al, and predictions by themselves, in the late 20th century and early 21st century, were wrong. People who disputed those predictions can not be called “deniers” and such.

  123. So where does this latest offering of the ’cause of the pause’ leave all those oh-so superior claims that natural forces were nothing compared to human influences? This was not supposed to happen! Yet here they are trying to use natural variation (that for years they said was not happening) to prop up the theory of man made warming that erm, due to the pause, also isn’t happening!

    They’re making it up as they go along, aren’t they.

  124. The real sad truth of all of this is that, by the time the scientists actually have something of a handle on what drives the climate and can make accurate predictions, these charlatans will have so thoroughly destroyed the credibility of this particular discipline that no one will listen to them for quite some time.

    It’s like a watching a Greek tragedy unfold.

    I kind of like the notion of Mann’s liver being eaten by an eagle every day for eternity.

  125. Remember to preface an article search with the acronym “pdf”. You can often find a preprint this way.

  126. @Mod

    [2100 vs 3000? Mod]

    To my above post

    The “3000” was a pure brain fart, lol. The IPCC shows a 2-3 increase between now and 2100. 3000 should say 2100.

    The image I attached,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1876/to:1915/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1916/to:1945/detrend:-3/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1946/to:1976/offset:3

    Is roughly what that would look in a prediction for 2000-2100, based off the PDO patterns they are waking up to now

    The 3000s I put there were almost certainly because I kept thinking (and laughing about) what their 3000 temps would have to look like based off their 2100 trend, and how asinine the above WFT graph would look spread over a full thousand years to get there. Tempted to make such an image, lol.

  127. “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures.”

    Can anyone post a link to the “step-shaped” hockey stick that scientists published long ago? Michael Mann’s version looked pretty smooth to me. I didn’t see “abrupt steps” in his graph. Before the hiatus, I remember alarmists using phrases like “we have reached a tipping point,” “irreversible warming,” “runaway global warming,” “irreversible death spiral.” But I don’t remember them talking about “step-wise” warming, and I’m pretty sure they never mentioned “long periods of steady temperatures.” That would not be alarmist enough for them. Does anyone else remember this happening before the hiatus began, or is this another example of trying to rewrite history?

  128. These guys (clowns) do not realize that the insensible “heat” or energy carried away from the oceans is as latent heat of water and that this lower density air will rise and condense at altitude, with the resulting released heat going to IR radiation that is lost to space.

    The massive water vapor convective heat engine is responsible for perhaps 85% of energy transfer from the surface to altitude. IR radiation from the surface is only 15% and is the only energy the warmest models recognize.

    It’s no wonder Trenberth has problems locating the missing heat; it has already left the planet.

  129. So there are all these compelling theories being published about various natural processes that are strong enough and prolonged enough to halt the increase in global warming for well over a decade…but there is no possibility that the alternate side of these same natural processes could possible be strong enough to have caused the global warming in the 80s and 90s in the first place? Somebody wants to have their cake and eat it too. If the process is strong enough to stop global warming, then it has to have been strong enough to start it too.

  130. “So, is it covered by the Argo floats?” Dang. It’s just below them. Now that it’s been published, they can start validating the model today. If they keep adding independent variables and keep validating, they may have a decent model in about 150 years.

  131. “Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what to do with observations of nature. Here is an observation: there has been no warming in the twenty-first century”

    hmm. Well, lets see.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/trend

    Stupidity annoys me.

    First off there are no observations without uncertainty and there is no uncertainty without a propose model of the underlying process. In other words, observations always come wrapped up with theory. One cannot say there has been “no warming” without qualifying the claim in an defensible manner ( many approaches are defensible, data never speaks for itself)

  132. Ulrich Elkmann says:
    February 10, 2014 at 4:19 am

    “- Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
    – Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
    – Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there, and shouting “I found it!”…….By that analogy, climate science is a branch of theology.
    But we knew that already, didn`t we?”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    “Matthew England is a physical oceanographer and climate scientist. England completed a B.Sc. (Honours) and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at the University of Sydney, Australia. In 2005 he became a Professor at the University of New South Wales, and was awarded an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship[1] that same year.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_England

  133. “Trade winds”. How 19th Century. Perhaps these maroons should explain to the winds that global trade is down so the extra speed is really not necessary and would it please slow down.

    Of course the real problem is that there isn’t anything in the way of these winds, so they just merrily blow along. The UN should mandate that every nation must put thousands of sailing ships to sea immediately in order to block and slow down these winds. Land locked nations must pay maritime nations for their fair share of ships. If enough billions of dollars are intelligently wasted used to build these ships, the winds will slow and global warming can once again return to its proper place in political fear mongering.

  134. Can I make a very silly suggestion here. The models are wrong and the theory they purport to support is also wrong. There is no “missing heat”, it is only “missing” if you consider the models to be correct and they are not.

    Sometimes the answer is just obvious.

  135. What precisely do the authors imagine to be “normal” trade wind velocities?

    Proxies exist for tropical Pacific wind speeds, but maybe not at the resolution needed to compare the past decade with prior decades during the recovery from the LIA, or earlier in the Holocene.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFMEP52A..02W

    http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/25580/0000124.pdf;jsessionid=1C2709AF676D64129988C3159F422B50?sequence=1

  136. WOW, I have not had so much fun reading responces to an artical in years! So, perhaps all the hot air blowing from the mouth’s of “global warmists” has articulated into unprescedented increase in trade wind speeds. What a debt of gratitude we owe! The more they shout the sky is warming the colder it will get!

  137. Another possible past trade wind proxy: how about transit times for Spanish galleons from Baja California to Manila, allowing for ship design improvements?

  138. Umm, I hate to say this but 10N to 10S is not where the ‘Trade Winds’ are located. The Trades are mostly centered from 20 to 30 South. Anyone who sails across the equator knows the variable winds found between 5N and 5S, regardless of whether ENSO is Neutral, El Nino or La Nina. In addition to this remember that there is an equatorial counter current than runs West to East just north of the equator, roughly 2 to 4 degrees north.

  139. “We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”

    This statement is true, minus the warmist mind set. Temperatures will rise again even if the planet has now begun a decent into a new Glacial Period. Hard to say when it will happen or how long rising temperatures will continue, but it will happen…guaranteed. And you can be sure that CAGW climate scientists are busily preparing for that happy day. I predict you will see a “We told you so!” media campaign unparalleled in history. Skeptics will be publicly raked over the coals of global warming, utterly marginalized and bombarded into silence. At that time their goal will be to so damage the skeptics cause that when temperatures level off or drop, as they eventually must, it will have no effect on the mind of the public. (gloom/off)

  140. “… rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”

    How do they know trade wind strength will return to “normal” after not letting up for more that a decade? If CO2 is capable of causing irreversible warming and irreversible ice loss, why can’t it cause an irreversible increase in trade winds? Perhaps, this is a natural negative feedback to increases in CO2 and will continue as long as CO2 is elevated. If that’s the case, then CO2 is its own cure, and we have nothing to worry about. But don’t expect these activist scientists to ever admit the possibility of long-lasting negative feedbacks because the “cause” is more important to them than the truth.

  141. So, the increased trade wind speed is unprecedentedly “too fast”, excessively cooling the Pacific through evaporation?
    Where does that increased moisture end up, it has to go somewhere? Clouds w/ increased albedo? Clouds that release the heat of H2O condensation during formation into the upper atmosphere where it radiates as LWIR into space, but NOT magically transferred through “immaculate convection” to the not so deep ocean? Clouds that form cold rain?
    I just don’t understand how is CO2 controlling all this?

  142. More wind power generators can help slow those trade winds back down again.

    Temperatures will then rise, not only in spite of our switching to “green” energy, but even because of it.

  143. “Cheshirered says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:03 am
    So where does this latest offering of the ’cause of the pause’ leave all those oh-so superior claims that natural forces were nothing compared to human influences? ”

    huh. the IPCC claim is that Most ( more than 50%) of the warming since 1950 can be attributed to
    anthro sources. Not all.. more than half.

  144. Arno Arrak says:
    February 10, 2014 at 8:20 am

    Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what …
    ———————

    I liked your commentary …… so much that I just might quote it, …. if you don’t mind.

  145. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    February 10, 2014 at 5:42 am

    “The idea that the missing heat is going into the oceans is ridiculous!”

    You fool! Ice floats, therefore warm water sinks. Easy. Where’s my grant?

  146. milodonharlani says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:40 am
    It has been done:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/spotlight/2004/manila-galleon.html

    “…
    Confident that changes in the length of each journey would be mostly influenced by climatic conditions, the team then looked at how voyage length changed with time. They found a revealing pattern of change in voyage length, with voyages during the 30-year period of 1640 to 1670 lasting substantially longer than voyages before or after this period. From 1640 to 1670, voyages were around 123 days long, compared to a length of 79 days for voyages taken from 1590 to 1620.
    …”

    Um maybe the type of Spanish Galleon changed over time along with the weight and the sail configuration and….

  147. Mosher …. the 21st century starts in 2001. Try it again without the cherry picked La Niña and see what you get.

  148. Robert Bissett says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:39 am

    If global warming should resume, say, in 2034, the settled climate consensus then may be that the past 20 years of global cooling were caused by humans in general & capitalism in particular, threatening the world with premature descent into the next glacial phase. CACA “science” is in danger of becoming a laughingstock & dragging down the reputation of real science with it.

  149. Box of Rocks says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:50 am

    Design was pretty constant until the 18th century. There might have been important differences between the galleons used in 1620 & 1640, but IMO not enough on their own to account for the difference in sailing time. But I’m far from expert in the subject.

  150. 1. In 1997, the largest El Nino in known history created an area of very warm water in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. It was larger than the United States, and over two hundred meters deep.
    2. Abruptly, it broke up and disappeared. Like the warm Gulf Stream waters, these waters SANK because the enhanced evaporation, due to their relatively higher temperature, made them saltier and hence heavier.
    3. This water has stirred up the Central Pacific from 1998 until now, bringing colder waters to the surface. The ambient air cools, shrinks, and draws in winds. It probably has cooled the planet to some extent, but there was nothing anthropogenic about it.

  151. Well Aerosols, are things like my Lysol disinfectant spray, which comes in a variety of flavors; scents from “smells like l’Hospital”, to pinus radiata.

    I actually use it just to kill ants. Ain’t nothing like it for killing ants; stops them dead in mid step (with ANY leg).

    But the house doesn’t get any cooler or warmer when I use it..

    So we should pay more attention to the international trade news, to see which way the winds are blowing.

    The trade winds don’t ever seem to cross the equator, which plays havoc with the Volvo Ocean Race.

