The Washington Post verifies ‘the pause’ in global warming

Jason Samenow sends word of a new article in WaPo that does some of the same sort of surface temperature analyses we see right here on WUWT. Seeing what a good job Matt Rogers did in his defense against claims of cherry picking, statistical significance woes, and Trenberthian masking, it made me wonder; “How long before he gets called into the chief editors office at WaPo and reassigned to be the correspondent covering Botswana?”


Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated – Matt Rogers, Capital Weather Gang

The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.

Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).

An article in Nature earlier this year discusses some of the possible causes for what some have to referred to as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus”.  Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity. Indeed, a peer-reviewed paper published in February estimates that about 15 percent of the pause can be attributed to increased volcanism. But some have questioned whether the pause or deceleration is even occurring at all.

 Verifying the pause

You can see the pause (or deceleration in warming) yourself by simply grabbing the freely available data from NASA and NOAA. For the chart below, I took the annual global temperature difference from average (or anomaly) and calculated the change from the prior year. So the very first data point is the change from 2000 to 2001 and so on. One sign of data validation is that the trends are the same on both datasets.  Both of these government sources show a slight downward slope since 2000:

(Matt Rogers)

You can see some of the spikes associated with El Niño events (when heat was released into the atmosphere from warmer than normal ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific) that occurred in 2004-05 and 2009-10. But the warm changes have generally been decreasing while cool changes have grown.

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

Read it all here, well worth your time – Anthony

About these ads

216 thoughts on “The Washington Post verifies ‘the pause’ in global warming

  1. Commenters here often, rightly, mention the old practice of adding an epicycle to explain some divergence of observation from theory. The use of ad hoc hypotheses is clearly a weakness in a scientific theory, but it’s not always the fatal error that we sometimes think. The Ptolemaic theory had a kind of elegance to it, in that if a planet were found to misbehave, a correction could be added in the form of an additional circular or spherical motion. There was a uniformity in the corrections, and to that extent the theory was rather elegant, even if wrong. But now, look at the corrections that have been introduced into the CAGW theory, according to the Post’s writer Matt Rogers:

    “Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity.”

    And of course this is only a small sample of the theoretical tinkerings that have been proposed. They are multiple in kind and sometimes even in contradiction with each other. What this suggests is a theory flailing for support and grasping at anything that could possibly help.

  2. Props to Matt Rogers and The Washington Post for writing and publishing an honest look into the details of the current pause. I wonder if they will take a large hit similar to the one FiveThirtyEight did for publishing Pielke, Jr. I can only hope enough people in WaPo’s circle of readership continue to read beyond the opening sentences – merely evidence of an open mind as opposed to a fundamentalism.

  3. Good news, but there’s a long way to go. The “Global Warming” juggernaut isn’t going to go gently into the night anytime soon..

  4. We need deep ocean thermometers so we can measure the water coming from rifts and mantle aquifers.

  5. Opening the door to an escape route . The smart ones will take advantage of it ,the Zealots won’t …

  6. I just paid 500 English pounds car tax to run my 4.2 litre jag for another year. I’m told that’s to stop global warming so it must be that.

  7. Seems to me an attempt to square himself with the scientific truth without tooooo very much casting doubt on the AGW theory. In other words, Rogers wants it both ways- one foot in the truth camp and one foot in the fiction camp. This does not increase my regard for the wp.

  8. I agree Gregory.

    I have a question along those lines for anyone here with the knowledge/skills to give me the answer.
    Supposing that the inner workings of the core of our planet are at least basically understood, how much C02 and other gases are generated by the “burning fossil fuels” in there…and how much of that pent up gas would HAVE to “vent” to the surface in order to keep the planet from expanding….and absent any venting…exploding? I mean obviously there has to be naturally occurring pressure valves, mechanisms at work, and there has to be at least some reasonable speculation on how much pressure they’d have to release. Any guesses or calculations that can be applied to a timescale?

    Obviously hot springs, volcanoes, submarine trenches etc are evidence that heat and gas IS escaping. I guess my question is, can we quantify the amount that would HAVE to be being released, and then SUBTRACT from that amount the known/measured venting occurring on the surface to establish how much we have not found to measure?

  9. Hey mpainter, I believe I needed to present the data- which shows the pause/deceleration- in a very balanced way to have the best chance of it being understood and actually seen by both sides. -Matt Rogers

  10. Kudos! Of course, he was obliged to provide a link to a denial that warming has paused at all. Would that he had also included a link to evidence a 17+ year lack of warming, just for balance you see. Probably the editors insisted he toss a bone to the warmists.

  11. One of the warmists theories on the pause…”more effective oceanic heat absorption”.

    Well, since water has obviously evolved into becoming more effective at trapping heat, all the warmists need to do is figure out how to effectively release that heat, then they can have their warming continue.

    Actually, come to think of it, there must be tremendous energy savings, if I can do something to water to make it more effective at trapping heat. After all, if I have a pot of water on the stove, just think of the energy saved, if I can do something to the water to make it boil faster. Any ideas? We could save tons of emissions.

  12. “…(and inversely offer some good news for our planet).”

    In acknowledging this publicly, Matt Rogers places himself on the side of the angels.

    Beware those for whom verification of CAGW or falsification of “the Pause” would be good news.

  13. That’s a pretty bold article. Look at what has happened to others who suggested that there isn’t a looming disaster, like Caleb Rossiter and Lennart Bengtsson. Kudos for a little balance in the press if WxMatt is the author and still paying attention to these comments.

  14. FYI:

    @ Anyone coming here to verify facts of WaPo article: The article GROSSLY UNDERSTATES THE CASE AGAINST AGW.

    “… the slowdown stop in warming, {} if it continues, {} would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections… .”
    (above WaPo article)
    {edits mine — statement still grossly inaccurate, though}

    To address just one of the WaPo’s mistakes….

    …. contrary to what was timidly put forth above,
    Climate Models ARE Complete Failures

    1. “The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.”
    Dr. Roy Spencer, Here: (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/)

    Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

    2. “New peer reviewed paper finds the same global forecast model produces different results when run on different computers.”

    {See thread Comments for some EXCELLENT ANALYSIS}

    Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/27/another-uncertainty-for-climate-models-different-results-on-different-computers-using-the-same-code/

    3. “… climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have very little practical value because they cannot simulate critical variables of interest to the public and policymakers. … model outputs bear little relationship to the data. … climate models create imaginary climates in virtual worlds that exhibit no similarities to the climate of the world in which we live.

    Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/new-book-by-bob-tisdale-climate-models-fail/

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    ******************* Game Over ******************

  15. Thanks and per that other commenter, yes I should have shown the La Niña years too. Big ENSO influences in there. -Matt

  16. Want some fun? Read the voluminous and vociferous comments to the WaPo story. To paraphrase Dear Leader – “clinging to their warming” for dear life.

  17. I see from the bio in the article that Matt Rogers is a “meteorologist/forecaster”. I have read that working meteorologists, especially weather forecasters, are more skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming than those who are “climatologists” and that may be because they actually look at past weather patterns as part of their forecasting job. After all, any honest look at the unadjusted real world data would show a fellow that we have seen nothing unusual at all over the last 40 years.

    I am surprised that Mr. Rogers was able to see this article published by that propaganda outfit; but then crazy things do happen. I wonder what his readers thought.

  18. Read the article at WaPo. He keeps using the word “decelerating”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means. lol The trend line in his own graph goes DOWN. That’s not a deceleration, that’s a cooling trend.

  19. Wxmatt & all: keep in mind when hearing explanations about volcanism, pollution, etc for “the pause:”

    If you’re going to invoke such “non CO2″ forcings for cooling, you also have to be willing to accept that the same forcings acting in reverse (lower volcanism, lower pollution) must have been responsible for at least part of the observed warming. And the more warming attributed to such causes, the less warming attributable to CO2.

  20. Matt says:
    June 20, 2014 at 10:57 am

    I think the deceleration he is referring too is broader in scope than the graph shows. The graph simply shows the pause, but if you look back further there is still an upward trend (just a slowing one).

  21. Matt says:
    June 20, 2014 at 10:57 am
    Read the article at WaPo. He keeps using the word “decelerating”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means. lol The trend line in his own graph goes DOWN. That’s not a deceleration, that’s a cooling trend.

    Well, it depends on the time scale. I suspect he was using the 2000-present timetable to show what’s happening lately, since it’s so visually impressive. However, on any longer scale (earlier than, say, 1997), the trend is still increasing, so the recent cooling would have a “decelerating” effect on that longer trend. I doubt many people would rely on just the last 17 years to make any grand pronouncement about where the climate is going (well, the warmists would, but only if going in an upward direction).

  22. Good Evening, Anthony and all. I’ve just read an article from Financial Times regarding Putin’s role in EU’s anti-fraking movement.

    It suggests that Putin, who wants and needs Europe dependant on Russian gas for reasons that will be obvious to most people in the western world has been involved with certain green movements. If proven true, it could severly damage cpecifically, the anti-shale gas movement, and the NGOs involved in deciminating Putin’s disinformation about the subject.

    It’s definitly worth a read to anyone that’s interested. Obviously, everything tied to the current geo-political issues has to be taken with a pinch of salt, but this is something that I’ve suspected for a long while.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20201c36-f7db-11e3-baf5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz35CgrHhh9

  23. And in related news the Wash Po reconfirms that oxygen is not a toxin; and that water is wet. Thanks Po. Your warm propaganda, along with your other dialectical garbage ad-infinito, has been invaluable for brainwashed minds.

  24. The graph is a change on the anomaly- not the actual data. The data itself is slightly warming (+0.01C). So the increases are slowing down or decelerating.

    And yes many operational meteorologists I know and work with are skeptical of climate model projections mainly because they seem to be too sensitive to CO2 and disregard large scale influencers like ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. We appreciate the chaos theory just a tad more.

  25. Mark Stoval says:”I have read that working meteorologists … Are more skeptical …”.

    About 9 years ago I attended a local Christian men’s association meeting. The guest speaker was a meteorologist from the local office of the US Weather Service. After his talk during the Q&A, someone asked him to comment on AGW. His answer was pretty cagey, but basically he intimated that it is impossible to get grant money to do any kind of research that might cast a bad light on AGW. He would not elaborate, and he ended the Q&A with that comment.

    Looking back on it, I think he was a skeptic. But wouldn’t it be more natural for somebody who has more than a little knowledge about weather/climate to be skeptical, than it would be for an average person?

  26. “Matt says:
    June 20, 2014 at 10:57 am
    Read the article at WaPo. He keeps using the word “decelerating”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means. lol The trend line in his own graph goes DOWN. That’s not a deceleration, that’s a cooling trend.”

    Let’s face it Matt, if he had said “cooling,” the article probably wouldn’t have been printed. I thik he chose the right word. After all, it IS decelerating all the way passed zero.

    As for reading the comments, yes, there were a few supportive comments, but not many. I also thought he did a fair job of fending off the worst of the attacks. I particularly loved the commenter that kept asking a question that was responded to, and when asked how long does a pause have to continue before he would consider that the models might be misleading ( my words here, not theirs), all he did for an answer was say that he answered that question, but the author hadn’t answered his. I am willing to bet that had God appeared before him with the truth, what ever that might be, if it wasn’t of the church of AGW, he would have denied the existence of God.

  27. My response to the WAPO article.

    Why does any true scientist really believe that an accurate climate model can be programmed at this time considering the woeful lack of knowledge science has about the factors that influence climate in the long run? You don’t know all of those cyclic events that impact climate and you don’t know the impact of those cycles on other cycles and on the cycles that you are unaware of. Observational information available is generally for an insignificant time of reference and is often incomplete, unavailable or has been adjusted in a way to often make its reliability suspect. The equipment used to measure temperatures has not been uniform and the environment of sensing devices has not always been ideal for establishing an accurate record.

    And yet, knowing this, many ascribe to calls for action, expenditures of vast sums of money and resources and disruption of billions of peoples lives based on what is, at best, responding to what if scenarios that cannot be confirmed or validated by the scientific community.

  28. I agree with mpainter’ that this doublespeak is bad and doesn’t promote understanding. How long are people going to speak with forked tongues? It’s not that I don’t appreciate the work, this just minimises it a little bit, it in my view

  29. I would have spent more time on the comments at WaPo, but it did not take long to see which way that wind was blowing.

    My message to WxMatt is this: it does not make any difference what you believe or how you think. Post here at WUWT, and if you have a chance, check out JoNova also (I spend time there when able). You are welcome at WUWT, whether you are a “skeptic” or a “believer”.

    That someone like me would be barred from SkS, “Real” Climate, et al, should speak volumes to you.

    Mark H.

  30. My interest in the whole AGW issue was ignited by two things: 1). “The debate is over”; and 2) “unprecedented extreme weather events”, none of which were unprecedented. When I heard the warmers say those thing, I felt that they were and are desperate people who will say anything to keep their scam going.

  31. actuator,

    I think of the predicting scientists like those two vultures sitting on a limb in the ’70s “head” poster. One vulture says to the other “Patience, my a_s! I’m going to kill something.” Some climate scientist proclaimed “Uncertainty my a_s! I’m going to predict something!” Then others, emboldened, jumped aboard. Then they “got relijun” and started praying that temperature tracked CO2. Worth the gamble, but hasn’t paid off.

  32. To the detractors I say give the guy a break, he’s got this in WaPo FFS!
    To WxMatt. Thanks mate.
    Dave.

  33. WxMatt

    Good for you. Not all skeptics are right wing nut jobs as they are frequently portrayed. I was agnostic 6 years ago when I took the time to really dig into the issue. At the very minimum, a reasonable person should be asking more questions than are generally being asked in the MSM. After one digests all the hysterical and cataclysmic projections and then compare them against the observational data, the divergence becomes troubling. I predict by 2020 there will be a lot of red faces and we will see a lot more robust scientific inquiry. The world will be a better place for it.

  34. Q: What sound does a flat tire make, as you slow down and pull over to the curb?
    A: WaPo WaPo WaPo WaPo WaPo WaPo WaPo WaPo WaPo …..

  35. 12 years of data is not sufficient to show a “decelerating trend.” There was a large El Nino in 1998, and the trend will likely “accelerate” again after the next El Nino event. Also there have been “pauses” throughout the 20th century, but the underlying global temperature trend remains clear.

  36. >One of the warmists theories on the pause…”more effective oceanic heat absorption”.

    OK I’ll go with that. But someone tell me why the reason for the pause now is ocean currents/wind/El Nino, yet there is no way possible that the predominance of El Nino’s from the late 70’s through 1998 had anything to do with the “great warming” of .4-.6C. They ruled every single causative factor so a change of in 1 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere to CO2 has to be the cause. It’s the oceans now, but it wasn’t the oceans then.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Skepticism is simple.

  37. Barium says:
    June 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm
    Well then, start from 1998, and include the el niño… It is really fair they didn’t, because the trend down would have been larger.