  152. Well in NZ, they call them “The Roaring 40s.”, and 40 deg S Lat goes about through Wanganui if I remember correctly; which is a tad north of Wellington.

    Don’t see how southern hemi trade winds, could possibly affect northern hemi climate.

  153. Interesting. When ever I see “University of New South Wales’, “University of Victoria (BC, Canada)”, “Andrew Derocher of University of Alberta”, “Penn”, “UEA/CRU” and the names of certain others like David Suzuki and a host of others, my “alert meter” gets pegged and I tend to have trouble looking for good parts in the article. It is hard to look objectively when your “BS meter” is screaming at you not to even bother. But bull manure is just processed grass, and it often has a good take away, even if it is just fertilizer for the brain in future discussion or grains of truth that can be used.

  154. So now we have the deep missing heat and the heat that’s not so deep?

    Guardian – 24 June 2013
    Dana Nuccitelli
    Research by Masahiro Watanabe of the Japanese Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute suggests this is mainly due to more efficient transfer of heat to the deep oceans.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/24/global-warming-pause-button

    How deep is deep?

    “This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.

    I think these folks are just getting deeper and deeper into trouble.

  155. So what caused the change in the Trade Winds? Why does the paper not address this?

    The reason the paper makes no mention of what caused the Trade Winds to decrease is that the Trade Winds are a result of temperature. Temperature differences lead to rising air at the equator (hot) and falling air in the sub-tropics (cooler). Since warming has stopped, the Trade Winds have slowed. As would be expected.

    The paper confuses cause and effect. Which is not surprising. The paper’s author was until recently claiming that there was no pause in the warming and anyone that said otherwise was a liar. Now the author turns around and admits there is a pause, and then reverses cause and effect to explain the pause. It sure does look like someone is a liar after all. After all, the author has already called himself a liar for saying there is a pause. This paper simply proves it to the rest of us.

  156. About the 37 (and counting) reasons, it strikes me that there are four possibilities:

    1. They are all correct. I think we can dismiss this one as we’d be snowball earth with polar bears at the equator by now if they were.

    2. They are all wrong. I think we can dismiss this one as well as we’d be hot house earth by now with alligators at the poles by now if they were.

    3. Some of them are right and some of them are wrong and they roughly balance each other out.

    4. One of the first three options is correct, but there are additional reasons of unknown quantity and magnitude that have not yet been studied and which need to be added to the list the cumulative effect of which is also to roughly balance out.

    Other than that though, the science is settled.

  157. At first glance, and that is all an abstract can supply, their paper seems reasonable. What is described in the abstract (I am interpreting for clarity sake) is that the increased trade winds cooled down the ocean area it traveled over which also contributed to cooling in adjacent ocean areas. It is not saying that the trade winds are heating the oceans, it is saying that the adjacent warmer ocean areas are sending their heat to the area cooled by the trade winds. It describes this as a mechanism which explains the ‘Pause’.

    They do not describe the mechanism which caused the trade winds to increase in velocity – a key component to their proposed mechanism for the ‘Pause’. I am assuming that they will take a circular argument on this, proposing that AGW causes the trade wind velocity to increase which causes the cooling ‘Pause’, which causes the trade wind velocity to decrease, which allows AGW to resume, causing the trade wind velocity to increase and so on. This argument allows them to continue the AGW theme ad nauseum.

  158. The only way anthropogenic CO2 can cause wind to increase is to cause a substantial differential in and location of large scale pressure systems. They know that would be a hard sell so they are sticking with natural variability for all cooling trends related to trade winds.

  159. george e. smith says:
    February 10, 2014 at 10:08 am

    Easterly trade winds occur on both sides of the equator. The NH also has its higher latitude westerlies equivalent to the SH Roaring Forties, only usually not as strong. The Manila galleons used these westerlies to get back to North America, ie Alta California, then rode the California Current (trans-Pacific offshoot of the Kurushio) south to Baja..

  160. Louis says: @ February 10, 2014 at 9:14 am

    “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures.”

    Can anyone post a link to the “step-shaped” hockey stick that scientists published long ago? ….Does anyone else remember this happening before the hiatus began, or is this another example of trying to rewrite history?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    They have blatantly stolen Bob Tisdale’s work. He is the one who showed the “series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures” right here on WUWT.

    Posted on January 11, 2009 Can El Nino Events Explain All of the Global Warming Since 1976? – Part 1

    There is a word for this. It is PLAGIARISM.

    Researchers and authors of scholarly papers have to follow ethical codes of Good Scientific Practice (GSP) (4, 5, 6, 7), primarily based of the principles of honesty and integrity (3). In the modern-day collaborative and multidisciplinary research, honesty of each and every author is becoming a pillar of trustworthy science…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558294/

  161. The more “explanations” the warmists publish, the clearer it is that they’re totally lacking in the clue department.

    “Hide the decline” doesn’t work any more so they’ve moved on to the “excuse de jour for the decline”. And they’re all just wild theories with no hard data and no real research. These people are simply writing (very bad) science fiction novels.

    It would be funny but for the fact that the MSM is swallowing them all, hook, line and sinker.

  162. Plan A: Don’t admit that a pause has occurred.

    Plan B: Shift the blame to (there must be a link to the Kotch brothers) deep ocean heating.

    Plan C: When the public tires of the “deep ocean” theory; rename it “the not so deep ocean theory driven by the trade winds”.

    Plan D: Following the abysmal failure of plans A and B; adjust climate model input at an increment proportionate to the deficit between past projections and actual temperatures. Sell this patent nonsense to the gullible public through fear and disinformation.

    Plan E: Do whatever’s necessary to keep our cushy ‘climate catastrophe’ consultation scams feeding from the public trough.

  163. Just another blow job from UNSW. They already shot their credibility with the coverup handling on Turney and the ship of fools.

  164. “My dog ate my Global Warming”

    Little Bo Peep Mann, has lost his global warming scam.
    He has looked everywhere, for his missing hot air, but he’d be better rehabbing his career.

  165. Soon the say Earth rotation has speeded up. Explains why one is so tired, mornings arrive faster!
    And why one never have time for anything.

  166. Steven Mosher says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:22 am

    “hmm. Well, lets see.”

    Well if you want to play that game…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1933/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1933/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1939/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1939/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1984/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1984/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend

    We have technically seen just 22 years worth of catastrophic man made warming since 1850, and 6 years of that came prior to the IPCC’s claimed “since 1950… CO2 … global warming.” The other 142 years add up to a rather perfect 0 trend

    That leaves us with 12 years of CAGW. So between 1985 & 2000, CO2 apparently up and decided it would like to heat the planet? Of course, convenient of it to choose a time which happens to coincide rather perfectly with the extreme El Nino period of 1982-1998 that held not 1, but 2 Super El Ninos (1982/83 & 1997/98)

    Going back to your statement
    “One cannot say there has been “no warming” without qualifying the claim in an defensible manner ( many approaches are defensible, data never speaks for itself)”

    You wanted one, here it is:
    Qualifier: There has been no warming of the Globe except that caused by extreme El Nino periods

    So even if one wants to claim CO2 only heats the deep oceans where we just cant really measure it well, and that it is only released during Super El Ninos (+2.0 on index,) you still cannot possibly predict any warming what so ever for the future as such events cannot be predicted. After all, we have gone extremely long periods without strong El Nino events; including the roughly 300 year period which brought us out of the MWP and eventually led to the Little Ice Age.

    Based on that, a true IPCC/Model prediction of Global Warming should be absolutely nothing more than
    “We predict 0 long-term warming for the rest of eternity, unless there is a Super El Nino in a ElNino/Positive phase”
    As that is what the globe has seen since 1850

  167. It’s amazing how the answer can be right in front of their face and these people not see it. Talk about tunnel vision. Talk about brainwashed. It’s like that study which showed a link that global heating corresponded with more EL NINOs and concluded that AGW was causing more el ninos. LOL.

  168. @jai mitchell at 9:00 am
    As global coverage of the ARGO buoy data increases, the measured rate of heat content accumulation in the deep ocean goes up.
    Your link is to a plot that show Ocean Heat Content from 1956 to 2010 with series of 0-700 m and 0-2000 m. It has an inset graph saying coverage 0-700 m grows from 0% at 1956 to 100% at 1996; at the same time the inset chart implies 50% coverage [50% of what????] from 1956 through 2010. One can only conclude from that chart that we have been measuring 0-2000m ocean temps with ARGO for the past 50 years —- which would be very wrong.

    This indicates that the ARGO buoy DIRECT MEASURMENT data of the deep ocean is robust and indisputable

    INDISPUTABLE!?!? You show a plot from 1958 to 2010 in support of a program that STARTED in 2003 and only became fully installed in 2008. Linking that plot to ARGO direct measurement is very sloppy at best.
    ROBUST? The rate of increase since 2004 is arguably lower than the period before ARGO. And where are the 2010-2013 data?

    There are two indisputable points people need to know about DIRECT MEASUREMENT of OCEAN HEAT CONTENT.

    1. Ocean Heat Content prior to 1988 is by-guess and by-golly. Worldwide satellite tracked float temperature data started in 1988 with the ALACE program and it only covered 0-1000m. Even then it was 1 float for every 250,000 km^3 of ocean. Frequent measurement below 1000m only started with ARGO in 2003.

    2. For the water column 0 – 2000 m, it takes 27.5 ZJ (2.75*10^22 Joules) to raise the temperature 0.01 deg C. So the entire “Indisputable” 50-year warming of the ocean is less than 0.09 deg C. Most of that alleged warming was during a period where we did not have the technology to properly measure it with the precision, accuracy and confidence claimed.

    Here is a Chart that show the ocean heat content curves with an overlay of the float program histories.

    To give a sense of how poor data prior to 1988 is consider this:

    1974: MiniMODE, 52 floats, range 70 km from recording ship.
    “Again, the floats could be recovered and 41 of 52 were retrieved. These floats were used at depths between 500 and 4000m and collected a total of 714 [float-] days of data over a 2 month period. This was approximately equal to the total number of ship-tracked float days accumulated during the previous 17 years!

    See “Ocean Heat Content and History of Measurement Systems” WUWT 7/24/13 Rasey for more detail on history and coverage of direct ocean measurements and references.

  169. Eric says:
    Let’s clear this up right now.
    Has anything the AGW people have predicted 10 years ago come true?

    ——————————-
    Brilliantly succinct sir. I’ll be thowing that one around at work.

    It actually reminds me of the George Carlin sketch about god and money – he’s omniscient, omnipotent, all-seeing, all-hearing; just can’t handle money, always needs more money… Like climate “scientists” can handle anything over a ten year timeframe no problem, it’s just that dang one week to ten year prediction thing that gets them stumped. So they need you to trust. Always need more trust. All seeing and all knowing when it comes to now or 100 years from now but crap at anything in between (on a rolling basis).

  170. So we can add trade-winds to the ever growing list of major climatic features the models do not take into account. Fortunately the climate isn’t very complex so we can pretend superposition applies and just add these missing factors back in. The proof of this supposition is in the beauty of the graphs adherence produces.

  171. Run all new information through three filters:
    Common sense filter,
    Human nature filter, and,
    Prior knowledge filter.

    This article fails two of the three and the third does not apply.

    It is reassuring that at least a few others understand the concept of a thermodynamic control volume.

    Hind-casting average global temperature turned out to be fairly simple. Forecasting, assuming the same drivers is equally simple.

    http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

  172. I wonder if we have to hang them off a cliff to admit that the weakening of trade winds contributed towards the warming in 1980s and 1990s naturally due to El Ninos. They are desperate and just reminds me of political spin. Apparently only natural mechanisms are in cooler directions, so why isn’t the planet still in a major ice age with 1-2 km of ice above North America? Skeptical scientists were saying this years ago, so why are the so called bright alarmists years behind as usual? I will congratulate them on recognizing natural climate mechanisms for once.

    Warming the deep ocean by 0.1 c wont make a jot of difference to surface global temperatures or the deep oceans themselves. How do you know that when the deep oceans were cooling in the past, the energy from it didn’t go to the surface? Climate mechanisms are never one way like the years behind alarmists believe. Have the the alarmists invented the wheel yet?

  173. Stephen Rasey,

    You said, “The rate of increase since 2004 is arguably lower than the period before ARGO. And where are the 2010-2013 data?”

    and I say, No, Its Not!
    figure 15: 3-month average global ocean heat content through 2013.
    taken from:
    A REVIEW OF GLOBAL OCEAN TEMPERATURE
    OBSERVATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR OCEAN
    HEAT CONTENT ESTIMATES AND
    CLIMATE CHANGE
    link: here

  174. If this was a sceptical paper it would never get published, as their conclusion is based on a correlation without a proposed mechanism. (It is even worse than that, because their correlation may largely be assumed, i.e., theoretical, rather than actual.

  175. dear England et al., please dig a little deeper next time and please provide reference to Bob T.: increasing trade winds –> la nina’s –> decreasing GSTs. The opposite is also true : decreasing trade winds / shift to westerlies –> el nino’s –> in creasing GSTs. It’s really that simple and pretty much all there is to it in this case. Oh and btw, your 1st sentence in the abstract “Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.” already means that the relationship between CO2 and GSTs is weak at the most. Oh and btw were then did all that heat go? We need measurements to very such a claim. Oh and btw, did you not read the papers by Giesse, Toleffson, DiNezio, etc etc in that the ENSO is now in a (~25yr) la nina dominated cycle, PDO in a negative fase etc, etc… The previous el nino cycle peaked early 2000s, as well as the PDO. Btw, wasn’t it predicted a few years ago that more tradewinds actually caused global warming!?!?!
    regards,

  176. Stephen Rasey says,

    great post, but sadly I am not sure how good it will do – jai mitchell ignores anything that dosent fit his desires. Case in point, I already given him this a few days ago

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

    Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

    That means
    ~ 1-2.5°C warmer most of the past 10,000 years
    ~ 0.65°C warmer during Medieval Warming Period (0-1000AD, dates they give)
    ~ 0.25°C colder during Little Ice Age (1100-1700, again their dates)

    Meaning we have managed all of +0.25°C over the past 315 years. At that pace, we might be back to where we were 1,000 years ago in another 1,000 years!

    Even if he wants to believe it has sped up a little bit recently… Well, we need to make up about 0.65°C. Even if the Deep Ocean was warming at the entire 0-2000 rate, which is 0.015°C/Decade, we would need 400+ years to do it. But the Deep Ocean is not warming at that rate, as even his data shows, so we are probably right around where we started; roughly ~1,000 years to get back to where we were ~1,000 years ago

    And the sad thing is, the paper that graph was made from even says how miniscule the rise is

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

    The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C.

    Whoever made that graph went out of their way to be deceptive, making it look like it was a sharp rise to fool the public. Had it been done in Celsius and included marks such a 0.02, it just wouldn’t be the evidence they claim it is. And coupled with other known Ocean history, it becomes laughable as ‘evidence of catastrophic warming’ as it is portrayed

  177. ps: just couldn’t help but laugh that we get the usual spiel “still no warming now people, but just wait it will come… soon… how soon? we don’t know, but one of these days…” it’s all ways the same.

    btw, I just have to add this in case you wonder how AGW-scientists can think: “[globa] warming from greenhouse gases is driving la nina like conditions … helping to suppress global warming.” Mark Cane in J. Tollefson. 2014, Nature. 505, 276-278.

    There you have it: global warming suppresses global warming. Unbelievable. With such a state of mind one can come up with anything, including BS (bad science) papers like this one by England et al.

  178. It is the entertainment phase of CAGW.
    Full scale F.U.D.
    Anything to buy a few more years, months and then days of feeding on the taxpayers teat.
    I wonder what the team plan is when we stop laughing?
    Immunity from prosecution from the UN?
    Retire to China, to share an apartment with Maurice?

  179. Steven Mosher says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:22 am
    “hmm. Well, lets see.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/trend

    Stupidity annoys me.”

    I tell you what annoys me. People who claim they count to 100 going from 0 to 99.

    I say you are lying and you don’t actually do that. I say that if someone asked you to count to a hundred you would go ‘One, two…….’

    So you are prepared to lie to establish some sort of point, just like climate scientists actually.

    The century starts in 2001 and Hadcrut shows slight cooling to date.

    Alan

  180. WUWT says:

    A: Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K
    B: The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×10^18 kg
    therefore
    B*A = 5.025 x 10^21 Joules/degree Kelvin

    Total amount of heat energy differential (warming) measured by the ARGO network since 2005
    = 17×10^22Joules – 9×10^22Joules = 8×10^22 Joules
    Therefore if all of this heat energy went into the atmosphere instead of the ocean, the total amount of average temperature increase of the atmosphere would be:

    =8×10^22Joules/5.025×10^21 Joules per degree Kelvin
    = 15.9 degrees Kelvin increase.

    go ahead, check my math.

  181. jai mitchell says:
    February 10, 2014 at 3:26 pm
    go ahead, check my math

    This is not a math problem, but a thermodynamics problem. Let us suppose the ocean and air were at the same temperature. Now let us assume the ocean suddenly got 0.1 C warmer. What would happen then? Would the air get 100 C warmer as per your math, or would it get 0.1 C warmer as per thermodynamics?

  182. “Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.”

    “New research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change indicates that the dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface ocean, while bringing cooler waters to the surface.”

    Interesting hypothesis Prof. England. Unfortunately it is contradicted by ARGO data. The Pacific ocean heat content (2003-2012) actually decreased. See Figure 19 in the link below http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/

    Your missing heat is not in the Pacific ocean. More likely it is imaginary and an artifact of flawed climate models. The discrepancy between what the models say the energy balance ought to be vs. what is actually observed.

  183. Critical moments in the History of Science:

    “Hey, Ptolmey! Yer gizmo, she’s a no work! See that planet? It’s-a go backwards!”
    “Hey, atsa no problem, atsa no problem! I adds this leetle thingabob I call ‘epi-cycle’ an’a she worksa mos’ fine! Just-a be sure you give it a leetle bit kick every coupla days, sure, an’a you can tell time by the stars, atsa fine!!”

    “Hey, uh, Mike? Kevin. I need a favor: take a pause for the cause, and then I need a cause for the pause! Can you help??”

    And thus, with the skill of a Trained Climate Scientist, a little Tennesee windage and the luck of an inside straight, Professor England breathed new life into the GCM, by blowing a little harder on the seas… And like good Rube-Goldberg-perpetual-motion-machines everywhere, the GCMs continued to wheeze and clank along for a bit more…

  184. wbrozek

    the point is, if we took the actual heat energy absorbed by the ocean since 2005 and added it instead to the atmosphere the temperature would be 28 degrees Fahrenheit warmer every day and night of the year, everywhere in the globe.

    In other words, the world’s crops would not reproduce, most mammals in the tropics would die from heat stroke and humanity would die of starvation within 10 years.

    If, however, we added the heat energy that was put into the oceans since the beginning of the hiatus period (1999 to 2013) we would get 37 degrees Fahrenheit warmer every day and night.

    doesn’t sound like a hiatus or “pause” in global warming if you ask me.

    DB Stealey,

    when are you going to get the point? the point is that this warming is real, verifiable and destined to continue at an unprecedented rate. You mentioned younger dryas as a period when the climate changed at a more rapid pace than today. well, I rechecked it and you were right. The cooling that happened when the laurentide ice sheet poured into the sea and halted the AMOC caused a sudden drop of almost 3C in the space of about 100 years. However, since the beginning of the Holocene, the GISP2 record shows that there has been no period in the temperature record that had as much or as rapid warming as we have experienced in the last 120 years.

    Here is the graph I made, check it out.
    8,000 years of temperature data to the end of the GISP2 analysis (1850) and then a break until 1880 and real temperature anomalies through the rest of the period.

    Notice how the current temperatures are much higher than even the Minoan warming peak?
    also the rate of warming is faster by a factor of 2 than any other warming period in the record.

  185. jai mitchell says:
    February 10, 2014 at 8:04 pm
    If, however, we added the heat energy that was put into the oceans since the beginning of the hiatus period (1999 to 2013) we would get 37 degrees Fahrenheit warmer every day and night.

    I am not disputing that. Look at it this way. Suppose we had a 1.0 kg copper plate that was attached to a 1000 kg copper ball with a copper wire. Suppose both were at 15 C to start with. Then suppose you slowly heated the 1.0 kg plate to 37 F higher than it was. Or at least you tried to do so. What would happen? The wire would conduct the heat to the 1000 kg copper ball and in the end, the plate may be 0.037 C warmer. Of course you realize in this example that the 1000 kg copper ball represents the oceans, but the land would also absorb its share.
    So while the numbers may work out, it cannot happen in theory. The oceans are an infinite heat sink for all intents and purposes.

  186. @jai mitchell at 8:04 pm
    When are YOU going to get the point?
    In order for us to believe than ANY excess heat has been stored in the oceans, we must be convinced we are able to measure every cubic kilometer of the ocean with enough precision to detect a 0.01 deg C change in the “average” temperature of the entire ocean.