  38. Hi Barium, there have been 4 El Niño events after 1998 already and that has not reversed it yet. You say 12 years is not sufficient. How many years do you need to see before you personally may question the modeling too?

    Yes, Glenncz, they do make it so simple!

    -Matt Rogers

  39. Yes, the cooling is not deniable!!!! However, I stepped into a bucket of pee over at Thinkprogress.org , I been getting thrashed for saying that the Antarctic Sea Ice is at all time high extent , that polar bears are fine, that Arctic Sea Ice is with in historical norms and that May 2014 being the HOTTEST ever is non-sense …. Wow , I really angered some people there! A little off topic. SO two nights ago I had an inspiration, a way to get Warming Enthusiasts and Skeptics to get along with an informal survey of sorts, I would like to start a forum that is just a place for everyone everywhere to log in their daily / nightly High and Low Temps using commonly available thermometers. The idea being that we can all equally assess what’s being reported by NASA and NOAA et al. Just a thought… could be interesting.

  40. Regarding how many data points here’s my two cents worth downed with a cold beer and warm bread:

    Sufficient sample points depends on the nature of the covariates and your purpose in using a linear trend statistic. A quick exploratory looksee just to see if one model is better than another, 10 points may be enough. This is the case in many rate of improvement adjustments to treatment. After 10 data points, you can get a fairly reliable idea of your new intervention works better than the previous one in improving student learning. But if you want very reliable and valid estimates of the correlation and regression coefficients for the covariates you might want to pad it with more than 10 per covariate. It also depends on how noisy your data is with outliers. The number of data points you need may be determined by the error term.

    Based on my use of linear trend coupled with number of covariates coupled with my error term, I usually stick with at least 10 data points to gain confidence in the slope of the trend.

  41. I imagine that the WaPo article is going to cause a lot of warming hysterics in the NYC media to reach for the Charmin. WaPo had the smarts to hire a real meteorologist.

  42. glenncz says:
    June 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm

    . . . .But someone tell me why the reason for the pause now is ocean currents/wind/El Nino, yet there is no way possible that the predominance of El Nino’s from the late 70′s through 1998 had anything to do with the “great warming” of .4-.6C. They ruled every single causative factor so a change of in 1 in 10,000 parts of the atmosphere to CO2 has to be the cause. It’s the oceans now, but it wasn’t the oceans then.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

    Skepticism is simple.

    Brilliant observation.

  43. A return to Science, not Money and Politics is going to be needed. That means educating the American public.

  44. Essentially a Bob Tisdale moment of epiphany. You are now a member of the order of Tisdales, pending Bob’s approval of course. Cuz I’m just a whipersnaper (a cough-hack young and inexperienced person considered to be presumptuous or overconfident) wannabeintheclub fan.

  45. Matt Rogers,
    Thanks for your work and thanks for commenting here at WUWT.

    I was curious about your statement in your graph…
    “While the global temperature is still very warm…”

    On what scientific basis do you make such a statement?
    How much colder would you like the planet to be?
    What IS the ideal planetary temperature for the denizens of the 3rd rock?

    Thanks in advance…

  46. I believe that the graph is incorrect, it states that the change for 2000’s = +0.01C? I will read the article but….

  47. It has been obvious from the start that the IPCC climate models are inherently useless for climate forecasting. Before disputing this statement readers are invited to take the time to watch the presentation at

    The recent hiatus in warming, reviewed by Matt, is just now revealing to the general public the inevitable discrepancy between the real world and the IPCC fantasies which was bound to appear sooner or later because of their scientifically inappropriate approach to the complexity of the natural climate system.
    A new forecasting method is required to provide that basis for rational discussion which is lacking in all the IPCC science and impact reports. For estimates of the possible timing and extent of the cooling trend which the earth is just entering based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi periodicities seen in the temperature data and the use of the neutron count and the 10Be record as the best proxy for solar activity see

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/co

    All this is discussed in detail in many posts at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  48. What the hell is vegan bread? She said as she wipes savory venison juice off her chin.

  49. Why so scathing about Botswana? Have you been there? It’s a fantastic country

  50. I still don’t understand why Cowtan & Way is given any credibility. They splice two data sets together, neither of which show an increase on their own, and use the spliced result to show an increase. Why doesn’t the satellite data show an increase *overall*? It seems much more likely to me that Cowtan & Way’s “increase” is in fact data-splicing artifacts and entirely spurious.

  51. It’s encouraging to see this piece in the WaPo. I think Matt Rogers struck a very practical course and stayed within easily understood boundaries, which is important given what many people (mistakenly) believe. So it was a good shot of sobriety and it will cause deep and uncomfortable cognitive dissonance for many WaPo readers.

    Matt, since you are here responding to comments, I was wondering if you could shed some light on what it was like for you to propose this story and shepherd it through the editorial process to publication? Did you get support or resistance? Your article will be a difficult piece for many WaPo readers, but isn’t it also going to be a difficult piece for many WaPo editors and writers as well?

  52. Well, I’ll be damned. I’m eating vegan bread. All the recipes I have for beer bread do not have egg in them. But this recipe doesn’t need it. It is rich and buttery with a very nice beer finish. Because it is heavy, it takes an hour to bake at 350F. Trust me, that hour is as good as a day!

    And now back to the pause. It’s also great open-fire pan fried in an elk camp setting. Oh my laaawwwwdddd good!

  53. The increases in antarctic (cannot be manipulated) and arctic ice (obviously manipulated due to changing borders for each section to suit the AGW drivel) are a sign that we are entering possibly a cooling period.

    The increase in Antarctica ice trend is highly significant and at this rate Antarctica will be 3 million square miles PERMANENTLY above anomaly in 2 years and 6 million in 5 years! That will start to affect temperatures in the SH. It is my belief that Arctic ice has been manipulated to such an extent that we are not seeing the real picture (its quite possible that it is also at an above average anomaly.

  54. Gee, I thought this was common knowledge. There has been no global warming for 17 years 9 months. I’m sure the New York Times will report on this… if they have a reporter who is brave enough. (Hmmm, I kind of doubt it). You just won’t see such an article in the NYTimes the Kool-Aid is just too potent there.

  55. Matt says:
    June 20, 2014 at 10:57 am
    Read the article at WaPo. He keeps using the word “decelerating”. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means. lol The trend line in his own graph goes DOWN. That’s not a deceleration, that’s a cooling trend.

    Read the article again. He’s plotting the anomaly differences from year to year, i.e. the “velocity” delta_A/delta_t. His trend line is the change in the differences over time, therefore an acceleration (in this case a deceleration).

  56. @Eliza… Thankyou! Exactly what I have been wondering regarding what is really going on at the poles, who is telling the truth???

  57. Pamela Gray says:
    June 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm
    What the hell is vegan bread? She said as she wipes savory venison juice off her chin.

    It’s ‘bread’ made by the inhabitants of the 8th planet from the star Vega. It has lots of flesh from life that we would consider ‘animal.’

    I’m not sure why some humans are trying to reproduce the diet of the slime beings on that planet.

  58. Global warming has not decelerated, it has stopped. The car is at the red light, it decelerated, then has to stop. It stopped.

  59. Er, how and why exactly is Obama repeating the media meme ‘It’s warming even faster than the models predicted’? He has (and not for the first time, I have legally binding evidence) simply outed himself as a bald faced liar, as he did over the extreme weather which anyone can look up has no trend at all in any area, and he is ostensibly the most important person on the planet, and has told a lie so simple to expose he must be protected by Jesus himself otherwise people would laugh him out of office and ideally into a prison cell. Except they haven’t. So he is basically exposing the soft brains of the masses knowing 90% of the people haven’t a clue what the temperature is so accept it on face value.

    Guys, we really must do better.

  60. The way I see the graph of a 12-year linear trend of warming rate, the linear trend shows the warming rate being slow and decreasing, but not changing from positive to negative until about the beginning of 2011 – about 2.5 years before the graph ends.

  61. Eliza says:
    June 20, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    The increase in Antarctica ice trend is highly significant…….
    =====
    Yes it is…..if that was 60N….it would cover half of Canada, half of Russia, all of Alaska, Norway, Sweden, and Finland….in a permanent white albedo

  62. Matt Rogers was said to say:
    “Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity.”

    I think there is an elephant in the room – multidecadal oceanic cycles. I suspect AMO is linked to some Pacific item that causes periodic imbalances of El Nino and La Nina. All of the major surface temperature datasets show a periodic component with a period around 60-65 years. The one that shows it the most is the one with greatest correlation with the major datasets of lower troposphere temperature obtained by using satellites. That surface dataset is HadCRUT3, which is not the latest version of HadCRUT.

    It is easy to see in HadCRUT3 that about half the warming from the early 1970s to the 2004-2005 peak of smoothed HadCRUT3 is indicated to be from a natural cycle. Its downswing after 2004-2005 has been sufficient to keep increase of CO2 from causing further warming, and has a fair chance of continuing to do so until around 2030-2035. With CO2 growth unlikely to accelerate on a log scale (which IPCC and the skeptical Dr. Roy Spencer can agree is appropriate), the ~2035-2075 stretch is unlikely to have much more warming than the stretch from the early 1970s to 2004-2005.

  63. Shortly after Climate Gate and Copenhagen in early 2010, in the comments section for one of WUWT ‘s posts, one of the commenters posted a brief comment along the lines that he had read a very recent paper on the media which indicated that it took the MSM about seven [ 7 ] years to switch from a hard held position to rejecting that position and beginning to adopt a new position on a subject.
    I have no idea on who the commenter was or where to now find that comment but if he / she are still around maybe they could again point to that relevant research paper on the media.

    And it makes good sense as by the time seven years have passed, editors and sub editors will mostly have changed. Reporters and opinion writers will have moved on or retired.
    All in all there will be a whole new bunch of eager beaver media types all intent on making their own big impression on the world
    So why try and just follow the dictates of those old fogies of the past ?

    So if we take the disillusionment with climate science that started with the revealing Climate Gate fiasco of lies, corruption of scientific principles and the bullying of any who dared to even question the arrogant upper crust CRU high priests of the global warming climate science, a science that was further weakened by the Copenhagen political debacle. all of which occurred in the closing months of 2009, then that seven years for the MSM to change to a diametrically opposed course of starting to condemn the increasingly non scientific, faith driven belief in catastrophic climate change / global warming is well under way as more and more MSM articles and opinion pieces cast doubt and serious aspersions on climate science and scientists and their honesty re their climate models and climate beliefs.

    The seven years will be up by the end of 2017 and it seems we are well on course for a full scale MSM condemning of the whole immensely societal disrupting, economically suicidal policies of promoting the non hydro renewable energies such as wind and solar and the blatant lies and deliberately cultivated agenda driven and grossly corrupted assumptions of the IPCC and the so called environmental and green promoters of a “back to the caves “future for mankind.

  64. James Strom says:
    June 20, 2014 at 9:52 am
    ” There was a uniformity in the corrections, and to that extent the theory was rather elegant, even if wrong. ”

    Actually, the Ptolemaic system was NOT wrong. In effect, they were applying Fourier analysis to plot the orbits of the planets. The Ptolemaic system was not superseded because it was wrong, but because the Copernican system was much easier to work with.

  65. The comments have the usual propagandists out, citing (Non)Skeptical (Non)Science, and claiming the missing heat is going into the oceans, never mind that hundredths of degrees of increased ocean temps can, at most, raise land temperatures by… wait for it… hundredths of a degree.

    I am really tired of morons like that ruling the roost and panicking people over absolutely nothing. I would welcome a new ice age if it would only shut these idiots up.

  66. “James Strom says:
    June 20, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Commenters here often, rightly, mention the old practice of adding an epicycle to explain some divergence of observation from theory. The use of ad hoc hypotheses is clearly a weakness in a scientific theory, but it’s not always the fatal error that we sometimes think. The Ptolemaic theory had a kind of elegance to it, in that if a planet were found to misbehave, a correction could be added in the form of an additional circular or spherical motion …”

    Indeed, it was so elegant that Copernicus could only re-invent that wheel 13 centuries later, although he expressed it all mathematically, adding to the elegance. But in fact, calculations of future states based on his work were no more accurate than those based on the Ptolemaic system. And since placing of the sun at the center of the solar system – though not of the universe itself, as he contended – was actually just the next logical step following on from the groundwork laid down by the Medieval Scholastics, he didn’t really add much. The real revolutionary nature of Copernicanism is not found in the science.

  67. Aphan said in part June 20, 2014 at 10:13 am:

    “I have a question along those lines for anyone here with the knowledge/skills to give me the answer. Supposing that the inner workings of the core of our planet are at least basically understood, how much C02 and other gases are generated by the “burning fossil fuels” in there…and how much of that pent up gas would HAVE to “vent” to the surface in order to keep the planet from expanding…”

    There is somewhat of a determination of the global carbon budget:

    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010

    The Tyndall folks seem to me to think we have a big problem, but that appears to me based on a popular assumption of feedbacks being positive to an unrealistic degree. The carbon budget data as a whole appears to me as reasonable, the atmospheric CO2 content is very well and accurately known since 1959 even when year-to-year change has a smaller sigma than the total, and fossil fuel consumption is well known by those who study the fossil fuel industries.

    Volcanism and the like has much smaller numbers compared to the sources mentioned by the Tyndall folks. As for a quick-to-find cite:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

    The source may be biased, but in this cite they cite where they get their information from. Again, any bias they have appears to me as mainly in their belief of how much effect a change of CO2 has, based on debatable feedbacks to global temperature from a change of CO2. Please remember that 44 tonnes of CO2 has 12 tonnes of carbon, for comparison to items in the carbon budget cite above.

    • Donald,
      Thank you for attempting, but I’m not asking about the “carbon budget” as far as CO2 in the atmosphere or out-gassing from known surface volcanoes (which are embarrassingly unsampled/measured in any real way-it’s all estimates).

      I’m asking about the physics of the PLANET’s CORE. Molten/rock/gasses/pressure stuff. SURELY there is some kind of mathematical formula out there that allows scientists to estimate the amount of gases that would HAVE to be venting out of the planet (either on the land surface or from the sea floor) in order for the temperature and pressures at the Earth’s core to remain stable. Basic physics would demand that with that a certain amount of pressure relief MUST be happening.

      Does anyone here know of that formula and what it would tell us about the amount of venting that HAS to be taken place per certain volume/space/specifications etc?

  68. In October, 2011, Pielke, Sr. reviewed an article in Greenwire which examined the question

    ‘Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?”

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-climate-scientists/

    At that time, the pause had been known by all open-minded scientists for sometime, but in that article a dozen climate scientists conceded the obvious, and suggested possible answers. The Washington Post is slow to climb the learning curve, but it is a start.

  69. Well, kudos to Matt; he stands in there and answers comments, and presents himself well. Unlike a few other “experts” who pop in and out, and favor us with something that appears on the screen as verbal diarrhea.