    I don’t think we can do that with ARGO, particularly since it is limited to the upper 2000 m. But even in the 0 – 2000 m interval, a 0.01 deg C precision is a tall order when we have one ARGO float for every 100,000 km^3. It is a tall order in controlled conditions within a lab. It is certainly beyond our capability prior to ARGO.

    So drop the farce that there is 240 ZJ hiding in the ocean. All you have is a cartoon for a graph; round-off error in poorly and insufficiently sampled data after dubious adjustments.

    Even if you continue to believe 240 ZJ have been hidden in the oceans over the past 50 years, what can you conclude? That heat cannot leap back out into the atmosphere. All it proves is that the oceans are one hellofa heat sink; atmospheric heat CAN hide in the oceans so that serious atmospheric warming is impossible.

    Either way, your argument and arithmetic are the only hot air in evidence.

  187. Key quotes and facts from Abraham, J. P., et al. (2013) (pdf),
    Note: 25 authors. (See Vpaper = 1/(numAuth^2) )

    From 1967 to 2001, the XBT was a major contributor to the subsurface temperature observing system and was responsible for the growth of this system. However, it was still limited to major shipping routes and Navy and research cruise paths, leaving large parts of the ocean undersampled for many years.. … The XBT is also depth limited. While there are deep falling XBTs such as the T-5 that reach to nearly 2000 m, they are of limited use due to cost
    and the lower ship speed necessary for the dro

    It does not say their normal profile depth, but Wikipedia says 285 m.

    If you look at the PDF on line, Check out Figure 1 data coverage: plots b=1960, c=1985. Both show very sparse coverage in the southern hemisphere and poor coverage outside of the US Navy submarine patrol areas.

    It all supports my contention that we have very little precision on the ocean temperature prior to the ALACE program in 1992 simply because we did not spatially sample it well or evenly enough. Even ALACE only gives us sparse coverage ( one float per 250,000 km^3) down to 1000m (every 10 days?)

  188. “Here is the graph I made, check it out.”

    Not sure who gave you that data, but
    1) There is no longer a station where the cores were taken from
    2) No stations remotely in the area are anywhere near that GISP locations elevation (and we are talking at least 2000 meters difference here) so if you are doing something like using another stations annual average temperature for a proxy, boy are you off base
    3) the 2 nearest locations are currently sitting at roughly the same temperatures they held in the 1930s-50s, and the nearest of the two has pretty much been there constantly since the 1910s.
    4) The GISP2 cores contain temperatures up till 1993. (not 1850, as you claim)

    The two locations nearest seeing no change since a time contained within the original graph means todays temperature is contained in the little red line at the end. The original graph should not be changed, that is how it looks today. What you did up does not match reality in the least.

    Also, on your Global Warming paragraph
    ” the point is that this warming is real, verifiable and destined to continue at an unprecedented rate.”

    No, no it’s not.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1933/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1933/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1939/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1934/to:1939/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1984/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1984/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend

    There has been zero global warming since 1850 outside the effects of a pair of Super El Nino events in the 80s-90s and a small 6-year period well before CO2 supposedly started warming the planet. That is just undeniable, you can see it right there for yourself.

    We are also following a rather clear path created by the PDO

    And that path is merely repeating itself nearly perfectly, as one can see

    And as I keep telling you, it will take us 1,000 years to get back to the Deep Oceans temperature of 1,000 years ago. We are no where near the normal temperatures seen over the last 10,000. Shoot, we are even only 0.25C above the LIA after 400 years of warming to get out of it. Deep Ocean temperatures are currently that low even with whatever recent trend you want to talk yourself into believing is true. Again, the study:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

    I’m sorry, but the things you are saying are just not true at all.

  189. ” Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.”

    So… This kinda implies we knew of the trade winds effects the whole time yet despite this and so many unable to find the source of the “hiatus” in warming these great folks went back and added in the trade winds effects. LOL. Isnt it a bit weird we knew of their effect but didnt include it? Or wait this paper tries to establish this effect doesnt it? LOL. Coincidence the effect is equal to what would be needed to explain the “hiatus”?? Naw. Im sure its all totally legit, and undeniable. Im also sure they totally proved their point right? with data rather then models they programmed themselves??

    “Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.”

    See what I mean? Clearly this fellow is totally honest!! ALL the models show long period of steady temps. right? Hmmm. No wait that isnt true at all. In fact there seems to be a dozen or so explanations for this current lack of warming because it was such a rare event in the models. Hmmm. so his work explains how something all the scientists knew but had barely shown up in the models. You see they added this aspect of the trade winds effects for the first time. The models show lack of warming as very rare, but the experts KNEW it would happen often,(despite calling you a denier if you acknowledged it) they just didnt know why, or bother to include all variables in the models. Afterall the IPCC itself admits low understanding and consensus on all aspects of climate except co2s effect, we KNOW that totally, undeniably. Now that this group was able to get the models to show what the experts already knew (but could not explain and tried to deny was even true) then I think its pretty clear we need carbon taxes. Its the only possible answer.

    I seem to be stuck in some weird bubble in time where if you question things it is anti science rather then the basis of science. If anyone sees this, and has a way to get me back to one of the saner timelines… my phone number is 555-…..

  190. How is the alleged ‘strengthening’ of the trade winds “Unprecedented”? What data is it based on, and how long is the record? Are Tree Rings a proxy? Whale Feces?

  191. BOX OF ROCKS asks how strong are the Trade Winds. I have been sailing them for 15 years going from NZ to Tonga, Fiji, New Caledonia, etc. The ‘average’ is 15-20 knots. They originate from a quasi-stationary High Pressure just west of Equador; and are aided by moving Highs that travel from West to East across the Pacific centered near 30 South. When the Highs are strong, over 1030, we have enhanced trades with winds near 30 kts; inbetween the Highs are intra-anticyclonic troughs. This is when the trades reverse and winds come from a westerly quadrant. This is a cycle that lasts about a week, give or take. Winds from 10S to 10N are variable. They are absolutely not trade winds. They may blow from the ESE to SE, but usually in the 10-15 knot range. They often blow across the equator from N to S. They even can blow from the W to NW in the western S. Pacific during the monsoon season. This latitude band is avoided by most yachts due to the variables, but are a necessary evil if one has to cross the equator.
    I had to scratch my head over this paper.

  192. DS

    the GISP2 temperature record only goes to 1855
    “0.095 years before present”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/notetime.htm
    There are three main timescales used on the CD-ROM. For both GRIP and GISP2, these timescales are in years before present (yr BP) where year 0 refers to northern hemisphere summer of the year 1950 A.D.

    Stephen Ramsey
    the warming is not dispersed evenly throughout the entirety of the earth’s oceans between 0-2000m. Some portions of the oceans are warming much more rapidly than others. Due to the effects of the localized changes in the wind patterns. The local temperatures in the southeast pacific and the indian oceans are easily verifiable and significant so that their determination is well within the error margin of the instrumentation.

    You should already know these things!

  193. “””””…..milodonharlani says:

    February 10, 2014 at 10:37 am

    george e. smith says:
    February 10, 2014 at 10:08 am

    Easterly trade winds occur on both sides of the equator. …..”””””

    My post did not exclude NH trade winds.

    No matter what I put in a post; there will always be someone who thinks I forgot something.

    I think I mentioned the Volvo Ocean race, which covers BOTH hemispheres.

    I’m an Aucklander; we know about sailing; and our Polynesian mates also know all about trade winds; N&S.

  194. jai mitchell posted a chart fabricated by Kevin Trenberth et. al as his authority.

    Trenberth has shown no indication that he will ever back away from his ‘hidden heat’ pitch, so jai mitchell, Trenberth’s acolyte, posts Trenberth’s misinformation.

    Instead, let’s look at the actual ARGO data. If we observe ocean temperatures down to a couple of thousand meters, we see cooling.

    Until the ARGO data was diddled with, it consistently showed ocean cooling. But since government scientists depend on the “carbon” scare for continued funding, ever since the ARGO “adjustments”, guess what happened? They started to show warming.

    But not nearly enough warming, and only in one strata [0 – 194 metres; hardly the 'deep ocean']. All the rest show cooling.

    Deep ocean heating is the last gasp of the climate alarmist crowd. Every other alarmist prediction has been wrong, from disappearing Arctic ice, to acidifying oceans, to runaway global warming, to disappearing Polar bears, and a hundred others.

    When one’s predictions all turn out to be wrong, honest scientists will admit that their hypothesis has been falsified. The ‘carbon’ scare is one major exception to that common sense admission. I can understand [but not condone] scientists fanning the flames, because their income might be jeopardized. But what motivates people like jai mitchell?

    I think it is religion. They cannot admit that any one part of their conjecture is wrong, otherwise they will begin to question everything.

    Can’t have that.

    Finally, regarding jai mitchell’s fabricated chart: there is no way that temperatures have shot up like mitchell asserts. The total T rise has been only about 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. This chart shows global T in perspective. Notice the numerous ‘hockey stick’ rises over the Holocene. The current natural rise is exactly the same.

    jai mitchell needs to stop posting misinformation. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented about today’s global temperature. Asserting otherwise is dishonest.

  195. DBstealey,

    Your ARGO data is incorrect is there a reason that you only show the northern hemisphere ocean heat content values as your “proof”?? Link to Bob Tisdale graphic.

    With regard to your statement here: The total T rise has been only about 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. This chart shows global T in perspective. Notice the numerous ‘hockey stick’ rises over the Holocene. The current natural rise is exactly the same.

    Remember, the last temperatures on that chart you linked end in 1855, right in the VERY END of the Little Ice Age.

    How much warmer has it gotten in the arctic (where these temperatures come from) since 1855?

    over 2.5 degrees http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/nasa_arctic_aerosol_warming.png

  196. Steven Mosher says:
    February 10, 2014 at 9:22 am

    “Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what to do with observations of nature. Here is an observation: there has been no warming in the twenty-first century”

    hmm. Well, lets see.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/trend

    Stupidity annoys me

    You must be much annoyed by your own stupidity re 21st century.

    First off there are no observations without uncertainty and there is no uncertainty without a propose model of the underlying process. In other words, observations always come wrapped up with theory. One cannot say there has been “no warming” without qualifying the claim in an defensible manner ( many approaches are defensible, data never speaks for itself

    Bafflegab.

  197. @jai mitchell 9:24 am to Stephen Ramsey [it is Rasey]
    the warming is not dispersed evenly throughout the entirety of the earth’s oceans between 0-2000m. …. You should already know these things!

    I do know these things. That is why I call foul on 50 years of spatially biased, sparse temporal and water depth data masquerading as “robust” and “indisputable” 240 KJ of warming. Until 1992 no one had anything that could be called a fair sampled temperature dataset in the 0 – 1000 m interval. Until 2005 no one had a fair sampled temperature dataset in the 0 – 2000 m range.

    It is based on that “not dispersed evenly” temperature field that I conclude that we have not the precision needed to know the average temperature of the Ocean to 0.01 deg C. And we have no idea besides preconceptions about what the average temperature of the 0 – 2000 m ocean was prior to 2003.

  198. jai mitchell says: “Your ARGO data is incorrect is there a reason that you only show the northern hemisphere ocean heat content values as your “proof”?? Link to Bob Tisdale graphic.”

    There’s nothing wrong with DBstealey’s graph, jai. It’s apparently raw ARGO data. Raw ARGO data shows cooling, or aren’t you aware of that?

    Even with the NODC’s adjustments, the only ocean basins, using the NODC’s depth-averaged temperature data to 2000 meters during the ARGO era, are the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans.

    From this post:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

    Have a nice day.

  199. Bob,

    The reason that DBstealey’s graph is wrong is because he says that the northern hemisphere ARGO data PROVES that there is NO ocean heat accumulation.

    I am sure that you understand that this is an incorrect interpretation of the data.

    WRT your open letter to Trenberth. It seems that your question “why (does the Indian ocean not cool under La Nina conditions)” is written about by Michael Mann.

    I thought you would find that he agrees with you on this.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/global-warming-speed-bump_b_4756711.html

  200. jai mitchell says:
    February 11, 2014 at 9:24 am

    the GISP2 temperature record only goes to 1855
    “0.095 years before present”

    Oh my Lord man, you keep going around in circles with the same incorrect statements and thoughts.

    First, “0” is 1950, not 1855. You are erroneously calculating it as if the graph starts at 95. It doesn’t. Second, read your own link, even it tells you we have the data until 1993 (and tells you how 1989 is referred to in said data. How do you think it can refer to 1989 if the data only goes up to 1855?)

    But here, something you will probably recognize as an unbiased source

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

    As you can see, even Wikipedia recognizes reality. Why can’t you?

    And to your post to DBStealey
    “Your ARGO data is incorrect is there a reason…”

    Why are you even arguing this? What does it even matter? You are trying to (incorrectly) bicker over microscopic fractions of a degree while I already showed you the Deep Ocean temperature is still dangerously low, barely above the LIA level, despite 400 years of warming to get out of that period of 10,000 year lows. We are thousands and thousands of years away from being anywhere near normal for the past 10,000 years based off our current pace of “warming”, but within striking distance of the 10,000 year low. That is “dangerous warming” to you?

    So again, even if you somehow talk yourself into believing it is rising rapidly or whatever, it is still not rising anywhere close to fast enough to keep us from falling into another Little Ice Age, or worse, if we see continual strong La Nina conditions. (constant strong La Nina conditions following the MWP leads right into the LIA)

    And while you will surely write off the possibility of another LIA as being impossible because you have been brainwashed into believing this CAGW stuff, take a second and humor me. That is, take a look at the Ice Core data again and point out all the upward spikes which were not followed by a similar downfall within, at max, a 100 or so years. You have to be able to recognize, if the CO2 theory you were told to believe is wrong…

    You then go on to give us this faceplant:
    How much warmer has it gotten in the arctic (where these temperatures come from) since 1855?

    The Arctic is not even as warm today as it was in the 1930s and has been following the PDO cycles.

    That brings us back to even Wiki knowing the GISP2 graphs includes the 1930s in them, so you should be able to figure out the Arctic is no where near as warm as it has been in the past.

    So we have, Arctic today not as warm as 1930s, and Arctic not as warm as it has been in the past, but still CAGW is going to kill us all because… the Arctic?

  201. jai mitchell complains that I only posted the ARGO Northern Hemisphere data. But upthread I posted this, and noted that with the exception of one [relatively shallow] ocean strata, every other ARGO data set and ocean strata shows cooling. Not slight warming. And certainly not jai mitchell’s wild-eyed belief in runaway ocean warming. But rather, it shows net ocean cooling.

    Face reality, jai: the models predicted rapid ocean warming, but that hasn’t happened. As with global warming, ocean warming has essentially stopped. [How could there be rapid warming of 71% of the planet that is ocean, but with no global warming overall?]

    Of course, jai mitchell has a religious belief in runaway global warming due to the “carbon” scare. He cannot accept what even most alarmist scientists now accept: global warming has paused stopped. [To be a "pause", warming would have to have resumed; so far, it has not. It has simply stopped.]

    If jai mitchell cannot admit that global warming stopped about 17 years ago, then he has no interest in the truth. He wants to convert non-believers to his own religious belief. But that might be pretty hard, with the well educated folks who post here. None of them seem to agree with jai mitchell’s unusual world view.

  202. DS

    1950 is time = 0
    .095 years before present is .095 THOUSAND years before present or 95 years before present or, as I said, 1855. The end of the little ice age.
    –the little tail end that you thought was the modern era warming is only a tiny bump coming up after the little ice age. There has been a full 2.5C warming since then putting it right back up there just about the peak of the Minoan warming period.

    DS and DBSTEALEY

    if “every other ARGO data set and ocean strata shows cooling. Not slight warming

    then WHY does bob tisdales’ graphic say that the entire southern hemisphere ARGO data show SIGNIFICANT HEAT ACCUMULATION?
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-1.png

    you can’t say that there is no heat accumulation and then have every data set say that there is significant heat accumulation, if you do, well then you just look silly.

    for example, this bob tisdale graphic (ANOTHER ONE)

    The amount of heat energy shown in this graphic is enough to raise the earth’s atmosphere by 37 degrees Fahrenheit EVERY DAY AND EVERY NIGHT, permanently.

    Now, that is a LOT of heat accumulation!

  203. jai mitchell says:
    February 11, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    “1950 is time = 0
    .095 years before present is .095 THOUSAND years before present or 95 years before present or, as I said, 1855. The end of the little ice age.
    –the little tail end that you thought was the modern era warming is only a tiny bump coming up after the little ice age. There has been a full 2.5C warming since then putting it right back up there just about the peak of the Minoan warming period.”

    That tiny blip is 1855-1950!!!
    How is this so hard for you to understand?

    As I said, look at the Wiki page

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

    And where the heck do you get this “full 2.5C warming since then” stuff? You mean from absolute Low to Peak in the 1930s? Sure, I guess. We are talking “climate” not “weather” though, which means we are talking long running averages. You are trying to combine Apples & Oranges. If we were just talking anomalous peaks, then all of the previous warming periods would similarly skyrocket much higher then they are shown on the graph, making it useless

    Anomalies caused by short Weather stints mean nothing though, and instead what matters is; in another 1,000 years that graph will still show today’s period of “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming” as little-to-nothing more then that little tiny blip at the end. Kind of pitiful when put completely into perspective, huh?

    “then WHY does bob tisdales’ graphic say that the entire southern hemisphere ARGO data show SIGNIFICANT HEAT ACCUMULATION?”

    Because that is not a significant heat accumulation; it is hardly even a blip compared to the amount of heat the Oceans normally hold. In fact, just 10 feet of Ocean can hold all the heat in the entire Atmosphere. It is that much of a heat sink It pretty much sits there guaranteeing the CAGW you are all worried about can’t possibly happen.

    But once more, (and stop ignoring it! All you are doing is showing you have no interest in fact and are only interested in illogical talking points that fit what you desperately want to believe) …anyway, we have gone about 400 years and Deep Ocean temperatures have made it all of 0.25C above 1600-1700AD/LIA. We need to get to 0.65C to even get back to the 1000AD/MWP level, and need between 1-2C to get back to what would be considered Normal over the past 10,000 years. (you know, the time periods covered between 2,000-10,000 years prior to today on the GISP2 graph. That is back when everything was consistently 1.5 to 3 Degrees over our current climates. Oh, and fell to our current extremely low levels only twice over those 8K years, I might add.)

    Your doom and gloom, “OMG! We’re gonna die” graph is like someone pissing in Lake Superior and insisting it will turn yellow. Whoever is telling you that nonsense is merely trying to play off your fears and gullibility, while insuring they give you absolutely no perspective because you wouldn’t take them seriously if you had any.

    And just curious, why did you just completely ignore the fact that the Arctic was warmer between 1920-1940 then it is today? I hope it’s not because you question my source. If so, I can give you this which hopefully you will feel more comfortable with

    or even this if you prefer
    ““Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” – IPCC AR5 Chapter 10″

    So, please tell us, why is it that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s completely Natural “Global Warming” than it was during this, the age of “CAGW”? And don’t worry, I wont bother asking how that is even possible when “Nature can’t possibly cause warming like this.” But do look at the NASA graph again. They highlight the 1980-2000 period, pointing out the +0.48/Decade increase as if it is “unprecedented” and “catastrophic”, which means it must be Man causing it. What they don’t label, for some odd reason, is 1918-1938 when it rose a full 2 degrees over 20 years (or +1.0/Decade) completely Naturally. (It’s almost as if Hansen and his team hopes you don’t notice that.)

    Anyway, so can you at least admit that the supposed catastrophic CO2 warming of the Arctic from 1980-2000 is absolutely no match for completely Natural forces?

  204. jai mitchell says:

    “The reason that DBstealey’s graph is wrong is because he says that the northern hemisphere ARGO data PROVES that there is NO ocean heat accumulation.”

    Wrong as usual, about everything.

    First, it is not my graph. It is ARGO data. Argue with them if you don’t like it.

    Next, I said “every other ARGO data set and ocean strata shows cooling.” How can we have a discussion if you cannot understand that “other” indicates an exception? You are just erroneously nitpicking whatever you think you can — while I am saying that you are wrong abvout everything.

    As I have repeatedly stated, the oceans are doing what the planet is doing, i.e., not warming, as incessantly predicted by you and your ilk. All of your runaway global warming/catastrophic AGW predictions have turned out to be wrong. All of them. What does that tell you? That you’re right anyway?

    It looks like someone has wired around your On/Off switch, and you cannot ever admit that your predictions of climate catastrophe are nonsense. But they are! You are just too infected with Cognitive Dissonance to see it. CAGW is a religion with you, nothing more. Like any martyr, you would die to be right. But as everyone else can see, you have been consistently wrong. There is no runaway global warming. There is no “hidden heat” building up in the deep oceans. There is no climate catastrophe happening, much as you fervently wish it were so.