  70. Pamela Gray: “Regarding how many data points here’s my two cents worth downed with a cold beer and warm bread: …”

    Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says: “One hopes that is vegan bread and Irish beer. :-)”

    Gluten-free, of course.

  71. The poor guy is toast. I hope he has a current CV in hand and some savings in the bank. Such articles in the MSM usually lead to the street.

  72. “Decelerate,’ in this case, is a euphemism for comes to a screeching halt, since the trend is down (cooling.) But other than that slight spin, for this to appear in the WaPoo is significant. I hope the trend of scientific assessment instead of journalist blather continues.

  73. @Eliza and Latitude:

    Yes, I have also been following the positive, pronounced Antarctic sea ice anomaly with increased interest. I also followed Lake Michigan ice closely last winter and believe they manipulated/obfuscated the data there. Along with the solar forcing decreasing for the foreseeable future, these are all anomalies worth noting as they are not one cold front or warm front – but extended cold periods/anomalies.

  74. Pamela Gray says:
    June 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    ‘Cuz I’m just a whipersnaper (a cough-hack young and inexperienced person ..)’

    We used to have a PM who was a 30-something young and naive lawyer; so anything is possible.

  75. Richard Barraclough says:
    June 20, 2014 at 3:24 pm
    Why so scathing about Botswana? Have you been there? It’s a fantastic country

    I agree. I’ve been to a few African countries and Botswana is one of the best.

  76. Thanks, Anthony. As fine a blog as WUWT is on a daily basis, on occasion you post a story that can only be categorized as “historic.” Your first post about Climategate was certainly one of those, and this one might also be historic in the sense that the mainstream media will start to report more honestly. Well done.

  77. The Post is labeling this an opinion (Viewpoint) piece, and providing links to “alternative views.” They’re not acknowledging facts, they’re implicitly denying them.

  78. Anthony, you write: “it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).”

    I don’t agree. A warmer climate is generally good for the planet.

  79. Alan McIntire at 5:22 pm
    Agree. The only reason the Prolemaic system was wrong, was the assumption of circular orbits. For the remainder the Ptolemaic and Copernican system are equivalent because all motion is relative. The only difference is algebra. If the Prolemaic system with elliptical orbits were wrong, there would be absolute rest, which violates relativity.

  80. Donald L. Klipstein says, June 20, 2014 at 5:15 pm:

    “I think there is an elephant in the room – multidecadal oceanic cycles. I suspect AMO is linked to some Pacific item that causes periodic imbalances of El Nino and La Nina. All of the major surface temperature datasets show a periodic component with a period around 60-65 years. The one that shows it the most is the one with greatest correlation with the major datasets of lower troposphere temperature obtained by using satellites. That surface dataset is HadCRUT3, which is not the latest version of HadCRUT.”

    Indeed.

    “It is easy to see in HadCRUT3 that about half the warming from the early 1970s to the 2004-2005 peak of smoothed HadCRUT3 is indicated to be from a natural cycle. Its downswing after 2004-2005 has been sufficient to keep increase of CO2 from causing further warming, and has a fair chance of continuing to do so until around 2030-2035.”

    I don’t get you lukewarmists. How, from your first (and very sensible, reality(data)-oriented) paragraph above, did you then arrive at the conclusion that ‘about half the warming from the early 1970s to the 2004-2005 peak of smoothed HadCRUT3 is indicated to be from a natural cycle’? Assuming you mean that CO2 caused the other half.

    I have to ask you, then, where in the real-world data do you see the increase in CO2 having ANY (+0.0000000K) effect on global temperatures at all? Where? How? Can you point me to that +CO2 >> +T link? Where is it empirically shown to be real and working, in the actual earth system, not in a theoretical model world?

    Or are you simply going the same way around the hypothesis-testing part of the scientific method as the ‘real’ warmists do and just KNOW a priori that more CO2 in the open atmosphere, all things NOT being equal, still somehow MUST make the surface warmer, because it … just has to?

  81. After a cold winter and a very cold spring we have a cold summer here in the mountains of upstate NY. It is still snowing in Wyoming, for example. This isn’t ‘global warming slowing down’ something nasty is going on and this reminds me sharply of the mid 1970’s which was bitter cold back then, too.

    Claiming that ‘warming is slowing down’ is hogwash.

  82. “Aphan said in part June 20, 2014 at 10:13 am:

    “I have a question along those lines for anyone here with the knowledge/skills to give me the answer. Supposing that the inner workings of the core of our planet are at least basically understood, how much C02 and other gases are generated by the “burning fossil fuels” in there…and how much of that pent up gas would HAVE to “vent” to the surface in order to keep the planet from expanding…”

    This won’t answer your question either, but it will give you more numbers to work with. From this 1967 book, “Introduction to Geochemistry”, by Konrad Krauskopf, I get the following:
    Inventory of total carbon based on units of 10^20 grams of CO2
    Atmosphere 0.023
    Oceans and Fresh Water 1.3
    Living Organisms 0.145
    Carbonate Rock 670
    Organic Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks 250
    Coal, Oil, etc 0.27

    If we were to TRY to convert all fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY to atmospheric CO2, the balance of
    atmospheric CO2 would increase from 400 ppm to
    0.27/0.023 = about 4700 ppm. Submarine crews routinely function at about 5000 ppm, which is considered the maximum safe threshold for humans. And of course we could never reach that 4700 ppm as a significant fraction went into the oceans and into plants. , In the oceans, the amount of CO2 is somewhat less than the atmosphere, but there’s roughly 50 times the atmosphere’s CO2 in calcium carbonates
    The maimum the pH of the oceans could increase would be 1.07 units.
    Of course our scare scenario applies only if we instantaneously convert all fossil fuel carbon to CO2- in real life we’ll only release a small fraction at a time, Rain will wash more CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean, Ocean life wil excrete calcium carbonates when the oceans become too acidic, and most ot that increased atmospheric CO2 would wind up in that
    “Oceans and Fresh Water” factor of 1.3

    My guess is that it’s mostly U238 and its offspring particles breaking down that causes earth’s core heat. The half life of U238 is about 5 billion years or so, so our earth has roughly half the heat it started with. Thanks to that heat, volcanoes release various elements into the atmosphere, like water and CO2. That release has been dropping along with earth’s heat, and volcanoes are maybe half as active as they were 4.6 billion yars ago. It’s that heat being release from the interior, rain, life, and their related chemical reactions that have resulted in the current balances of CO2 in atmosphere, biosphere, oceans, rock, and fossil fuels.

  83. It’s one thing for the former EPA-crats to decline to agree with Obama’s pronouncements. But this article in the hometown paper at this time effectively uses facts to call him a liar . That’s a profile in courage. Watch out for the profile in payback.

  84. policycritic says, June 20, 2014 at 6:51 pm:

    “” Donald L. Klipstein says: June 20, 2014 at 5:42 pm””
    (link to the Tyndall site for the global carbon budget)

    “Why do they add fossil fuels and cement together in the Tyndall budget? Which one is larger?”

    Fossil fuel combustion accounts for something like 94%, cement production accounts for something like 6%, of the sum of these two. My guess is that Tyndall is now lumping them together because they account for nearly all transfer of carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, aquasphere and biosphere.

  85. Responding to HWR says:
    June 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    “Matt, since you are here responding to comments, I was wondering if you could shed some light on what it was like for you to propose this story and shepherd it through the editorial process to publication? Did you get support or resistance? Your article will be a difficult piece for many WaPo readers, but isn’t it also going to be a difficult piece for many WaPo editors and writers as well?”

    I think that since it was in the blogs vs. the main news side, I believe there was more flexibility. My editor wanted to make sure to include counterbalancing research when he could; but it was my idea to serve up the most common rebuttals I hear in this discussion. But I agree with your first thoughts too that it needed to be a measured approach focused nearly exclusively on the deceleration aspect that shows up in all these global land/sea data sets. Thanks!

    -Matt Rogers

  86. “Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    The way I see the graph of a 12-year linear trend of warming rate, the linear trend shows the warming rate being slow and decreasing, but not changing from positive to negative until about the beginning of 2011 – about 2.5 years before the graph ends.”

    I agree- it seems like that is indeed the case- and folks will inevitably (fairly?) say that is too short of a time frame. So it was better to focus on the 2000s-long deceleration instead.

  87. WxMatt says:
    June 21, 2014 at 10:54 am

    I want to congratulate and thank your for your efforts. The bottom line, I think, which is evident even to those who do not understand any of the scientific arguments, is that natural variation is enough to cancel out CO2 effects over at least a roughly two decade time period. The entire global warming alarm, however, is founded similarly on about a two decade run up in global averaged temperatures. And, if natural variation can cancel that trend over two decades, it could easily be the other way around, i.e., that natural variation was responsible for the previous two decade increase, and those factors causing that increase have subsided now for the past two decades.

    There is no basis whatsoever to conclude that CO2 is playing any significant part at all, except for the faith-based assertion that increasing CO2 must increase surface temperatures. Advocates will insist that “greenhouse” gases are known to increase the surface temperatures beyond what they otherwise would be. But, accepting that as being the case, that does NOT imply that increasing concentrations will, at all times and all places, continue producing an increase in temperatures. There are such laws of diminishing returns everywhere in life. To give some widely recognizable examples, having a mixed drink loosens you up, and can make you the life of the party. Having six does not make you even more appealing, rather the opposite. Fertilizing your lawn will make it grow lush and green. Overfertilizing it will kill it.

    There is absolutely no way to make the claim that CO2 was causing rapid warming before when it was at lower levels, and somehow it is not now when it is at higher levels. That claim should be ridiculed and scorned by anyone with a moiety of brainpower. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is broken, and the furious attempts to duct tape it back together are going nowhere. Thank you, again, for your efforts.

  88. In light of my immediately previous input, one sentence could be interpreted wrongly. Let me rephrase.

    There is absolutely no way to make the claim that CO2 was causing rapid warming before when it was at lower levels, and somehow it is not now when it is at higher levels, but will again at some undetermined time in the future.

  89. Thanks Bart! Yes- the aspect that amazes me most is that this lull is occurring with the highest CO2 levels recorded so far. If the sensitivity is as high as claimed, then one would think this lull should at least be shorter-lived than the prior ones.

  90. Two thoughts –
    1) Since warmism has all the characteristics of a religion, we will never get them away from their religion if we offer no alternative. They have the theory of global warming, the other side needs a theory of something else. Bonus points if it can be fashioned in such a way that we can call warmists “Deniers.” And, please God, let it not be denial of cooling. I am not a warmist – unlike them, I love humanity – and cold kills, whereas warmth does exactly the opposite.
    2) So often we hear that “If there is no warming, why are these the warmest years in forever.” I have found that a good analogy to use is – nobody denied the rescent warming, but it has stopped. It is as if we had been climbing a flight of stairs. We stopped, but we are still high up on this flight.”

  91. “” emsnews says:
    June 21, 2014 at 5:22 am
    Claiming that ‘warming is slowing down’ is hogwash.””

    Yes Sir, we can consistently rely on CAGW alarmism for pigs so clean you can eat (from) them. ;-)

  92. Help me with “deep ocean heat”

    Over at Wash Post, it’s obvious I am a moron because the earth is warming “same as it ever was” but the heat is being stored in the deep ocean and the data shows it and it’s all peer reviewed. I didn’t realize it, but surface temps are now irrelevant and the models were right because all the heat is in the ocean and the warming in the oceans is “unprecedented”

    Can anyone address my questions…

    How is the deep ocean heat measured?
    How long do we have quality data ?
    How good is the data ?
    Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)
    Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global ice extent ?
    If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
    … wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?
    … wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?

    I have other questions and don’t know much about what seems obvious at Wash Post. Help appreciated.

  93. - How is the deep ocean heat measured?

    Since about 2003, by the ARGO network of sea bouys. The problem with the ARGO measurements is that the bouys are, over time, becoming entrained by the ocean currents, and their spatial coverage is becoming less uniform over time. So, of course, a model has to be used to homogenize the data.

    Prior to 2003, ships dropped buckets in the water and measured the temps. This activity was never originally intended to produce precise or accurate measurements, and was largely confined to sea lanes. It is anyone’s guess as to how representative they are.

    – How long do we have quality data ?

    Essentially a decade since ARGO became active.

    – How good is the data ?

    Nobody knows. It’s models all the way down.

    – Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)

    Magic.

    – Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global ice extent ?

    It is being reflected in the loss of Arctic Ice, and last year’s recovery is a fluke. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken. And, speaking of Oz, Antarctic ice is increasing, but who cares about the Southern Hemisphere? It’s only half the Earth, and what have they done for us lately?

    – If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
    … wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?

    No, because shut up.

    … wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?

    Sea level is increasing at the same rate as it has for over a century because, again, shut up.

  94. Wow, some really vicious comments on the WaPo blog. Fairly decent assessment, good (honest) questions being asked by the blogger. Hope he’s not shipped off to some distant place.

  95. I’d like to bring clarity to the distinction between “sea ice extent” and the declining global ice mass trend as measured gravimetrically by GRACE satellites. Sea ice extent is a measurement of area or ‘spread’. With respect to sea-level rise, increasing the ‘spread’ with ever thinning ice is less relevant than the clear reduction in mass, both in arctic and in Antarctica 

    Yellow represents mountain glaciers and ice caps
    Blue represents areas losing ice mass 
    Red represents areas gaining ice mass

    Can anyone explain how global ice mass is declining while global temperatures are presumably steady over 17 years?

  96. katatetorihanzo:

    At June 23, 2014 at 6:20 am you assert

    To claim that global warming has stopped based on a small interval in the surface temperature record is like saying that the pressure cooker is cooling based only upon the temperature of the handle.

    NO! Global warming is an increase to global surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) discernible as a rise in linear trend which differs from zero trend with 95% confidence. Global warming existed over the 17 years prior to 1997.

    Global warming stopped at least 17 years ago.

    Richard

    • Your definition seems to omit heat content rise in the oceans.
      If global warming stopped, then global ice mass declines would have stopped also. No pause seen.

      “Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s climate system. Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans. Despite the oceans’ dominant role in energy storage, the term “global warming” is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at Earth’s surface.”

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

      “A region’s climate is generated by the climate system, which has five components: atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere.”

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

  97. The images are gone. Just little place marks where the graphs showing pause should be… The news is being manipulated! Or my browser settings need adjustment.

    Another climate scandal! I click on WUWT to see “Watts up” and…cannot find any thing about this Telegraph article. Cooling since the 30’s! Now I am worried something is up with WUWT. Thinking maybe I am just not in the know and need to double down on my WUWT reading.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

    REPLY: The premise of the article based on “Steven Goddard’s” claims, is simply wrong on some assumptions. That’s why we won’t carry it here – Anthony

  98. katatetorihanzo:

    re your post June 23, 2014 at 6:35 am.

    Most of the world’s ice is in Antarctica and not on a few American mountains. Global ice is now above its long-term average as you can see here.

    Ice growth and loss on land is a balance between precipitation and loss. Temperature has little to do with it except that the ice temperature has to be below freezing.

    Richard

  99. re: katatetorihanzo

    1) CERES satellite evidence shows there is no pause in the radiative imbalance that is fundamentally causing Earth to gain heat energy,

    2) GRACE satellite evidence shows an acceleration in arctic and antarctic ice mass decline,

    3) ARGO evidence shows there has been no pause in the positive temperature trend in the deep ocean.
    ………………………………………………………………
    This is interesting and relevant data. This is all new types of data. The “old school” stuff is stubbornly not showing such warming.

    In light of the data you mention, can you address my questions ?

    …Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)

    …Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global sea ice areal extent ?

    If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
    … wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?
    … wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?

    Just seems to me that if there is actually growing heat being measured by these new and novel techniques, that some evidence of this would be apparent in the old standards of measurement… sfc temp and sea level and areal extent of ice coverage.

    • “This is interesting and relevant data. This is all new types of data. The “old school” stuff is stubbornly not showing such warming.”

      “In light of the data you mention, can you address my questions ?”

      “…Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)”

      Thank you for your questions Mary. The short answer is heat transfer explains short term sfc temp ‘pauses’.

      Not all parts of the climate heat uniformly since our spinning globe does not heat uniformly. There are many ways for the heat accumulated at the equatorial regions to be transferred to other parts of the globe via convections within air and oceans and between the air and ocean (El Nino/ La Nina).

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html

      Evidence that the rising global heat content is reflected in sfc temps is seen unambiguously in the 163 year instrumental record. The trend is clearly up and the rate of increase is historically unusual. In this record, there are ‘hiatuses’ or apparent ‘pauses’ that occur when short term events either reduce incoming solar radiation (aerosols from volcanic eruptions), or when heat is transferred to various climate heat sinks (deep ocean, ice melting).

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html

      Short term variations tend to offset each other leaving the longer term trend governed by greenhouse gas emission. But trends over shorter intervals (< 30 yr) tend to be governed by the relative magnitude of heating and cooling effects of short term natural variations (volcanoes, El Niño, La Nina, solar) present in the selected interval. The link below illustrates the quality of the correspondence short term weather-related events and the last ~30 years of sfc temps:

      "…Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global sea ice areal extent ?"

      Heat is indeed causing a reduction in global sea ice extent. The effect is more marked in the northern than in the southern hemisphere. Specifically, the sea ice area extent, volume and mass in the northern hemisphere (arctic) are declining and at an accelerating rate.

      In the southern hemisphere, the overall ice mass is also declining (as measured by GRACE), but the thinning sea ice AREA EXTENT (spread) is moderately increasing due to enhanced trade winds. Since the impact to the arctic offsets the impact to the antarctic impact, the global ice mass overall is declining.

      If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
      … wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?

      Due to heat capacity difference between air and water, it doesnt take much heat removal to impact short term SST trends. The deep ocean heat becomes apparent in SST trends when convection and ocean circulation allows the heat to rise to the surface. This heat is normally released from the ocean to the air during El Niños and sfc temp data reflect those short term spikes. The 1998 El Nino was an example of a very strong heat release from ocean to atmosphere. However, the reverse also happens during the La Nina phase (where the heat is transferred back into the ocean) resulting in a corresponding short term cooling effect.

      … wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?

      Not necessarily, although temperature trends are positive for the deep ocean (ARGO), thermal expansion is governed by temperature and it is still pretty cold in the ocean depths. For any given quantity of heat, the temperature fluctuation would be more easily observed in air than in water.

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

  100. WxMatt:

    I appreciate your problems but you are still tippy-toeing around the truth of the matter when you characterize the last 17 years as a “pause” or “deceleration of warming”. After years of spouting alarmist propaganda, the wapo is in a rather embarrassing position, is it not? All those youngsters that now have to be de-indoctrinated, if the wapo is to step away from AGW fantasy to square itself with the real world. This is called “getting your tit caught in the wringer”. I do not envy your job but I do not have any respect for any journalist who caters to the alarmist line.

  101. Understood, and from a qualified authority on surface temperatures! Thanks Anthony. Reasonable peoples just take care of the earth, not fun being beat down with manipulated data telling me do that…If there was any weight behind the 97% figure, since manipulation goes both ways, looks like 97% will take $$$ to warm the data. With the media bombardment side effect, important to know Watts Up with That.

  102. katatetorihanzo says:
    June 23, 2014 at 6:35 am

    There are and always have been normal natural fluctuations in ice mass over decades, centuries, millennia, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years (and longer). What has happened in the satellite era is totally within normal bounds.

    The fact is that where it matters most, ie Antarctica, land ice mass & sea ice extent are increasing. Air temperature there remains below freezing, so that factor has very little affect on global ice mass, as long as it stays within normal limits. Precipitation is more important. Sea ice extent depends upon ocean currents much more than air temperature as well.

    Antarctic land ice mass stopped retreating over 3000 years ago. Global climate has been headed downward at least since that time, with minor fluctuations up and down such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.

  103. katatetorihanzo says:
    June 23, 2014 at 6:20 am

    These are all rationalizations. Feeble attempts to deny what the surface temperature data are telling us, which is that the world is unequivocally NOT heating up as expected.

  104. actuator says:
    June 20, 2014 at 12:05 pm
    —–
    Those who write the models claim that they don’t have to account for the cycles, because they are cycles. That is, over a long enough time period the positive portion of the cycle will cancel out the negative portion.
    There is some truth to such a belief.
    The biggest problem with such a belief is that until you understand the cycles, you can’t subtract the impact of these cycles on the historical data that is used to calibrate the models.
    For example, 100% of the warming from the the 1970’s to the 2000’s is being blamed on CO2, completely ignoring the role the PDO and the sun played in that warming.

  105. To Pamela Gray:

    “….It’s also great open-fire pan fried in an elk camp setting. Oh my laaawwwwdddd good!”

    Please stop it. You’ll have me destroying my keyboard by drooling all over it. I appreciate how tasty good beer bread is–I’ve had it on a number of occasions–but your mouth-watering
    description must be toned down. Or else you will owe me for a replacement keyboard.

  106. hanzo says:

    It is difficult to reconcile the assertion that “global warming has stopped”…

    You sound deluded. Global warming has stopped. Even the Washington Post ran a recent article, citing several government agencies that state global warming has stopped. And not for only a few years, but for close to two decades now. You are refusing to face reality.

    That makes the rest of your comments nonsense. And your silly fixation with “ice” disregards the plain fact that changes in polar ice are normal, natural, and not influenced by human GHG’s.

    Where do you get your misinformation, anyway?

    • Dbstealey said “You sound deluded. Even the Washington Post ran a recent article, citing several government agencies that state global warming has stopped.”

      The global heat content of the ocean is rising

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content

      Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.

      “We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

      Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.

      Antarctica ice mass is declining at an unprecedented rate.

      http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/01/23/18749650.php

      Feel free to send any citation indicating that arctic or antarctic ice mass is rising or any citation that compares the current rate with any known pre-industrial rates.

      “That makes the rest of your comments nonsense. And your silly fixation with “ice” disregards the plain fact that changes in polar ice are normal, natural, and not influenced by human GHG’s.”

      Ice melt is a clear uncomplicated indicator of the global energy trend. It’s simple and folks understand it intuitively. If global ice mass were steady or increasing over the past 17 years, then that would be powerful evidence of global warming cessation. Feel free to support your claim. Peer reviewed articles are especially persuasive.

  107. katatetorihanzo says: Lots of stuff… much of which I’m “skeptical” of

    //////////////////////

    “The short answer is heat transfer explains short term sfc temp ‘pauses’.

    Not all parts of the climate heat uniformly since our spinning globe does not heat uniformly. There are many ways for the heat accumulated at the equatorial regions to be transferred to other parts of the globe via convections within air and oceans and between the air and ocean (El Nino/ La Nina). ”
    //////////////////////
    No matter where the heat is, it should be reflected in the various measures of GLOBAL temperature. Sfc thermometers and satellite temps are flat to down for 5-10 years and roughly even for 10-17 years. All the “deep ocean heat” amount to 0.02 deg C in ten years which is simply too small to be statistically significant or strike fear.
    //////////////////////
    “The global heat content of the ocean is rising

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content

    Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.”
    //////////////////////
    Yes. 0.02 deg since ARGO came on board. Am I right about that? I’m not certain.
    //////////////////////
    “Antarctica ice mass is declining at an unprecedented rate.”
    //////////////////////
    Sea ice area is increasing and near all time highs since satellite measurements began. Measurements of ice mass may show a decline but that is a more difficult and recent measurement that is contradicted by the easier to measure sea ice that has a consistent record since 1979. The vast majority of Antarctica is wildly below freezing and sea level rates are not accelerating at all so I’m highly skeptical of “unprecedented” ice loss in Antarctica.
    //////////////////////////
    “Ice melt is a clear uncomplicated indicator of the global energy trend.”
    //////////////////////////
    We agree on that. If the oceans are warming and ice melting at unprecedented rates, then why aren’t we seeing a thermal expansion of the oceans, rising SST’s and an acceleration in sea level rise? Why are we seeing very high level of sea ice extent ? (NH down but SH way up)

  108. Hanzo, the Greenland ice mass is steady, with precipitation in the interior matching ablation at the edges. Sea levels are steady, despite the fabricated rise that you see at various sites, such as the U of Colorado. Antarctica is a frozen continent and there are no reliable measurements of its ice volume.

    Your problem, Hanzo, is that you rely on dubious data, not yet having developed a proper skepticism about what you see offered as “science” and “data”.

    When wisdom arrives, skepticism grows.

  109. Oh, and you especially will learn not to believe what you read in publications such as WaPo.

  110. katatetorihanzo says:

    “Evidence that the rising global heat content is reflected in sfc temps is seen unambiguously in the 163 year instrumental record. The trend is clearly up”
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    We agree on that, too. The 163 temp trend is solidly up. But why? If we look for a sign of CO2 forcing, it’s not easy to see. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a firm believer in Greenhouse Theory and think that CO2 has almost definitely driven temps up and will continue to do so.

    However, I think the sensitivity is way less than assumed. For example, compare two warming periods 1908-1941 vs 1978-2005. Both lasted roughly three decades. The first period was almost certainly “natural warming” since CO2 emissions were tiny by current standards. The second period was likely CO2 forced anthropogenic. The first period had roughly .64 deg C warming and the second roughly 0.62 deg C warming. (All back of envelope calcs so not perfect).

    In last 15 years, the CO2 dumping has been extraordinary yet you need a microscope to find any warming. (not saying there is absolutely none…just that trying to find it occupied two articles in the Wash Post)

    So, it is really hard to argue that current warming is “unprecedented” and impossible to blame the last 163 years on CO2. I you blame 10% of the warming before 1945 on CO2 and 80% of it after WWI on CO2, then the total “A” component of “AGW” amounts to about 0.45 deg C.

    Considering the vast benefits derived from fossil fuels in the last 100 years, I think 0.45 deg C is a worthwhile tradeoff.

  111. Mary Brown says:
    June 25, 2014 at 7:49 am

    Besides which the presumed rise in CO2 from ~280 ppm 150 years ago to ~400 ppm today has also been hugely beneficial so far, greening the earth, quite apart from the net positive effect of cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy.

  112. katatetorihanzo:

    Warming is rise in temperature.
    Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.

    Global warming is rise in global average surface temperature (GASTA).
    Global warming is not rise in the heat content of the atmosphere, oceans and ice.

    The thermal capacity of the oceans is so great that if heat enters the deep ocean then it is effectively lost for provision of significant global warming (cold water does not heat warmer air).

    You say you are worried about global warming which stopped more than 17 years ago. If you are worried about it then you need to get a life.

    Richard

    • To richardscourtney….

      I wouldn’t be so flippant and nasty. Global Warming means the globe… that includes ice and water, too.

      The atmosphere is very wispy with little heat content. Changes in global heat tend to be detected by air thermometers but most of the heat is not actually stored there.

    • “Warming is rise in temperature. Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.”

      An experiment to try: heat an ice/water mixture and measure the temperature over time. You will observe that the temperature of the mixture doesn’t rise while the ice continually melts.

      Since melting ice on the global scale impacts coastal infrastructure via sea level rise, and increased heat content can fuel severe weather, trade winds and ocean circulation patterns conducting heat from equator, heat content is a rather good measure to track.

    • “Warming is rise in temperature. Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.”

      An experiment to try: heat an ice/water mixture and measure the temperature over time. You will observe that the temperature of the mixture doesn’t rise while the ice continually melts.

      Since melting ice on the global scale impacts coastal infrastructure via sea level rise, and increased heat content can fuel severe weather, trade winds and ocean circulation patterns conducting heat from equator, heat content is a rather good measure to track.

  113. katatetorihanzo says:
    June 25, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Antarctic ice mass is increasing, both on land & sea. The little bit of West Antarctica with which you are so concerned is heated by under ice volcanic activity & the PIG is calving ice into the sea because it’s moving faster, thanks to greater ice near its sources.

    The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of about half of the fresh water on earth, stopped receding over 3000 years ago. Since then, earth has been in a long-term cooling trend. The WAIS & EAIS together contain some 61% of the planet’s fresh water. The EAIS is currently gaining, not losing, mass. It has been around for tens of millions of years & formed when the planet was a lot hotter than now.

  114. katatetorihanzo:

    re your post at June 25, 2014 at 10:46 am.

    I repeat, the following facts which you seem to have been unable to understand.

    Warming is rise in temperature.
    Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.

    Global warming is rise in global average surface temperature (GASTA).
    Global warming is not rise in the heat content of the atmosphere, oceans and ice.

    Please explain what you fail to understand about those facts and I will try to help you.

    And I add that global ice is above its 30-year average and is increasing.

    Richard

    • It does sound like you recognize that the energy of the climate system is rising, including the deep ocean. We know there are convection currents driven by salinity differences that can bring heat to the surface (and vice versa). Do we have agreement?

  115. If the ice was melting at an increasing rate and the deep ocean was warming at a significant rate, we would have an increasing rate of sea level rise from added water and thermal expansion. Yet, the sea level and SST and sfc temps all confirm the flat trend lines for this century. So do the ARGO temps…which are warmer but barely and of very questionable statistical significance.

    With any robust review of available data, any rational mind would conclude that the warming has either ended or is tiny this century. This says nothing about the future, but the longer this goes on, the more the models bust and the harder it is to sell the idea of CAGW.

  116. katatetorihanzo:

    At June 25, 2014 at 11:50 am you write in total

    It does sound like you recognize that the energy of the climate system is rising, including the deep ocean. We know there are convection currents driven by salinity differences that can bring heat to the surface (and vice versa). Do we have agreement?

    It is not clear to whom your question is addressed and what you are asking to be agreed.

    If you are asking me if I agree the following, then yes, I do.