    You are wrong about everything. It is amusing to watch, by folks who are level-headed about the situation. So keep up the swivel-eyed Chicken Little scare stories. Your arguments are fun ‘n’ easy to deconstruct. Because the rest of us see that the sky is not falling; it was only a little acorn that bonked you on the head. ☺

  205. All,

    1. The ARGO data shows a heat accumulation (WARMING) in the world’s oceans SINCE 2005 that, if that same energy was instead deposited in the world’s atmosphere, would cause a 37 degree F warming of the daily average temperature, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. IF WE EXPERIENCED A 37 DEGREE WARMING OF OUR ATMOSPHERE WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING?

    2. The GISP2 data has it’s most recent dated value at 0.095 thousand years before present.
    the date of “before present” is 1950, the most recent date of the GISP2 data is .095 thousand years before present: see actual data here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
    Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)

    Age Temperature (C)
    0.0951409 -31.5913

    AS This graphic clearly shows, the GISP2 temperature trend ends at the very end of the little ice age. Since then there has be 2.5C of additional warming that you can see here: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/3500years.png

  206. Jai,

    I dug thru to find the data so you can see that the “coming out of the LIA” blip is post-1855, not pre-1855

    -31.58 30Yr … -31.65 Actual … 1890
    -31.92 30Yr … -31.77 Actual … 1880
    -32.35 30Yr … -32.14 Actual … 1870
    -32.30 30Yr … -32.30 Actual … 1860
    -32.38 30Yr … -32.24 Actual … 1850
    -32.23 30Yr … -32.60 Actual … 1840
    -32.25 30Yr … -31.71 Actual … 1830
    -32.09 30Yr … -32.34 Actual … 1820
    -32.22 30Yr … -32.12 Actual … 1810
    -32.25 30Yr … -32.24 Actual … 1800
    -32.15 30Yr … -32.15 Actual … 1750
    -32.48 30Yr … -32.53 Actual … 1700
    -32.04 30Yr … -32.24 Actual … 1650
    -31.72 30Yr … -31.58 Actual … 1650

    As you can see, Greenland didn’t come out of the LIA until the 1900s, not the mid 1800s as you apparently assume. In fact, you can see 1850 was the second coldest 30-year stretch listed; beating 1700 by all of 0.1 Degrees.

    The absolute peak as far as recent years is that 1930s run I showed you earlier, which resulted in a running average of about -30.50. That is right around what we were able to sustain over long terms during the MWP*. The problem is, it wasn’t sustained at all this time, and by the 1970s Greenland was right back down to the -31.50 range. (In fact, 1970 actually hit -32.0 again. Hence why everyone was panicking over the “Global Cooling” and the possibility we were headed into another Ice Age. We were only about 70 years out of the LIA, saw a peak 40 years prior, and had fallen like a brick from that peak right back to temperatures common for the LIA. They had very good reasons to think we might have been headed right back into the LIA. Now we even know we had been trying to rise but instead falling back to -32.0 ranges constantly the past 1,000 years (as can be seen in all those little blips during the LIA on the graph.) …Some might say ‘thank God the Sun hit it’s Grand Maximum from 1950-2000, it might have saved us from another LIA!. Of course, the bad thing is the Sun has now fallen back asleep)

    Case in point on my mentioning of attempts to rise but falling back. You can find a similar period of time like today’s in the 1400s, which resulted in -31.50 range 30Yr averages. That time period is the section right between the MWP and LIA, and can be seen in the graph getting pretty close to today’s peak. It didn’t last, and instead we went into the worst of the LIA. (and this is an appropriate time to mention the Sun again, which happened to go to sleep between 1450-1550 – what a coincidence, huh? We call that period the Sporer Minumum. and yes, it is really similar to the Maunder Minimum of the 1600s.)

    Right now, what you call “catastrophic man-made warming” that is destroying the planet or whatever, is not even as extreme as Natural Warming in the 1930s. Meanwhile we aren’t close to the MWP on a longterm average, only get close to the longterm average of the MWP in very small bursts we can’t sustain, and match up pretty well overall with a period we consider the beginning of the LIA. Without perspective, one might think “oh geez, we rose 0.5 degrees in only a couple decades.” In perspective, we are dangerously close to where we were during the LIA, and have not even reached normal temperatures in the last 1,000 years.

    So just like with the Deep Ocean temperatures, the Arctic is fluctuating closer to the Little Ice Age then to “catastrophic global warming.”

    *Side-note – look at the graph again. You can see the MWP is pretty much “average” for the past 10,000 years. So at the Arctics peak of warming (1930s), we were almost back to average.

    Doesn’t that give you any perspective at all? Doesn’t that at least quickly you question why some supposedly educated scientists are acting like the world is about to end? Doesn’t it leave you even remotely interested in what their real desires must be since they are clearly misleading people like that?

    Ponder those questions against stuff like:
    To convince people that global warming is a threat, use “your personal conviction as a friend, colleague or neighbor” to make your case — avoid using scientific arguments.
    “Speak openly of your personal ownership of your convictions,” said Marshall, who founded the Climate Outreach and Information Network and is the author of the book “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.”

    They are kind of openly playing you for a sucker here, and you seem to be more then willing to allow them to.

  207. jai mitchell says:

    “1. The ARGO data shows a heat accumulation (WARMING) in the world’s oceans…”

    Um… wrong. How many times do you have to be shown that the oceans are not warming? They are cooling overall, as I have shown several times in the various raw ARGO data charts I’ve posted. But mitchell’s reaction is always the same.

    For some needed perspective, jai mitchell should look at this. But as always, he will find some way or other to feed his Cognitive Dissonance, and come to the silly conclusion that catastrophic AGW is happening.

    Finally, mitchell’s last link shows that prior Holocene temperatures have been higher — during times when CO2 was much lower. Normal folks would look at that fact and agree that CO2 is not the cause of either natural global warming, or global cooling cycles. Instead, mitchell looks at higher temperatures in the recent geologic past — and preposterously concludes that while current temperatures are lower, they must be caused by human activity.

    There is no reasoning with religious fanatics, and mitchell qualifies for that label in spades. He makes Chicken Little look like Prof Richard Lindzen. Glacier ice a mile deep could descend once again on Chicago, but mitchell would still be singing his old cAGW tune. Like Harold Camping, jai mitchell would be posting the same kind of links, hopelessly trying to show that the end of the world is nigh. I suppose there is some degree of comfort in being so certain, even when people are laughing at him.

  208. DS,

    You went to great lengths to show that the “blip” at the end of the graph is after 1855.
    I just plotted the actual data that you worked through to show you the graphic is complete. I even added key points and values to show you the actual dates and the temperatures in the chart.

    here it is. It clearly shows that the little blip at the end of the GISP2 data does indeed end at 1855.

    I know that this may be a shock to you since this data has been misrepresented so many times all over the internet. but now you have the actual data and a chart to back it up.

    you said, “Side-note – look at the graph again. You can see the MWP is pretty much “average” for the past 10,000 years. So at the Arctics peak of warming (1930s), we were almost back to average

    well, according to bob tisdale, the arctic has experience 2.5C of warming in the modern era. so, now all we have to do is add the 2.5C to our GISP2 graph to show how current warming compares to previous values.

    this current graphic, using the bob tisdale arctic chart temp increase in the modern era, shows that we are currently at the Holocene maximum

    So, we know that the 2.5C of arctic warming, tacked onto the GISP2 chart at the correct endpoint (1855) shows that we are currently at the highest recorded temperature of the last 8,000 years or so. During that period of time, the global average temperature has only increased by about 1 degree C

    currently, we are on track for the global average temperatures to go up another 5C by 2100. This is an additional 5 times what has happened so far (2.5C in the arctic) which means another 12.5C of additional warming.

    This is what that looks like when compared to the 8,000 year temperature record

    I hope that this clears up the misconceptions you have regarding the GISP2 temperature record and how current temperatures and future temperature projections look when compared to that historic record.

  209. DBStealey,

    You are the one who is refusing to observe the evidence. The surface temperature average of the oceans does not, in any way show if the deeper ocean is warming or cooling due to stratification. You realize that the surface of the ocean is insignificant to the total volume, right???

    you keep saying that the ocean isn’t warming but EVERYONE, (including Bob Tisdale ON THIS WEBSITE!) says that it is warming, EVERYONE BUT YOU, that is.

    The warming that Bob Tisdale, ON THIS SITE says has accumulated in the oceans since 2005 is

    Total amount of heat energy differential (warming) measured by the ARGO network since 2005
    = 17×10^22Joules – 9×10^22Joules = 8×10^22 Joules
    Therefore if all of this heat energy went into the atmosphere instead of the ocean, the total amount of average temperature increase of the atmosphere would be:

    =8×10^22Joules/5.025×10^21 Joules per degree Kelvin
    = 15.9 degrees Kelvin increase.
    = 28.6 degrees Fahrenheit WARMING SINCE 2005

    so, instead of 1.4 degrees F average warming, we would have a jump of almost 29 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 2005, that is EVERY DAY AND NIGHT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

    think you would believe in global warming then?????

  210. jai mitchell says:

    “So, we know that the 2.5C of arctic warming, tacked onto the GISP2 chart at the correct endpoint (1855) shows that we are currently at the highest recorded temperature of the last 8,000 years or so.”

    Apparently jai mitchell never looked at this link. Or the other links I posted. Too bad, he might have learned something.

    But other readers no doubt looked, and have learned that mitchell is nuts. Especially if they clicked on his last link @ 8:26 pm above. If that isn’t a bunch of preposterous nonsense, then I’m nuttier than jai. ٩(͡๏̮͡๏)۶

    mitchell’s fabricated chart is even scarier than Michael Mann’s thoroughly debunked hokey stick chart. That’s quite an accomplishment!

    It’s too bad that jai mitchell has never heard of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. If he had, he would understand that there is nothing being observed today that is either unusual, or unprecedented. There is no scary rise in temperature. Arctic ice cover is recovering nicely from it’s recent natural, cyclical decline. Ocean ‘acidification’ is another nonsense scare. Global temperatures are not shooting upward like mitchell’s chart claims. Global precipitation is normal. Polar bears are not dying out; in fact their population is exploding. And so on.

    The Null Hypothesis requires current climate parameters, like the ones above, to exceed past extremes in order to be falsified. Since past parameters have all exceeded the current ones, the obvious conclusion is that there is nothing unusual happening. Everything currently observed has happened before, and to a much greater degree. Thus, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, as noted by Dr Roy Spencer.

    But religion cannot be reasoned with, therefore jai mitchell cannot be educated with facts. His beliefs are religious in nature: he believes that there is runaway global warming in progress. Nothing can change his belief. But his Chicken Little imitation is amusing to folks who only want honest science-based evidence. That evidence does not support jai mitchell’s belief.