    (a) Global warming has stopped.
    (b) There is no evidence of any man-made global warming,
    (c) Global ice is increasing,
    (d) Heat in the oceans cannot cause significant global warming,
    and
    (e) There is no reason to suppose that global warming is a foreseeable problem prior to the next ice age.

    Richard

  117. hanzo says:

    Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling. And other similar strawman arguments. Global sea level rise is not accelerating. That deconstructs all of your assertions.

    Next, your cherry-picking is too obvious. From your ‘peer reviewed’ source: Meanwhile in Watts Up With That land climate sceptics saw fit to compare my article… That is so far from impartial that the entire source should be rejected as biased. Like the author, you yourself are far too emotionally involved to make rational judgements. Eight replies to my one comment shows that to be the case. You need to chill out, or your head is in danger of exploding.

    Next, you say:

    Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.

    The ARGO buoy array shows that OHC is falling. There is your citation.

    The same government agencies that pulled the ARGO data are the same ones that claim OHC is rising. You are credulous to accept their self-serving assertion. You may be many things, but a scientific skeptic you are not.

    The ARGO data is by far the most accurate. It does not support your belief. Also, Antarctica is a big continent. Only a small part of it — the WAIS — is warming, and that is due to volcanic activity, and changes in wind and ocean currents. If it was due to CO2, the entire continent would be warming.

    When you become a religious convert, you naturally cherry-pick only those arguments that support your belief system. That is what you are doing. However, you are disregarding the bigger picture: global warming has stopped. It has not “paused” — that can only be said in retrospect, if and when warming resumes. As of now, global warming has been stopped for close to two decades. Yet you look at that fact, and conclude just the opposite. That is crazy.

    A crazy person would post “Please send peer reviewed citations supporting Greenland ice mass variations” three times, hoping that by repeating that nonsense it means something. It doesn’t.

    As we saw in the Climategate email dump, the climate peer review system is hopelessly corrupted. People have been fired for having a slightly different opinion. Careers have been derailed. Editors have been removed for simply allowing another point of view! If you don’t see the corruption endemic to climate peer review, then you are blind.

    Climate peer review is hopelessly broken. It is not credible. Yet you accept it as fact. You are no scientist, you are a True Believer; an Algore lemming.

    On the other side of the fence are the 31,000+ scientists and engineers who co-signed the OISM statement, saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. I challenge you to find one-tenth that number of professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, who contradict that statement. Like OISM, you need to name names. You will find that the ‘consensus’ is solidly on the side of those who think that the “carbon” scare is nonsense. Really, you are part of a small clique riding the grant gravy train, and all your pseudo-science arguments amount to assertions.

    • Hello. Dbstealey. I read all of the replies carefully, but due to time constraints I can only select a few items for discussion.

      You said: “Also, Antarctica is a big continent. Only a small part of it — the WAIS — is warming, and that is due to volcanic activity, and changes in wind and ocean currents. If it was due to CO2, the entire continent would be warming.”

      The short answer is that the CO2 causes the radiative imbalance, which increases global heat energy, which warms the oceans, which melts the ice that it contacts. You’ll see melting from the ‘edges’ first. Geothermal sources barely contribute.

      Localized heat fluxes from known volcanic activity in the WAIS are measurable and are too small to explain the observed glacial melt rates.

      Here is a great example of the importance of thinking about global warming in terms of heat energy.

      For the Thwaites, one can calculate how much ice could possibly be melted from a given amount of heat.

      Geothermal fluxes from have been quoted for the rapidly melting Thwaites Glacier as 100 milliwatts per square meter with hotspots over 200 mW/m^2.

      This has been quoted in the WUPT article about the Thwaites.

      The Thwaites catchment has an area of ~189,000 km^2

      Water ice has a heat of fusion of 333.55 KJ/Kg

      In a yr, the amount of thermal energy (KJ) released by geothermal is

      200 mW = 0.2 W = 0.2 J/s
      0.2*3600*24*365 = 6307200 J/yr = 6307 KJ/yr

      Thus this flux would melt:
      (6307 KJ/yr) / 333.55 KJ/Kg = 18.9 Kg of ice per year

      In the worse case scenario that the heat flux is distributed over the entire catchment, we get:

      18.9 Kg/m^2/yr

      Thus the melt rate for the entire Thwaites catchment (189,000 Km^2) due to geothermal sources (worst case) would be:

      Converting to m^2: 189,000 Km^2 * 10^6m^2 / Km^2 = 1.89 *10^11m^2

      1.89 *10^11m^2 * 18.9 Kg/m^2/yr = 3.6 * 10 ^12 Kg/yr
      (1 Kg = 10^-12 Gt)

      =3.6 Gt / yr

      The actual melt rate for Thwaites ~70 Gt/yr, see Fig 1 in citation below

      http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~lenae101/pubs/Depoorter2013.pdf

      Thus, geothermal flux contributes at most 100* 3.6 / 70 = 5 % of Thwaites melt water.

      Need more heat…comes from oceans.

  118. milodonharlani says:

    Antarctic ice mass is increasing, both on land & sea. The little bit of West Antarctica with which you are so concerned is heated by under ice volcanic activity & the PIG is calving ice into the sea because it’s moving faster, thanks to greater ice near its sources.

    The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of about half of the fresh water on earth, stopped receding over 3000 years ago. Since then, earth has been in a long-term cooling trend….

    That fact trumps a cherry-picked fluctuation. The long term trend is clear: Antarctica is gaining ice.

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

    Mary Brown says:

    If the ice was melting at an increasing rate and the deep ocean was warming at a significant rate, we would have an increasing rate of sea level rise from added water and thermal expansion. Yet, the sea level and SST and sfc temps all confirm the flat trend lines for this century. So do the ARGO temps…which are warmer but barely and of very questionable statistical significance.

    With any robust review of available data, any rational mind would conclude that the warming has either ended or is tiny this century. This says nothing about the future, but the longer this goes on, the more the models bust and the harder it is to sell the idea of CAGW.

    Yes, and the ARGO buoys confirm that. There is only one small data set that shows warming. All the others show ocean cooling.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Richard Courtney says:

    (a) Global warming has stopped.
    (b) There is no evidence of any man-made global warming,
    (c) Global ice is increasing,
    (d) Heat in the oceans cannot cause significant global warming,
    and
    (e) There is no reason to suppose that global warming is a foreseeable problem prior to the next ice age.

    a) and b) are evidence-based facts. The rest can only be argued with empirical evidence, which I have never seen posted. Maybe hanzo can post verifiable observations supporting his belief in catastrophic AGW. I would be interested.

  119. Baart Says:
    WHat about this ?

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

    ////////////////////////

    This brings up so many issues I don’t know where to start.

    (1) If our measurement of observed temps are so faulty and the margin of error many times greater than we thought, then how can we possibly trust the climate models ? We don’t even know the starting point and we have no rational basis to retrofit.

    (2) I’ve recently been lectured that the error on deep ocean heat measurements are just .004 deg C and that ocean heat is increasing at an “unprecedented rate”. So, I’m supposed to believe that we are wildly wrong about surface temps but know the deep ocean temps to astonishing accuracy? I think not.

    (3) Amazingly, in the world of RealClimate.jnk, all the models forecast too warm and all the recent data is always adjusted upward and all the old data is adjusted downward. As a stats gal, I like my errors randomly falling around the mean. Otherwise, I get suspicious.

    (4) the Wood For Trees Index may have a weird name, but it is very robust measure of global temperatures and difficult to manipulate. It shows a slight cooling trend since 2001…more significant cooling more recently.
    Trying to claim, as this article does, that the Wood For Trees Index is completely wrong, is a serious stretch.

    About the index

    http://woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

    The temps since 2001

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2014

  120. katatetorihanzo says:

    “Need more heat…comes from oceans.”

    But I don’t see more heat. Where is it?

  121. The heat is here:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract;jsessionid=F192AF41A86919640534E3677437B5E0.f02t02

    Abstract: “Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry shows that presently, sea level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr−1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt.” 

  122. I’m unimpressed by ocean heat data. ARGO data is flat within the limits of the data. SST’s have flattened in recent years. Global ice extent has been growing in the south and recovering in the north. Sea level has been rising for centuries. I think there was an acceleration of sea level rise suggesting a 50mm human contribution in latter 20th century. But recent data has a hard time finding any acceleration.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html

    Bottom line for me… this century…the bulk of relevant data shows very little change upon a robust review of relevant data. I do think warming will resume, but for over a decade, it has been absent or very minor.

    • Please excuse the brevity of my responses.

      “I’m unimpressed by ocean heat data. ARGO data is flat within the limits of the data. SST’s have flattened in recent years”

      Take a look at deep ocean ARGO data and integrated OHC from 0-2000m. Don’t be fooled by short term La Niña dominated data.

      “Global ice extent has been growing in the south”

      But ice mass is declining according to GRACE

      “and recovering in the north.”

      No, it isn’t.

      Sea level has been rising for centuries.

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter13.pdf

      I think there was an acceleration of sea level rise suggesting a 50mm human contribution in latter 20th century. But recent data has a hard time finding any acceleration.

      “Recent data” = short-term & weather-dominated.

    • Please excuse the brevity of my responses.

      “I’m unimpressed by ocean heat data. ARGO data is flat within the limits of the data. SST’s have flattened in recent years”

      Take a look at deep ocean ARGO data and integrated OHC from 0-2000m. Don’t be fooled by short term La Niña dominated data.

      “Global ice extent has been growing in the south”

      But ice mass is declining according to GRACE

      “and recovering in the north.”

      No, it isn’t.

      Sea level has been rising for centuries.

      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter13.pdf

      I think there was an acceleration of sea level rise suggesting a 50mm human contribution in latter 20th century. But recent data has a hard time finding any acceleration.

      “Recent data” = short-term & weather-dominated.

  123. hanzo says:

    The short answer is that the CO2 causes the radiative imbalance, which increases global heat energy, which warms the oceans, which melts the ice that it contacts.

    Don’t be silly. Nothing is occurring now that has not occurred in the past, before CO2 began to rise. You need a course on Occam’s Razor and the climate Null Hypothesis. By far the simplest and most likely explanation is that polar ice is behaving exactly as it has in the past, and human activity has nothing to do with it.

    The planet has been emerging from the LIA for hundreds of years. That is the explanation for global warming, and you don’t need a magic trace gas.

    Next, you seem to want to scare yourself with melting ice scenarios. This should help:

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

    Finally, you prefer pal reviewed papers over empirical evidence — the sure sign of a pseudo-scientist. You need to listen to what the real world is telling you, and disregard self-serving papers like that. They are nothing but assertions. Reality trumps assertions. Always.

    • Dbstealey said: “Finally, you prefer pal reviewed papers over empirical evidence — a sure sign of a pseudo-scientist. You need to listen to what the real world is telling you, and disregard self-serving papers like that. They are nothing but assertions. Reality trumps assertions. Always.”

      I prefer peer reviewed citations because they provide an overview, context, they are cross referenced to other work, and they provide empirical data with explanation. For example, the short term ARGO data of sea surface temps you provided are influenced by the same short term natural variations seen in the surface air temps at a time dominated by La Niña weather ( cool ocean surface). But what’s missing is the ARGO Data from the deep ocean which shows that the deep ocean is still accumulating heat with no pause. If you integrate the total heat content from 0 to 2000m you see this:

      0.77 W/m^2 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC005237/full)

      If part of the ARGO data is cited uncritically, then it is reasonable to assume that the deep ocean ARGO data would be fair game as well. If not, I look forward to a scientific rationale why the full integration of the 0-2000m ocean column should be disregarded. This evidence makes me skeptical of the claim that global warming has stopped, especially in the absence of a reason why it should, considering that the Earth is still absorbing more solar energy than it is emitting longwave radiation into space, according to satellites.

      That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy.

  124. hanzo says:

    But what’s missing is the ARGO Data from the deep ocean which shows that the deep ocean is still accumulating heat with no pause.

    That contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. If there is heat building up in the deep ocean, it will rise, no? It MUST rise. But there is no indication that ttere is heating of the deep ocean, or that heat is rising to the surface. No evidence at all.

    The ‘explanations’ by the alarmist crowd are becoming more and more preposterous. The very simplest explanation is that global warming has stopped. And of course, it has. You cannot accept that, because if you do your entire reason for being is truncated.

    Science requires that we accept reality, whether we like it or not. The reality of ‘climate change’ is that human emissions have no measurable effect. That reality steps on a lot of toes, because there is immense money riding on whether or not human emissions matter. Empirical evidence says that CO2 emissions do not matter. That is the truth. So sorry if it affects your income.

    [PS: Please do not link to tamino. He is not credible. Thanks.]

    • Dbstealey says: “If there is heat building up in the deep ocean, it will rise, no? It MUST rise.”
      Yes, but not necessarily immediately if current mechanisms for ocean convection are a guide (THC and MOC )(http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_heat_storage_transfer.html)

      “But there is no indication that ttere is heating of the deep ocean”

      ARGO provides the direct observational evidence of heating at depths past the thermocline. The question is what is the source of the influx (from above or below)? If from above, it explains why the surface trend is diminished.

      “or that heat is rising to the surface. No evidence at all.”

      We’re rapidly losing ice mass through ocean contact during an SST hiatus and it can’t be explained through volcanic heat flux (just 100 mW/m^2). Doesn’t that peak you’re curiosity?

  125. “I look forward to a scientific rationale why the full integration of the 0-2000m ocean column should be disregarded.”

    (1) it’s not statistically significant
    (2) the data is new (~10 years) and adjusted by models
    (3) SST, sea level, sfc temps, ice extent all verify the flat trend,
    (4) storing heat deep in the oceans contradicts the laws of thermodynamics

    So, the empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics suggest the ARGO 0-2000m ocean column is of highly questionable relevance.

    • Mary says ”
      3) SST:
      short trend governed by La Niña (where does the heat go?)

      sea level,
      Rising according to Cazenave, corrected for precipitation

      sfc temps,
      Follows ocean SSTs

      ice extent
      GRACE says global ice mass declines and accelerated decline in the arctic. Antarctic extent (area) increase is wind driven. WAIS IS MELTING AND CALVING

      (4) storing heat deep in the oceans contradicts the laws of thermodynamics”

      just heat transfer from surface to deep via convection mechanisms driven by wind and salinity (density).

  126. Even Hansen agrees with the “hiatus”

    Hansen et al stated

    “The observed rate of ocean heat uptake since 2003 is less than in the preceding 10 years.”

    “the slowdown in heat uptake since 2003 seems to be robust (Levitus et al., 2009; Lyman et al., 2010).”

    • Usually the climatologists specify the ocean layer above the thermocline (0-700 m) and below it (700-2000 m) or the integrated OHC (0-2000m). By not specifying the data source, one might confuse statements attributed exclusively to the 0-700 m layer with that attributed to the 0-2000 m OHC which shows no hiatus.

    • Mary asked: “The warming of ARGO is ~ +0.02 deg C give or take. Is that in the ballpark?”

      Hmm, let me check:

      Given:

      Mass of the oceans = 1.4 E 21 Kg
      Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml

      The specific heat of water is 4.18 J/g °C = 4180 J / Kg °C
       (The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of a substance by one degree Celsius is called the specific heat capacity of the substance.)
       
      q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)

      q = amount of heat energy gained or lost by substance
      m = mass of sample
      C = heat capacity 
      Tf = final temperature
      Ti = initial temperature
      Source: http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/Energy/SpecificHeat.htm

      Estimated oceanic heat gain from 2000-2010, during which time global warming supposedly had ‘ceased’. Eyeballing it from graph: ~5E 22 J to ~15 E 22 J: gain of ~10 E 22 J
      Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content

      “The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002 °C”
      Source: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Data_FAQ.html#accurate

      Calculation: 
      q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)
      q = 1.4 E 21 Kg * 4180 J / Kg °C * 0.02 °C 

      = 11.7 E 22 J (from calc) 
      vs ~10 E 22 J (from ARGO OHC graph 0-2000 m)

      Answer: yup + 0.02 °C is in the ballpark

      By the way, due to my sedentary lifestyle, I gained 10 lbs last month. Of course I tell folks that this is an infinitesimal weight gain since it is only 0.0045 metric tons. 

      • Well, 0.02 deg C in ten years just doesn’t scare me much.

        10 lbs in a month of weight is statistically significant no matter how crappy your scale.

        But 0.02 dec C in ten years? And this includes model adjustments for adding and losing floats and their drift.

        ARGO is a great addition to our data. Although buoys have an error or 0.1 deg C, with ~3000 of them, the overall error is much less. But it’s really hard to argue that 0.02 deg in ten years is statistically significant much less worrisome. Esp when you consider the other, longer term data sets (air temp, SST, ice, etc) are flat or unimpressive.

        Bottom line…the warming quit. I expect it will resume to roughly 0.1 deg C per decade (sfc air). That’s a rate I find insignificant for humans. You guys can keep screeching through the next el Nino, but by 2020, the world will have hit the snooze button on global warming. By then, we might have another 0.01 on ARGO

      • The Argo bouys only started being deployed in 2003, and weren’t fully deployed until sometime in 2006. So half of the time frame 2000-2010 mentioned by katate has larger margins of error than now.
        Also, each Argo bouy samples an area roughly the size of 13 Lake Superiors according to Willis E. (see link below)

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/

        “The world is unimaginably huge. In the real ocean, down to a kilometer and a half of depth, that’s one Argo thermometer for each 165,000 cubic kilometers of water … I’m not sure how to give an idea of just how big that is. Let’s try it this way. Lake Superior is the largest lake in the Americas, visible even on the world map above. How accurately could you measure the average monthly temperature of the entire volume of Lake Superior with one Argo float? Sure, you can let it bob up and down, and drift around the lake, it will take three vertical profiles a month. But even then, every measurement it will only cover a tiny part of the entire lake.

        But it’s worse for Argo. Each of the Argo floats, each dot in Figure 3, is representing a volume as large as 13 Lake Superiors … with one lonely Argo thermometer …

        Or we could look at it another way. There were about 2,500 Argo floats in operation over the period covered by SLT2011. The area of the ocean is about 360 million square km. So each Argo float represents an area of about 140,000 square kilometres, which is a square about 380 km (240 mi) on each side. One Argo float for all of that. Ten days for each dive cycle, wherein the float goes down to about 1000 metres and stays there for nine days. Then it either rises from there, or it descends to about 2,000 metres, then rises to the surface at about 10 cm (4″) per second over about six hours profiling the temperature and salinity as it rises. So we get three vertical temperature profiles from 0-1,000 or 0-1,500 or 0-2,000 metres each month depending on the particular float, to cover an area of 140,000 square kilometres … I’m sorry, but three vertical temperature profiles per month to cover an area of 60,000 square miles and a mile deep doesn’t scream “thousandths of a degree temperature accuracy” to me.”

      • When I get a chance, I’ll calculate for you how much ice 10 x 10^22 Joules of heat energy can melt. If you want to give it a stab: water ice has a heat of fusion of 333.55 KJ/Kg.

      • “When I get a chance, I’ll calculate for you how much ice 10 x 10^22 Joules of heat energy can melt. If you want to give it a stab: water ice has a heat of fusion of 333.55 KJ/Kg.”

        Don’t bother. We don’t believe the heat is there. We don’t believe it’s there because the measurements from ARGO are not statistically significant and the other data we have referenced confirms that warming has been near zilch for a decade plus.

        You can calculate theoretical melting from gazillions of Joules all day but it’s all make believe with the ARGO data stuck in the noise level, SSTs flat, sea level decelerating, temps flat, etc etc.

      • Let’s talk about statistical significance. For folks who have some statistics background, the following link is an intuitive demonstration in error analysis and shows how you can detect a change in a quantity that, for each measurement, is smaller than the uncertainty in each measurement

        http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/illustrating-error-analysis/

        I think we can all agree that larger data sets reduce uncertainty. So when I see an uncertainty ± 0.1 W/m^2 and an ocean heat trend of +0.55 W/m^2 over only 5 years (2005-2010) of Argo collection timeframe, I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’. 

        “Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) also estimate the errors in global trends from the period analysed, and also future error uncertainty. For the 2005-2010 period the error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre; quite large considering the global trend over the period is 0.55 watts per square metre. However, after 15 years of observations the uncertainty drops considerably, down to ± 0.02 watts per square metre. This demonstrates how longer periods of observation, along with the complete ARGO network, are critical to derive more accurate long-term ocean trends.”

        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/11/286636/sorry-deniers-the-ocean-is-still-warming/

        Gravity via GRACE satellite results unambiguously show global ice mass declines in Arctic and Antarctica. Note i said ice MASS, not sea ice extent. I can spread a tablespoon of peanut butter pretty damn thin, maybe enough for a loaf of bread. But a tablespoon is a table spoon, no matter how many Antarctic sandwiches cited.

        Elementary physics shows that the energy needed to raise an enormous mass like the Earth’s oceans 0.02 deg C is a correspondingly enormous amount of heat energy and more than enough to explain our global ice loss.
        q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)
        q = amount of heat energy gained or lost by substance
        m = mass of sample
        C = heat capacity 
        Tf = final temperature
        Ti = initial temperature

        Math, in the context of statistical error analysis, demonstrates the power of globally positioned >3000 Argo buoys and a small data set of 5 years of continuous data to show a statistically significant positive heat energy trend. Do you not think that Schuckmann & Le Traon forgot to perform the necessary analyses?

        Even Photography is showing disappearing glaciers, calving ice the size of Manhattan. 

        This growing set of consistent data is persuasive to me.

  127. hanzo says:

    ARGO provides the direct observational evidence of heating at depths past the thermocline.

    No, it doesn’t. I gave you the ARGO data. You replied with an assertion. The data shows net cooling.

    But why bother? Your mind is colonized by confirmation bias. Your income is very likely dependent upon finding global warming. No credible scientist calls the end of global warming 17+ years ago a “hiatus”. Global warming has stopped. Only if and when it resumes can it be called a hiatus, or a pause. Right now those are wildly inappropriate, emotional terms.

    Skeptics are dealing with reality. You are not. Global warming stopped a long time ago. There is no testable, measurable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree of global temperature rise putatively due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is simply too small to measure, if it exists. I happen to think that there is some small warming effect, but it is insignificant and should be completely disregarded for all practical and Policy decisions. It is a non-issue.

    When you have no measurable evidence, your belief stops at the conjecture stage of the Scientific Method. Planet Earth is telling us very clearly that the “carbon” scare is nonsense. Look anywhere on the internet at reader comments. If they allow free opinion without censorship, you will see that the ‘consensus’ is on the side of scientific skeptics. And it is growing.

    Nobody believes the scare anymore. Only those True Believers who treat it as their new religion still Believe. And note that all alarmist predictions of the past 25 years have failed miserably: accelerating sea level rise, disappearing Arctic ice, ocean “acidification”, Manhatten being submerged, and runaway global warming itself. They were all wrong. Further, not one GCM predicted the end of global warming. They all failed that prediction.

    When 100% of one side’s predictions are flat wrong, rational folks will realize that the initial conjecture — that CO2 will cause serious global warming — was wrong. But when you’re hooked on a paycheck, and your next raise and/or promotion, and maybe even your continued employment depends on advancing the Narrative, that is what most people will do. But that is not science. That is political advocacy. You get no respect for that.

  128. I say “ARGO provides the direct observational evidence of heating at depths past the thermocline.”

    Dbstealey says “No, it doesn’t. I gave you the ARGO data. You replied with an assertion. The data shows net cooling.”

    Would you show me the ARGO data to which you refer that shows there was cooling or no temperature change below 800 m? Thank you.

  129. hanzo says:

    Would you show me the ARGO data to which you refer that shows there was cooling or no temperature change below 800 m? Thank you.

    You’re welcome: 0 – 1947.4 meters. And I believe your link shows a graph of a model, not empirical evidence.

    Now, about my other points, a response would be good.

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

    [Also, please do not link to Skeptical Science, which is a propaganda blog, not a science blog. They have censored my comments. They are unreliable see sidebar blogroll. They have deleted words in my comments without acknowledging they did so, and it changed the entire meaning — which they then attacked as a strawman. They are thoroughly unethical and dishonest. I will be happy to debate, but not on those terms. Besides, the chart in the link is a construction by a paper’s authors. It is not empirical evidence. Scientific evidence is raw data and/or verifiable real world observations. Pal-reviewed papers and computer model output is not evidence. You should know that.]

    • From my street corner, a claim of global warming cessation would at least require the following supporting evidence: 1) no radiative imbalance at TOA (CERES); 2) no positive trend in ocean heat content including the bulk of the ocean below 800 m (ARGO 2005+); 3) no negative trend in global ice mass declines (GRACE).

      With respect to ocean heat content, I’m trying to reconcile the negative trending data in your link below…

      …with the clear positive trends graphically depicted in the following links depicted officially: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

      …and conceded in a contrarian source: http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/

      Would you share your source or citation so that I may confirm accuracy, completeness and uncertainty analysis?

  130. If the wobbles in solar input, volcanic activity, etc. could override the “driver”, they are always in control, as they could do so at any time.

  131. hanzo,

    Assigning homework now? The source of the link is simple to locate. I provided exactly what you requested. I am not going to respond to endless requests. You lost the point, deal with it.

    And, “contrarian”? What does that mean? It is as vague a term as “climate change”.

    Your belief is supported by nothing more than assertions. The alarmist clique proposed the conjecture that a rise in anthropogenic CO2 will lead to runaway global warming. That has obviously failed to occur. Now all you are doing is backing and filling, and hand-waving.

    Unless you can provide testable, measurable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree warming resulting from the rise in human CO2 emissions, your conjecture fails.

    An honest scientist would admit it.

    • “The source of the link is simple to locate.” 

      The reason I asked was that your link:

      “http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png”

      provided two plots purportedly depicting “ARGO” mean ocean temperatures at “1947 m” at “northern hemisphere” latitudes “0-65N” and “50-65N” from a Czech republic domain. 

      Since I was interested in the global trend, I suspected that you inadvertently provided incomplete data. So I was hoping you could provide a source affording the missing data. 

      While I got no hits for your link using Bing & Yahoo searches, I did locate some trends using “NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png” as a search term on Google Images; but they all depicted positive trends.

      “And, “contrarian”? What does that mean?” 

      It describes a data interpretation that diverges from that of the main stream. 

      “Your belief is supported by nothing more than assertions.”

      I am influenced by the data interpretation of specialists who conclude that the climate system is increasing in heat energy as a consequence of radiative imbalance as measured by CERES. I’m satisfied that the isotopic, radiative signature evidence and the emission levels point to industrial sources of carbon dioxide as the probable culprit. I am satisfied that the magnitude of known natural forcings don’t explain the magnitude and rate of the temperature rise in this century.

      I am satisfied that there are measurable consequences of this radiative imbalance (ice melt, sea level rise, ocean acidification). I realize that there are uncertainties related to measurement of planetary heat redistribution and this may be causing some confusion (like short term pauses). 

      In the spirit of avoiding confirmational bias, I am here at this contrarian site to harvest any alternative explanations, analyses and inconsistencies and to see how they stack up against the increasing main stream evidence. I had hoped you may be motivated to share the evidence & interpretation of the evidence that persuades you that the climate has, somehow, stopped warming or that CO2 is inconsequential.

      “The alarmist clique proposed the conjecture that a rise in anthropogenic CO2 will lead to runaway global warming.”

      Economic disruption of our coastal infrastructure is likely to act as an effective negative feedback so I am not so concerned about “runaway global warming” (not like Venus). Simply put, heat causes ice to melt and expand, which cause sea level rise, which will require human adaptation at some cost. CO2 causes ocean acidification which may impact food chains, which may impact us indirectly but significantly. Disrupted planetary redistribution patterns are likely to contribute to Increased frequency of drought, floods and enhanced weather severity. 

      “That has obviously failed to occured”

      I am concerned most that the arctic ice mass declines (GRACE) are accelerating beyond model projections. This observation seems the least controversial (global mass loss, not sea ice extent); and it suggests to me that the impact of global heat redistribution mechanisms may be underestimated. 

      “Unless you can provide testable, measurable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree warming resulting from the rise in human CO2 emissions, your conjecture fails.”

      Unless one disagrees with the physics of radiative imbalance and the 1st law of thermodynamics, the increased heat exists and must be accounted for. The question is only where is it and how does it flow.
       
      The uncertainty surrounding a current oceanic trend of 0.02 deg / decade temperature increase is fair game for discussion and may resolve itself with continued measurement. But simple physics suggests that a small temperature change of a substance with a large heat capacity and large mass is equivalent to a significant amount of heat energy that is easily sufficient to melt Gt of ice. 

      q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)

      q = amount of heat energy gained or lost by substance
      m = mass of sample
      C = heat capacity 
      Tf = final temperature
      Ti = initial temperature

      That’s why understanding the mechanisms and rate of planetary heat redistribution is perhaps our most important challenge. 

      In a developing forest fire, the precise size of the match is much less important than a thorough understanding of how fire propagates through the forest.

      • The only evidence you’ve presented of any mounting heat is statistically insignificant ARGO data and Grace data which is contradicted by the satellite areal extent much more easily measured.

        The more traditional data that has been around for a longer time such as satellite temperatures surface temperatures sea surface temperatures and areal ice extent all contradict your position. So we are supposed to drop everything because of a .02° rise in Argo data

        Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming catastrophe looms. We see little or no gaining heat in the last decade and a half. It’s an interesting argument “the ocean has warmed .02° we’re all going to die”.

      • The only evidence you’ve presented of any mounting heat is statistically insignificant ARGO data and Grace data which is contradicted by the satellite areal extent much more easily measured.