    If runaway global warming begins to occur, I will be among the first to accept verifiable scientific evidence that it is happening. But so far, it is just the opposite: global warming stopped seventeen years ago. That is a long time to keep one’s religious belief alive. But our boy jai can do it if anyone can.

    Thanx for being entertaining and amusing, jai, especially with your last link above. I for one was getting tired of the same old hokey stick. Your new one will keep me amused for quite a while.

  211. <a href="http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/03/31/2943649/wwu-faculty-find-overwhelming.html"further proof:

    Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook’s definition of “present temperature” in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.

    DBStealey,

    your grapic is simply wrong. The endpoint of your chart is 1855, the amount of warming tacked onto the end of that chart is the amount of warming that has occurred in the arctic since then. not the global average

    The correct amount, as reported by Bob Tisdale (here) is 2.5C. not the pathetic .6C that your graphic shows but actually 5 times that amount!

    you keep asserting that global warming has STOPPED for the last 17 years, but evidence provided ON THIS WEBSITE shows that it just ain’t so.

  212. I’m not sure about Anthony Watts’s ‘long’ list of ‘excuses’ for the non-existent pause. Aren’t ‘ENSO patterns’, ‘heat that went into the ocean’ and ‘trade winds in the pacific’ all very closely linked? The article he points to about ocean cooling seems to be specifically about the mid-20th century and not really relevant – was this included in error?

    Anyway, it shouldn’t be a surprise if there is a range of factors contributing to the possible recent decrease in the rate of surface warming; even a fawning uncritical amateur like myself can see that climate is complex and influenced by many different factors. Watts has happily written and posted about a large number of possible influences on the climate (and he’s posted a number of articles alleging ‘Omitted variable fraud’ by Alec Rawls), so it’s strange if Watts is now saying that scientists are considering too many variables.

    Some of Watts’s list seems not be in question; I think it’s well-established that solar irradiance has been lower on average, and ENSO has been predominantly in a more cooling phase, over the period of the possible recent decrease in the rate of surface warming, than in the 1990s (correct me if I’m wrong). Is anyone seriously arguing that these factors have not exerted a relative “cooling” influence since the turn of the century?

    I’d be interested to know whether mainstream climate scientists consider the ‘stadium wave’ as a likely contributing factor to the possible slowdown in recent surface warming. (I wonder whether the ‘wave’ would persist if a more rigorous attempt were made to remove the effects of external forcings on NH temperature, rather than just linear de-trending). I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed comments published about this study.

  213. Please accept my apologies – my comment above was much more blunt than I had intended. If you wish to remove it I’ll understand. I should explain that I think there hasn’t been a pause in global warming as the oceans have continued warming over the last 15 years. Also, I’m certainly not qualified to judge Wyatt and Curry’s “stadium wave” or to be saying whether or not it is a likely contributor to the recent slowdown in global surface warming.

  214. ja1 m1tchell:

    At February 12, 2014 at 9:29 pm you rave

    you keep asserting that global warming has STOPPED for the last 17 years, but evidence provided ON THIS WEBSITE shows that it just ain’t so.

    Since all the data sets indicate no discernible warming over at least the last 17 years,
    either
    (a) you accept the indications so discernible global warming has stopped
    or
    (b) you don’t accept the indications so there never was any discernible global warming.

    Richard

  215. Rob Nicholls:

    At February 13, 2014 at 5:41 am you say

    I think there hasn’t been a pause in global warming as the oceans have continued warming over the last 15 years

    Please explain why you – or anyone else – would “think” such an evidence-free thing.

    Richard

  216. “How on Earth did this piece of crap pass review?”
    Considering it was published in a journal called ‘Nature Climate Change’, thus likely a journal not entirely impartial and removed from vested interests, for a field notorious for junk and pseudo science, and riddled with confirmation bias if nothing else, I’d say there isn’t much rigor in weeding out time-wasting studies.

  217. jai mitchell says:

    “you keep asserting that global warming has STOPPED for the last 17 years…”

    No, you keep incorrectly asserting that it hasn’t stopped.

    The evidence I post is far more than an ‘assertion’. I’ve provided plenty of verifiable scientific evidence showing that global warming has stopped.

    My sympathy for your affliction, jai. Most folks don’t suffer from a cranial/rectal inversion; most folks accept the mountains of scientific evidence. Even alarmist scientists are busy scratching their heads, wondering why global warming has paused stopped.

    But as I have repeatedly noted, you are simply a religious fanatic, and as such you will never accept any verifiable scientific evidence that contradicts your True Belief. Your cAGW religion trumps all contrary evidence. We see it in every comment you make.

    Furthermore, we see your Belief in comments that you don’t make: you never reply to comments about that corrollary to the Scientific Method, the climate Null Hypothesis. That hypothesis, which has never been falsified, points out that current climate parameters have been exceeded by past parameters. That means that nothing happening now is unusual, or unprecedented. What we observe now has all happened before, and to a much greater degree.

    But if you accepted the Null Hypothesis, your entire “carbon” scare would be debunked. That is what’s happening: no alarmist prediction has ever come to pass; they have all been wrong.

    When they are wrong about everything, most folks would re-assess their position. You don’t, because with you it is not a position. It is a religious Belief.

  218. [snip]

    fortunately, there are MANY MORE graphics FROM THIS WEBSITE that also show that the warming has been happening like this one here: (Yes, another WUWT Bob Tisdale graphic)!!!!

    since 2005 if that amount of heat went into the atmosphere, the heat that WUWT says went into the oceans had gone into the atmosphere, it would warm the atmosphere by over 20 degrees, on average every day and night throughout the year.

    That means that a 40 degree night in Georgia would be more than 60 degrees.
    a 75 degree day in Chicago would be more than 95 degrees
    a 100 degree day in new York city would be more than120 degrees
    a 110 degree day in Arizona would be more than 130 degrees

    This data is taken from this very site, even though the previous graphic has been removed since yesterday.

  219. Richard and db, the both of you and Jai are just talking past each other. Jai is talking about the new definition of global warming that includes all of the purported “anthropogenic-derived” heat that is hiding in the oceans.

    I haven’t checked his calculations but, if correct, he is onto something absolutely stunning, groundbreaking and, quite frankly, it is f-kin Nobel Prizewinning stuff. I think he might even get the Nobel Prize for economics too if he can just refine his pitch.

    In his post from 8:42 pm last night, he shows how ridiculous is the IPCC’s upper bound for the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2. Forget their measly and pathetic 6 degrees C as an upper bound for such doubling. Jai shows that from 2005 alone, the increase in atmospheric global warming is equivalent to approximately 16 degrees C. Wow, CO2 going from around 380 ppm to around 400 ppm can cause 16 degrees C of warming of the atmosphere, thereby making climate sensitivity to a doubling somewhere in the hundreds of degrees C. Eat your heart out Hansen !!! There’s the Nobel Peace Prize for Jai if his math(s) checks out.

    Not content with just one Prize, Jai then shows that the top 2,000 meters of the oceans is capable of handling this whopping climate sensitivity by increasing its temperature by only 0.03 degrees/decade (assuming no cooling cycles).

    … and I use the same link he used for the numbers:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/nodc-provides-1st-quarter-2013-ocean-heat-content-update-alarmist-writes-science-fiction/

    Jai, here’s where the Nobel Prize for Economics beckons. You need to get to every important policy maker on the planet and tell them, not that the heat might jump out of the ocean all at once and kill us all, but rather that the experimental evidence that includes your hundreds of degrees of climate sensitivity shows that in fact the heat goes the other way, is dissipated in the top 2,000 meters of the oceans, and humanity can spend its trillions of dollars on anguishing about something more productive.

    Voila. You owe me.

  220. So, by your esteemed climate logic, if the sun went dark 2005 minutes ago, it would be dark outside.

    However! If the sun went nova 2005 minutes ago, it would be very light outside.

    (Hint: That “energy” that went into the oceans that you claim did NOT go into the atmosphere, and we are subsequently facing an abnormally cold northern hemisphere.)

  221. Phil,

    The amount of heat energy deposited in the oceans since 2005, measured by the ARGO buoy network and reported by bob tisdale on this website, if applied to the earth’s atmosphere, would raise the temperature of the total atmosphere by over 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

    care to attempt to discredit the validity of this statement?

  222. here phil,

    I will post the calculation again so that you can dispute my math:

    WUWT says:

    A: Heat capacity of air: 1005 J/kg/K
    B: The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×10^18 kg
    therefore
    B*A = 5.025 x 10^21 Joules/degree Kelvin

    Total amount of heat energy differential (warming) measured by the ARGO network since 2005
    = 17×10^22Joules – 9×10^22Joules = 8×10^22 Joules
    Therefore if all of this heat energy went into the atmosphere instead of the ocean, the total amount of average temperature increase of the atmosphere would be:

    =8×10^22Joules/5.025×10^21 Joules per degree Kelvin
    = 15.9 degrees Kelvin increase.
    = 28.6 degrees Fahrenheit increase SINCE 2005

    go ahead, check my math.

  223. by the way, in THIS bob tisdale graphic that you linked, the amount of total heat added to the oceans since 2005 is 10×10^22 not the 8×10^22 that I used from a different source, so the calculated equivalent warming of the atmosphere has to be increased by 25%.

    =19.9 degrees Kelvin increase
    =35.8 degrees Fahrenheit increase SINCE 2005

  224. jai mitchell says:
    February 13, 2014 at 11:24 am

    “Therefore if all of this heat energy went into the atmosphere instead of the ocean,…”

    Even if it were true (it isn’t – it’s a massive flail to excuse the lack of atmospheric heating) how, precisely, do you see this miracle occurring?

    It’s not likely your math that’s wanting, though I did not bother checking it, because the question is entirely moot. It’s your bizarre theory of heat flow.

  225. This too is like heat deep in the ocean; buried and not seen so far. ;)

    I have a formal write-up that I would like to submit to the same journal Nature Climate Change. This one is a warm up for that. Would appreciate your comments and feedback.

  226. Richard M says:
    February 10, 2014 at 4:58 am
    The reason they looked at data starting in 1980 is because most of that period was a +PDO so the winds would be lower. This paper is basically a complete and total LIE. These people should be stripped of their academic degrees as an example to anyone else who would intentionally lie. Throw in the reviewers and the editor for good measure. Wouldn’t that make a difference in the crap we’re seeing out of climate science peer review.
    ——————————————————————-
    +10

  227. jai mitchell says:
    February 12, 2014 at 8:26 pm
    You went to great lengths to show that the “blip” at the end of the graph is after 1855.
    I just plotted the actual data that you worked through to show you the graphic is complete. I even added key points and values to show you the actual dates and the temperatures in the chart.

    I didn’t go to absolutely any lengths to show the blip is after 1855, I just copy/pasted the actual projects data. So you’re saying the actual projects data is wrong and whatever you want to make up is correct?

    Meanwhile, you plotted pure nonsense that has no baring on actual reality. Case in point, the 1970s hit -32.0 Even a 1970s 10-year running average (as your graph claims to portray, but doesn’t) would be -31.75 (you have them at -31) Meanwhile the 1990s peaked at -31.2 (you have them at basically -29). You apparently just made up numbers to attach to the end of the graph, completely ignoring the actual real data the project obtained

    I think I know at least some of your foolish problem is stemming from. Whatever your Propaganda Puppeteer told you to use is merely one of the many core samples taken, so you are using one small fraction of the actual data taken and plopping on some nonsense to the end of it to come up with your “omg, look, it’s scary” nonsense. I hope you know that isn’t how science actually works in the real world though…

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/northamerica.php

    That link shows all those many peer-reviewed papers using the actual real data (you know, not your fantasy stuff) that shows what I have been telling you over and over and over and over again, the whole damn time; the LIA in Greenland really started ending in the mid-1800s and our current temperatures don’t even peak above the running average of the MWP, let alone the asinine levels you have them at.

    And here, I wont even stop at proving Greenland was warmer and your just a tool on that topic, I’ll evenl show you all the endless Peer-Reviewed papers that show the MWP was warmer all over the entire globe; including the oceans

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    …but, as you always do, I imagine you will stick your head deep in the sand, flat out ignoring the actual real Science and hard Data, and instead pop back up later repeating whatever silliness your religions masters have told you to parrot.

  228. p@ Dolan says:
    February 10, 2014 at 7:46 pm
    a little Tennesee windage
    ———————————-
    My dad taught me to use Kentucky windage, when teaching me how to aim with a rifle. Is there a Tennessee version?

    • @ goldminor says:
      February 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm ,

      There is indeed! Tennessee Windage, like the luck of an inside straight, is best applied when pouring Tennessee Whisky (and NOT, ahem, bourbon…) so as not to miss the glass. Another way to not miss the glass is to just up-end the bottle in the vicinity of your mouth and swallow—can’t miss the glass if you don’t use one (just sayin’…).

      My foxhound is from West Liberty in the fine state of Kentucky, a gorgeous Trig with a lovely singing voice… I suspect most states have their own variety of windage. For example, D.C. Windage is mostly hot air, like the nonsense alarmists, even a few posting here, keep emitting…

      Seriously? I’m a shooter/reloader, among my other sins. My father taught me the same method your father taught you, I suspect, but just called it “windage.” If I’m talking accuracy, it’s windage, elevation/drop, and range.

      On the other hand, the term, “Tennessee windage” I learned from Robert A. Heinlein as a kid, and for me it applies to situations OTHER than shooting. He seems to be the only one ever used the term, as far as I know; and his usage wasn’t even referring to shooting, and tha’s how I use it most often: in any situation where an approximation/guesstimate/swag (scientific-wild-assed-guess) is appropriate.

      I’d say it’s a “term of art” but Bee-Essing isn’t always considered art…

  229. jai mitchell ignores Bob Tisdale’s comment above:

    “There’s nothing wrong with DBstealey’s graph, jai. It’s apparently raw ARGO data. Raw ARGO data shows cooling, or aren’t you aware of that?” [my bold]

    Also, philincalifornia makes it clear in his amusing and pointed way how deluded jai mitchell is. mitchell cherry-picks only those charts that he believes support his religious Belief — but he conveniently left Bob’s other charts out.

    And once again, mitchell hides out from the decisive climate Null Hypothesis, which shows that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. Everything currently observed has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree than now. What does that tell you, jai?

    That tells the rest of us that your “carbon” scare is pseudo-scientific nonsense. If a 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 cannot cause global T to rise, then any effect from “carbon” must be simply too small to measure [the effect is there, but it is too small to measure because most all of the forcing took place in the first 20 ppmv].

    So. Question for jai mitchell: since you have been wrong about everything, including every wild-eyed prediction of climate catastrophe and carbon doom, what would it take for you to change your mind?

    Or, is it exactly what I have said: that you are a total religious fanatic, and your religion is cAGW? Because religious True Believers cannot admit anything that conflicts with their dogma.

    Really, what would it take for you to admit you are wrong, jai? Or is that simply impossible under any circumstances?

  230. Thanks for your question Richard S Courtney.
    I said “I think there hasn’t been a pause in global warming as the oceans have continued warming over the last 15 years.”

    You asked “Please explain why you – or anyone else – would “think” such an evidence-free thing.”

    There’s evidence based on observational data: Lyman & Johnson 2013:

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf

    There’s Levitus et al, 2012: ftp://140.90.235.83/pub/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf
    My reading of this paper is that it is based on observational data.

    Data “updated from Levitus et al 2012” is available from:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

    There’s also evidence from a Reanalysis product, based on a combination of observational data and climate modelling.

    See Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen 2013:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/pdf:

    or see Trenberth & Fasullo 2013:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/T-F_Hiatus_Earth%27sFuture13.pdf

    I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the papers linked to above.
    Best wishes

  231. Have any of these idiots bothered to calculate the alleged increase in ocean heat content relative to the alleged decrease in OLWR flux?

  232. @Rob Nicholls 2/16 9:13 am

    Consider this from the Lyman & Johnson 2013 you linked:

    The 0–100-m layer is measured over 50% of the globe annually starting in 1956, the 100–300-m layer starting in 1967, the 300–700-m layer starting in 1983, and the deepest two layers considered here [700-900 m and 900-1800m] starting in 2003 and 2004, during the implementation of Argo. Furthermore, global ocean heat uptake estimates since 1950 depend strongly on assumptions made concerning changes in undersampled or unsampled ocean regions

    Think for a moment how utterly unscientific is the phrase “measured over 50% of the globe”. It implies we are measuring 50% of the water volume on a continuous basis. Measured how? It was with ship born thermometers dipped into the ocean and measured only a cubic foot of water at a time. There is implied a fair sampling of that 50% of the globe, when in fact it is mostly the North Atlantic, Arctic, and NW Pacific. See Figure 1 data coverage: maps b=1960, c=1985. from Abraham, J. P., et al. (2013) (pdf),

    The reality is that the US Navy and Office of Naval Research have made several hundred thousand soundings to about 300 m over a couple decades to understand thermoclines and their effect on sonar deflection and anti-submarine warfare. Therefore, the ocean soundings before ALACE [1992+] and ARGO [2003+], were highly clustered in the oceans populated by ballistic missile submarines and attack submarines which were concentrated in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. The coverage in the southern hemisphere is meager. Therefore, assumptions about the southern hemisphere are more important than its meager observations.

  233. Thanks Stephen Rasey – you raise interesting points about southern ocean sampling. I didn’t really notice before that Lyman and Johnson 2013 (LJ2013) mentioned the sparseness of southern ocean sampling on pages 12 to 15, where they gave an account of historical sampling of ocean temperatues. LJ2013 also included some graphs estimating the sampling uncertainties in Ocean Heat Content Anomalies since 1950 (pages 41 and 42). The estimated uncertainties started off quite large but have reduced over time as sampling has improved.

    You emphasised some of this sentence from LJ2013: “Furthermore, global ocean heat uptake estimates since 1950 depend strongly on assumptions made concerning changes in undersampled or unsampled ocean regions.” LJ2013 demonstrate this by plotting the estimated ocean heat content anomalies since 1950 using 3 different methods: 1) using “zero-infill mean” (ZIF) (assuming that the anomaly is zero for unsampled regions), with a baseline climatology based on Argo data from 2005 to 2010. 2) using ZIF with a colder baseline (based on the Argo data from 2005 to 2010 but “shifted uniformly by a global representative mean estimate of heat content anomaly for each distinct layer in 1950”, and 3) using “Representative Mean” (which assumes that unsampled regions have anomalies equal to the average anomaly of the sampled regions. This third estimate is not affected by the choice of baseline climatology). The trend since 1950 is markedly different for these 3 methods, as LJ2013 points out. However, all 3 of these methods seem to show warming since 1998.

    The introduction of LJ2013 suggests that warming in the oceans is “well-documented”: “The world’s oceans have absorbed roughly 90% of the anthropogenic warming from greenhouse gasses since the 1960s (Bindoff et al. 2007). This well-documented ocean warming occurs primarily in the upper 0–700 m (Domingues et al. 2008; Ishii and Kimoto 2009; Levitus et al. 2009), but warming has also been observed at intermediate and mid-depths, from 700 to 2000 m (von Schuckmann et al. 2009; Levitus et al. 2012), and in the abyssal ocean, well below 2000 m (Purkey and Johnson 2010; Kouketsu et al 2011).”

    Any thoughts on these papers quoted in the introduction to LJ2013 would be appreciated.

    I’d also be interested to know about any peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals which suggest the oceans overall have not warmed since the 1950s, (and particularly since 1998.)

  234. @Rob Nicholls at 2:37 pm
    However, all 3 of these methods seem to show warming since 1998.
    How much warming?
    Please remember that for each 200 meters of ocean, you must have 2.75 ZJ per 0.01 deg C. (1 ZJ = 10^21 J)
    What is the uncertainty of the earliest measurement you care to use? Does it make sense you can measure the temperature of the ocean to that precision? (See last paragraph)

    What is the difference between the three scenarios?
    Why should I believe these scenarios encompass the possibilities of an unmeasured southern hemisphere? Do they encompass ENSO and SOI states? How about unknown unknowns?
    And why choose 1998? ALACE ought to give somewhat reasonable coverage back to 1992-94.

    Willis had an excellent post called “Decimals of Precision”.

    If our precision is plus or minus a tenth (± 0.1) and we want to know the answer to one more decimal, plus or minus one hundredth (± 0.01), we need one hundred times the data to get that precision.

    Ok. We get that. But it also works in reverse.
    If we feel that we have a 0.01 deg C precision with 500 ALACE thermometers, do we feel we could know the temperature of the ocean to 0.10 deg C with just FIVE for the whole world? Not for the near surface, no-siree-bob!
    So a critical eye must be use on what the reasonable precision of ocean temperature estimates that can be expected. REAL precision, not wished for.

    The simple fact is that until the early 1990s, the Southern Hemisphere is woefully under-sampled. To make use of whatever data was there you have to use preconceptions about what it was IF you measured it, which is circular reasoning.

  235. Thanks Stephen Rasey for these interesting points. (Incidentally I chose 1998 as a start point because that’s when I thought people were arguing that the pause in global warming had started, but I agree an earlier start point (e.g. 1992-4) would be fine.)

Comments are closed.