        The more traditional data that has been around for a longer time such as satellite temperatures surface temperatures sea surface temperatures and areal ice extent all contradict your position. So we are supposed to drop everything because of a .02° rise in Argo data

        Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming catastrophe looms. We see little or no gaining heat in the last decade and a half. It’s an interesting argument “the ocean has warmed .02° we’re all going to die”.

      • “The only evidence you’ve presented of any mounting heat is statistically insignificant ARGO data.”

        Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) estimated the errors in global trends  For the 2005-2010 analysis period. The error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre. From this statement I infer that the error analysis was completed as is customary for peer-reviewed articles and that the heat content data is statistically significant.

        When I see an uncertainty ± 0.1 W/m^2 and an ocean heat trend of +0.55 W/m^2 over the short 2005-2010 Argo collection timeframe, I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’. 

        “Grace data which is contradicted by the satellite areal extent much more easily measured.”

        “GRACE” are two satellites that detect mass changes by measuring the pull of Earth gravity and how it changes over time. It measures ice build up and ice mass declines. It does not contradict the area extent data which is unambiguously declining for the arctic and, due to strong trade winds, is increasing in the Antarctic. Simply put, the winds are spreading the antarctic sea ice and the spaces are freezing in between (see polynyas in Wikipedia). This thin ice diasappears in the summer and so does not even constitute a trend. The mass data is unambiguous with respect to amount of ice that is declining especially in the WAIS.

        Yellow represents mountain glaciers and ice caps
        Blue represents areas losing ice mass 
        Red represents areas gaining ice mass

        I’d like to bring clarity to the distinction between “sea ice extent” and the declining ice mass trend as measured gravimetrically by GRACE satellites. Sea ice extent is a measurement of area or ‘spread’. With respect to sea-level rise, increasing the ‘spread’ with ever thinning ice is less relevant than the clear reduction in mass, both in the Arctic and in Antarctica. 

        “The more traditional data that has been around for a longer time such as satellite temperatures surface temperatures sea surface temperatures and areal ice extent all contradict your position.”

        The “traditional” data does not contradict the mainstream conclusion that greenhouse forcing is still in progress. It shows the long term positive trend in surface temperatures (sea and air) with periodic “hiatuses” that represent the short term cooling effect of natural processes of heat redistribution. 

        “So we are supposed to drop everything because of a .02° C rise in Argo data”. 

        The accelerated ice decline in the arctic is the clarion call. Where is the ocean heat coming from during this so called hiatus? We need to prepare especially in coastal regions (adaptation). We need to establish a sustainable energy infrastructure along side the current fossil fuels one (mitigation).

        When the grid green energy (solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, etc) is competitive economically we need to be able to make the transition smoothly. Different areas will require a different mix, but no one cares how we get our electricity. Leveraging this free energy has a built in ROI and the first country to do this will be least impacted by climate change.

      • I reject the idea that ARGO warming is statistcally significant. Doesnt pass the sniff test regardless of what the peer-reviewed says. Keep in mind when you refer to the “main stream” that you are swimming in a different stream than many of us are.

        I think we have beat this dead horse. Although I am a proponent of AGW, the recent flatlining of the data is remarkably un-scary. You obviously feel different and somehow think that adopting green energy will save us. We will just have to agree to disagree

      • “I reject the idea that ARGO warming is statistcally significant.”

        Statistical significance and error bars are calculated quantities derived from many measurements over years of data collection and it would be hard to imagine a peer reviewed paper without this typical analysis. The stakes are too high to rely on a “sniff” test that would be biased by our human preference for everyday interpretations of quantities. 0.02 deg seems small but is equivalent to a large heat content due to the mass and heat capacity of the oceans. 400 ppmv is equivalent to Gt of carbon dioxide and is enough to lower the pH of an ocean while supporting planetary photosynthesis. And its enough to change the radiative balance over a century. Oxygen is soluble in water up to 8 ppm, yet this is enough for all the fishes. Let’s trust the physics.

  132. hanzo says:

    Let’s trust the physics.

    No, let’s trust empirical evidence.

    And:

    Statistical significance and error bars are calculated quantities derived from…

    That is not evidence. Let me remind you:

    Measurable scientific evidence involves quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming resulting from the rise in human CO2 emissions. Peer reviewed papers are not evidence, nor are adjusted, or homogenized, or averaged ‘data’. Evidence is raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations.

    Next, hanzo says:

    The stakes are too high to rely on a “sniff” test that would be biased by our human preference for everyday interpretations…

    No, the stakes are far too high to continue spending $Billions every year on a completely unproven conjecture that has no scientific evidence or measurements to support it. The army of people living off the taxpaying public by continuing to promote the “carbon” scare should be promptly made redundant. Enough! CAGW is an evidence-free hoax. After 30+ years, there is still no empirical measurement of AGW, much less CAGW. Occam’s Razor says that it is either too minuscule to bother with, or it simply doesn’t exist. In either case, more public spending on “climate change” is a waste of money.

    hanzo says:

    The “traditional” data does not contradict the mainstream conclusion that greenhouse forcing is still in progress.

    Wrong again. The “mainstream” consists of more than 31,000 professional engineers and scientists with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], who have stated unequivacally, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. There are not nearly as many in the “mainstream” who claim the opposite. Thus, you are simply part of a minor but self-serving clique, riding on the grant and government gravy trains. Prove me wrong: name even 10,000 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences who will put in writing that CO2 causes global harm. I will save you time: there are fewer than one-tenth that number. So much for your ‘consensus’, and so much for “contrarians”. You refuse to accept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us: there is no runaway global warming, as you contrarians incessantly predicted.

    Next, hanzo says:

    I am concerned most that the arctic ice mass declines…

    Cherry-picking as usual. The discussion is over global warming. Arctic ice extent is meaningless, because the Arctic has been ice-free during the Holocene, before any human industrial emissions. Global ice is normal. So is an ice-free Arctic. It has happened before, and it will happen again — with or without humans.

    All the wild-eyed hand waving over Arctic ice is due to the plain fact that the Antarctic is gaining ice, while the Arctic is not: the polar see-saw effect. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2. If it did, then Antarctica would also be losing ice, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.

    Finally, we are not the typical uneducated lemmings here that you see commenting on alarmist blogs. We know that if it were not for the mountains of taxpayer loot being shoveled into the “carbon” scare every year, climatology would be a small, sleepy backwater in science. Only big money keeps it on the front pages. But Planet Earth is busy debunking your alarmist anti-science, and the public is finally catching on. On the bright side, unemployment insurance is now 99 weeks.

    • Let’s trust the physics.
      “No, let’s trust empirical evidence.”

      It’s not either or. Its both. The empirical evidence is interpreted in the context of Physics and there should be a consistency with that framework. For example there is an inconsistency between ceased global warming and accelerated arctic ice mass declines. The measured magnitude of geothermal sources do not explain the heat which would be required to melt that amount of ice. This is explanable through Physics. 

      “The “mainstream” consists of more than 31,000 professional engineers and scientists with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], who have stated unequivacally, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere”

      They are free to submit their analyses in peer reviewed journals. If they bring clarity to the issues folks will build on their work. Feel free to send citations from any of the 31,000. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

      The Holocene had different forcings. Now it’s CO2 from fossil fuel combustion according to carbon isotopic analysis.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Milankovitch_cycles

      “All the wild-eyed hand waving over Arctic ice is due to the plain fact that the Antarctic is gaining ice, while the Arctic is not: the polar see-saw effect. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2. If it did, then Antarctica would also be losing ice, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.”

      GRACE says Antarctic ice mass is declining due to contact with warmer ocean. Maybe it’s wrong. What is the Antarctic mass of ice gain from your data sources? Is it comparable in magnitude with arctic ice loss? Please provide mass, not area extent. And explain why GRACE is wrong. And send peer reviewed literature describing the mechanism of how the polar see-saw effect is melting arctic ice. 

      CO2 with water vapor feedback causes the radiative imbalance that reduces the cooling efficiency of the planet. The heat is absorbed in the oceans due to its heat capacity and area extent. The heat content of the warmed oceans is conveyed through natural ocean circulation mechanisms to the ice.

      • Grace is not necessarily wrong but it is a complex measurement vs a simple areal photograph data series that is 25 years running. If the ice is melting at an “unprecented ” rate and deep ocean heat is building, then why is there no accelerating in sea level?

        ARGO is not necessarily wrong but i’ve pointed out my suspicions there in great detail

        Most importantly, the older, more established data such as sst sfc temp and sea level are flatlining

        And also, you seem to clueless to the fact that the burden is on the warmists. Skeptics are not making claims…merely casting doubt on yours. We don’t need to prove anything

        As for the “sniff test”, that has served me quite well over the years. It is exactly what is missing in climate science.

        And peer review… Its broken in climate. It means little.

        BTW… What is your fix ? To counter your .02 deg rise in ARGO would cost what? A trillion or so? Whats the cost benefit analysis? Why do you even want a colder world with less CO2?

      • “Grace is not necessarily wrong but it is a complex measurement vs a simple areal photograph data series that is 25 years running.”

        If GRACE is not wrong, then global ice mass is diminishing and this contradicts cessation of global warming.

        “If the ice is melting at an “unprecented ” rate and deep ocean heat is building, then why is there no accelerating in sea level?”

        “The measured sea levels reflect a variety of processes operating at different time scales,” says co-author Dr Francisco Calafat, from the National Oceanography Centre. He adds, “One of the main difficulties in detecting sea level accelerations is the presence of decadal and multi-decadal variations.. For example, processes associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation have a strong influence on the sea levels around the UK over multi-decadal periods. Such processes introduce a large amount of ‘noise’ into the record, masking any underlying acceleration in the rate of rise. Our study shows, that by adequately understanding these processes and removing their influence, we can detect accelerations much earlier.” Source: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-sea.html

        “ARGO is not necessarily wrong but i’ve pointed out my suspicions there in great detail.” 

        I would much rather read a peer-reviewed citation showing that ARGO data are not statistically significant than to conduct subjective sniff tests. Ultimately, we need data to be statistically significant. 

        “Most importantly, the older, more established data such as sst sfc temp and sea level are flatlining”

        Natural heat redistribution process dampen SST, SAT in short (<30 year) intervals. The long term trend is unambiguous. As for sea level, Cazenave uses ARGO and GRACE to tease out confounding effect of precipitation associated with La Nina /El Niño on sea level rise. No pause seen when precipitation (mass effects) are removed. I say again, apparent pauses in short term data are governed by short term natural variation. 

        Source: scroll to time point 20:35 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hin_rt3KqSI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

         The link below illustrates the quality of the correspondence short term weather-related events and the last ~30 years of sfc temps:

        "And also, you seem to clueless to the fact that the burden is on the warmists. Skeptics are not making claims…merely casting doubt on yours. We don’t need to prove anything"

        We make progress whenever there is conflicting data that explains the observations better. I'lll leave burden-of-proof arguments to the lawyers. Show me yours and Ill show you mine. Scientists endeavor to reduce doubt through evidence, not merely create doubt for its own sake. A skeptic may discover a systemic error or a hitherto unknown natural source of CO2 that dwarfs the anthropogenic variety. Then I'd be persuaded. 

        "As for the “sniff test”, that has served me quite well over the years. It is exactly what is missing in climate science."

        All tests need to be validated. 

        "And peer review… Its broken in climate. It means little."
        The alternative is no quality control…just a lot of angry blogs. I'll keep peer review for now.

        "BTW… What is your fix ? To counter your .02 deg rise in ARGO would cost what? A trillion or so? Whats the cost benefit analysis? 

        Free energy has a nice ROI, no pollution, no wars for oil. Let's set up parallel infrastructure for sustainable energy alternatives so that they can become economically feasible, and then make an orderly transition. 

        "Why do you even want a colder world with less CO2?"

        Our responses to Katrina and Sandy revealed that we are woefully unprepared and a lot of the world's infrastructure are coastal. Science has given us an early warning. Let's minimize economic disruption where we can.

    • Dbstealey said this: 

      “All the wild-eyed hand waving over Arctic ice is due to the plain fact that the Antarctic is gaining ice, while the Arctic is not: the polar see-saw effect. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2. If it did, then Antarctica would also be losing ice, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.”

      Please reply if you find any flaw in the following data. 

      This is what happened in the Arctic during the ‘global warming pause’.

      This is what happened in Antarctica during the ‘global warming pause’.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03

      ABSTRACT: “We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. 

      We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time.

      In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. 

      In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.

      The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.”

  133. hanzo says:

    It’s not either or. Its both.

    But if the physics is not in agreement with empirical evidence, then you are either misunderstanding the physics, or you don’t know enough of the physics. The fact is that empirical evidence is contrary to your ‘physics’. You are clearly missing a lot.

    Next:

    They are free to submit their analyses in peer reviewed journals.

    Apparently you never read Climatefgate I, II and III emails. Your pal reviewers candidly stated that they would keep skeptics out of the journals, even if the meaning of peer review had to be redefined.

    Climate peer review is hopelessly corrupted. It operates on the assumption that ‘the science is settled’, then rejects anything outside of the alarmist clique’s preconceived beliefs. Those same reprobates have gotten journal editors disciplined, and fired, for daring to allow a skeptic scientist access. They have gotten university proffessors fired for expressing skepticism. They have gotten tax supported organization fellows fired for the same thing.

    I do not understand how you can be a part of that corruption. It is nothing but the appeal to authority fallacy. The only relevant Authority is Planet Earth, and the planet is busy debunking all your pal reviewed papers. Please stop referring to them, and please stop constantly posting that Grace video. Repetition does not make you right. Only agreement with the real world makes you right. That agreement is found in raw data and empirical observations.

    The 31,000+ OISM co-signers were not submitting a paper to a journal. They were informing the government, pre-Kyoto, that the runaway global warming Narrative was wrong. Subsequent events have shown them to be absolutely correct. I also note that you cannot seem to find comparable alarmist scientists and engineers who will dispute the OISM Petition. Thus, the ‘consensus’ is on the side of skeptics. In fact, you alarmists are the contrarians. Prove me wrong. Produce your counterweight petition to the OISM co-signers.

    Next:

    The Holocene had different forcings.

    That is just one more baseless assertion, which is why I insist on evidence: raw data, and empirical observations. Evidence will show what is happening. But you avoid that, because the planet is proving you to be wrong. So you fall back on your appeals to corrupt authorities. And if you read the WUWT archives, you will see that there is widespread disagreement regarding carbon isotopes.

    Human CO2 emissions have risen. They contribute ≈40% to atmospheric CO2. That being the case, it is obvious that the central conjecture — that CO2 will cause runaway global warming — is false on the face of it. Despite the rise in CO2, global warming stopped many years ago.

    Furthermore, there is no verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature. The only empirical evidence of causality between the two shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice versa. That causality is seen on all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia.

    The alarmist crowd has causality backward. They started with the wrong premise in their initial conjecture, so naturally they arrived at a wrong conclusion. CO2 simply does not have the claimed effect. That is what the planet is clearly telling us.

    So who should we believe?

    You? Or Planet Earth?

    Because you cannot both be right.

    • “But if the physics is not in agreement with empirical evidence, then you are either misunderstanding the physics, or you don’t know enough of the physics. The fact is that empirical evidence is contrary to your ‘physics’. You are clearly missing a lot.”

      Show me, Give one specific example. List inconsistencies from your POV. Focus on Physics only.

      CO2 causes radiative imbalance —> heats air but mostly oceans—> melts ice/thermal expansion—> raises sea level—>severe coastal disruption

      Source of confusion—>heat redistribution giving appearance of surface pause

    • “Furthermore, there is no verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature. The only empirical evidence of causality between the two shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice versa. That causality is seen on all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia.”

      Radiative imbalance means incoming solar flux not equal to outgoing IR flux. Planets cool radiatively via outgoing IR flux which is measurable by satellite. If outgoing IR is absorbed by GHG, then system will heat until radiative balance is again reached.

      Mechanism 1: Natural forcing (solar, Milankovitch) causes increase in ocean temp, which reduces solubility of CO2 in oceans. Oceans release CO2 and CO2 in air increases radiative imbalance with water feedback. this causes climate to heat. Heat—>CO2—>more heat

      Mechanism 2: An anomalous CO2 flux exceeds natural CO2 sinks and increases radiative imbalance and contributes to heating climate. Oceans absorb CO2. Evidence: ocean pH trend is negative (more acidic). 

      Mechanism 2 is consistent with contemporary observations: pH trend is negative.

  134. Mary Brown says:
    July 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Radionuclides in the soil around the edges of the EAIS show that this massive repository of most of the planet’s fresh water stopped receding over 3000 years ago, as all the proxy data confirm. The Holocene has been in a cooling trend since at least that time, with minor ups (eg the Roman, Medieval & Modern Warm Periods) & downs (eg. the Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages & Little Ice Age Cold Periods) along the downward trend line.

  135. katatetorihanzo says:
    July 2, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    Man-made GHG hypothesis as primary driver of warming since 1945, if any, would require that the air warmed first & faster than the surface. Instead, exactly the opposite has occurred.

    How could a “radiative imbalance” from one more GHG molecule out of 403 molecules (400 water vapor plus three CO2 in AD 1850 up to four now) in the tropics possibly cause heating of the oceans before the air? (Tropical average H2O content is 40,000 ppm, or about 30,000 globally, since the dry air over the poles is so low in water vapor content.)

    The physics is all on the skeptics’ side. If the atmosphere is like a lab, then doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm might heat the earth about one degree C. But the air is not like a lab experiment. IPCC GIGO models higher heating only by making assumptions about positive H2O feedbacks not in evidence.

  136. hanzo says:

    [In response to my pointing out that he is missing a lot in his understanding of physics]:

    Show me, Give one specific example. List inconsistencies from your POV. Focus on Physics only.

    I have already pointed out that 1) your ‘physics’ is inadequate. Whatever you’re missing, it gives you results that do not conform to the real world. And 2) As repeatedly stated, when there are glaring inconsistencies between your physics and the real world, the real world trumps your ‘physics’. That is why physics follows empirical evidence; not vice-versa.

    Next:

    CO2 causes radiative imbalance —> heats air but mostly oceans—> melts ice/thermal expansion—> raises sea level—>severe coastal disruption

    Since that has clearly not happened, it means you do not understand what is happening.

    Planet Earth is telling us that the CO2=cAGW conjecture is wrong. Again, who should we believe? You? Or the real world?

    Next, the alarmist clique’s desperate fixation on Arctic ice is due to the fact that they incessantly predicted that the ice would disappear; it would be ‘a thing of the past’. While it naturally declined, it is still present — and rising. Your point about mass vs extent/area is easily explained by the fact that mass lags area and extent: as the ice recovers, second- and third-year ice accumulates. Arctic ice recovered sharply this year. Expect mass to follow.

    Finally, you write:

    Our responses to Katrina and Sandy revealed that we are woefully unprepared and a lot of the world’s infrastructure are coastal. Science has given us an early warning. Let’s minimize economic disruption where we can.

    That is emotion speaking. It indicates a strongly held belief, not reality. Human activity had nothing to do with those natural storms. But I do agree with your statement: Let’s minimize economic disruption where we can. The first place to start is by eliminating all government spending on ‘climate studies’. That would save many $Billions. It is tax money that both history and reality shows us has been completely wasted.

    • Thank you. I’m looking for any scientific data that may refute the current framework of evidence that supports AGW. I invite anyone reading this thread to post. Thank you Mary for your concerns about statistical significance. I’ve added that in my review. Take care all.

  137. katatetorihanzo:

    Your post at July 3, 2014 at 5:16 am says in total

    Thank you. I’m looking for any scientific data that may refute the current framework of evidence that supports AGW. I invite anyone reading this thread to post. Thank you Mary for your concerns about statistical significance. I’ve added that in my review. Take care all.

    It is not possible to disprove the existence of something which does not exist.
    There is no evidence that “supports AGW”: none, zilch, nada.

    Three decades of research at a cost of more than US$5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence for AGW. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found such evidence but that was almost immediately exposed as being a result of his having selected a few data from the middle of a data set.

    Your question has equal merit with someone saying
    “I’m looking for any scientific data that may refute the current framework of evidence that supports Santa Claus”.
    It cannot be done because it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. Indeed, this is the importance of an alibi in a legal case: it is not possible to find evidence that an accused did not do something but it is possible to prove the accused was somewhere else where he could not have done it.

    Richard

  138. hanzo,

    Please see Richard Courtney’s explanation re: ‘evidence’. It appears that you still do not understand what evidence means. I won’t bother posting the definition again; I’ve posted it many times already.

    And as I’ve also said repeatedly: when there is a discrepancy between peer reviewed papers and the real world, you choose to accept the papers over empirical evidence — while skeptics think that empirical evidence trumps your peer reviewed papers. Any honest scientist would accept the real world over opinion.

    Next, your chart of the Arctic vs your peer reviewed assertion is incongrous. You need to use charts of empirical data for both poles, such as this and this.

    Those two charts answer your request for: scientific data that may refute… AGW. Note that the Antarctic has 10x the volume of ice that the Arctic has, and that the gain in Antarctic ice is more than double the Arctic’s loss. Global ice is increasing. Also as previously noted: the amount of global ice means nothing, because CO2 has nothing to do with it. If it did, then it would affect the Antarctic the same way. The Warmist crowd only makes ice an issue because for a short time, Arctic ice was in decline, and they thought it was because of CO2-induced runaway global warming. This year, however, the ice has recovered substantially. Polar ice has also declined in the past, before human industrial activity. Thus, the current cyclical fluctuation is natural. Just ask Bill Ockham.

    No evidence supports AGW. None at all. [As I have said many times: I personally think that AGW exists to some small degree. But that is not based on evidence, because there is no such evidence.] Any putative global warming due to human CO2 emissions is too small to measure.

    I have repeatedly asked you, and many others, to post verifiable measurements quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming due specifically to AGW. But neither you, nor anyone else has ever responded with such measurements. That is because there are no such measurements.

    If you were honest you would admit that AGW is no more than a conjecture. It is not an hypothesis, or a theory. If it were, then it would be able to make repeated, consistent, and accurate predictions. But as we know, the AGW conjecture has totally failed at predicting. The AGW conjecture certainly failed to predict that global warming would stop for the past decade and a half.

    Being able to make accurate predictions does not by itself make a theory or hypothesis correct. The Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres explaining the movement of planets repeatedly and consistently made accurate predictions. But as we know now, that theory was falsified by Kepler.

    AGW has not been able to predict anything accurately. Yet, you still believe. Why?

    • Are you refuting accelerated ice mass loss in the Arctic and Antarctic? If yes, provide evidence. If no, provide explanation how this could occur in absence of global warming.

  139. katatetorihanzo says:
    July 3, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Are you refuting accelerated ice mass loss in the Arctic and Antarctic? If yes, provide evidence. If no, provide explanation how this could occur in absence of global warming.

    ???

    1. There has been no measured global temperature increase for 17 years – 10 months. Therefore, YES, this ominous steady seven year increase of Antarctic sea ice extents since 2007 is very definitely NOT due to “global warming”. It IS occurring in the absence of “global warming” since it HAS occurred, and regional “global warming” (the Antarctic area is cooling) has NOT occurred.

    The Antarctic region has been steadily cooling since the satellite era began, and that colder region temperature is sufficient to explain increased ice mass. Increased ice area at all times of the year over a 7 year period.

    2. The supposed Antarctic ice loss is conjecture based on assumptions about (1) Antarctic continental ice levels and (2) Antarctic continental rock level movements that are needed by the GRACE satellite approximations. Such assumptions have NOT been verified by in-place measurements over a wide area. For example, only two drill holes have been made to bedrock in Greenland: Those two drill sites were made in the shallow ice in the mountains on both sides of the ice field itself. It is equivalent to deciding on the rate of increase in the depth of the Mississippi River based on two measurements of mountain height in the Appalachians and in Denver.

    Therefore, there is no “science” to refute: I do not know the relative ice loss (or gain!) in the Antarctic, and that ice loss (or gain) has NOTHING to do with sea ice expansion 500 – 800 kilometers away from the continental edge. And 2000 kilometers from the continental center.

    There is no established physical link between reducing sea ice extent in the arctic and increased sea ice extent in the Antarctic. Other than that, in both regions, current trends increase heat loss from the planet. In the Antarctic, all year round. In the Arctic, increased ice loss from today’s extents after late and mid-August leads to increased heat loss through 24 hours of increased evaporation, convection, conduction, and radiation losses that are NOT made up by the slight increase in IR gained into the ocean waters during the midday.

  140. katatetorihanzo says:
    June 27, 2014 at 8:39 am

    We’re rapidly losing ice mass through ocean contact during an SST hiatus and it can’t be explained through volcanic heat flux (just 100 mW/m^2). Doesn’t that peak you’re curiosity?

    Not true. The continental rock isolates very effectively the 14 Mkm^2 continental ice mass from the supposed warming ocean – which has NOT ever been measured under the 500 km wide sea ice. The 3.5 Mkm^2 shelf ice (not a part of the sea ice) has not been changing the past 3 years as sea ice expands. Any assumed ice mass melting does not affect today’s very wide 13 Mkm^2 areas of the sea ice 500 – 1000 kilometers away from the edge of the continental rock and ice.

  141. RACookPE1978 says:

    …Therefore, there is no “science” to refute…

    That is exactly right. Hanzo is trying to paint skeptics into a no-win corner, in which they are expected to try to prove a negative. That is not science; that is desperation.

    The CO2=cAGW conjecture was put forth by the alarmist crowd. They own that conjecture. Now that it has decisively failed, they want to place skeptics in the position of having to prove something. But science doesn’t work that way:

    Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. As to the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming recent spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.

    Hanzo has failed to demonstrate that his CO2=cAGW conjecture [or even the CO2=AGW conjecture] can make consistent, accurate predictions — a necessary element in supporting any hypothesis or theory. So like Kevin Trenberth, he now wants to put the onus of negative proof on scientific skeptics.

    An honest scientist would admit that his conjecture has failed, then try to find out why. If hanzo did that, skeptics would sincerely try to help him find out why rising CO2 does not cause any measurable AGW. But there are very few honest scientists in the alarmist clique. Hanzo is only looking for cherry picked items that support his confirmation bias. We can’t help him there.

    • …Therefore, there is no “science” to refute…

      The statement : Global warming is not happening due to a 17 year period of steady surface air and surface ocean temperatures during 1998 to 2013.

      Is inconsistent with…

      “In Greenland, the ice mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. 

      In Antarctica the ice mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”

      “That is exactly right. Hanzo is trying to paint skeptics into a no-win corner, in which they are expected to try to prove a negative. That is not science; that is desperation.”

      “A Kid takes the chocolate cookie from the cookie jar and eats it periodically.” says the AGW theorist. The AGW theorist presents supporting evidence: 

      1) Cookie residue on fingers and mouth
      2) Fingerprints on the cookie jar matching the Kid’s
      3) traces of chocolate metabolizes in kid’s blood
      4) Gravimetric measurements of the cookie jar shows a negative trend.

      And evidence of rejection of the following null hypotheses:

      1) there are other (non-jar) sources for cookie residue.
      2) kid had contact with the jar, but did not take the cookie.
      3) there are other (non-cookie) sources for chocolate metabolites.
      4) There are natural sources for cookie jar weight variation.

      An AGW skeptic might question the robustness of the supporting evidence and evidence of null hypothesis rejection: comparing evidence and looking for inconsistencies. For example: 

      Discourse with an AGW skeptic:

      1) “Supporting evidence #4 is weak because water loss may explain the negative trend more than the Kid’s cookie removal”

      2) Why do you think so? “Because peer reviewed study says water loss is negligible” or “a water loss study has not been conducted, therefore there is uncertainty” etc

      Discourse with an AGW denialist:  

      1) “The Kid is not taking the chocolate cookie from the cookie jar and he is not eating it.” 

      2) Why do you think so? Because “Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.” 

  142. Friends:

    Please stop feeding the troll.
    There is no possibility of rational discourse halting the troll’s presentation of illogical twaddle.

    Onlookers can see for themselves that the troll is only providing illogical twaddle so let it stand.

    Richard

  143. Richard Courtney,

    You are right, only a troll would argue incessantly over the fact that the real world debunks the “carbon” scare. As I keep asking, who should we believe? The always-wrong alarmist? Or Planet Earth, which flatly contradicts him?

    I don’t comment to convince someone with a mind that is closed tighter than a submarine hatch. Hanzo is as fanatic as any Jehovah’s Witness. Glacier ice a mile thick could once again cover Chicago, and hanzo would still be peddling his pseudo-scientific nonsense. He is riding the government/grant gravy train, obviously posting on blogs during working hours, and he will never admit what is apparent to everyone else here: global warming stopped many years ago.

    Rather, I comment to show any new readers that we are dealing with taxpayer-funded anti-science propagandists who ignore the Scientific Method, and the climate Null Hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor, and common sense. Readers can decide for themselves if every legitimate temperature record shows that global warming has been stopped for many years now, or if the deluded hanzo is right, when he tries to claim, contrary to all empirical evidence, that global warming is continuing.

    • Dbstealey says that Hanzo is “a troll”, “always-wrong alarmist”, “fanatic”, “anti-science propagandist”, “deluded”

      Dbstealey may be correct in his characterization of Hanzo. 

      But the key question before us is: how could there be a pause in global warming if global ice mass loss has accelerated? Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.U7dclmt5mSM

      “In a landmark study published… in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years.” 

  144. hanzo says:

    …the key question before us is: how could there be a pause in global warming if global ice mass loss has accelerated? Can anyone explain this discrepancy?

    Planet Earth can explain. hanzo just refuses to listen.

Comments are closed.