Tisdale: An Unsent Memo to James Hansen

This may be the only entry ever made by Bob Tisdale that doesn’t contain a graph. I thank him for the unsolicited notice he gives to WUWT – Anthony

Date: May 11, 2012

Subject: New York Times Op-Ed Titled “Game Over for the Climate”

From: Bob Tisdale

To: James Hansen – NASA GISS

Dear James:

I just finished reading your opinion that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. I enjoyed the title “Game Over for the Climate” so much that I’m considering changing the title of my book to something similar, like “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare.” Yes. That’s got a nice ring to it. Thanks for the idea. I’ll have so see how difficult it would be to change the title of the Kindle edition. Yet, while I enjoyed the title, the content of your opinion shows that you’re still hoping to appeal to those who are gullible enough to believe your claim that carbon dioxide is responsible for the recent bout of global warming. I hope you understand that many, many persons have weighed your opinions and found them wanting.

The internet has become the primary medium for discussions of anthropogenic global warming, as I’m sure you’re aware. You have your own blog. Your associate at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Gavin Schmidt is one of the founders of the once-formidable blog RealClimate. What you may not be aware of is that one of the other contributors to RealClimate Rasmus Benestad in a recent post expressed his feelings that all of their work there might have been for naught [my boldface].

However, if the notion that information makes little impact is correct, one may wonder what the point would be in having a debate about climate change, and why certain organisations would put so much efforts into denial, as described in books such as Heat is on, Climate Cover-up, Republican war on science, Merchants of doubt, and The Hockeystick and Climate Wars. Why then, would there be such things as ‘the Heartland Institute’, ‘NIPCC’, climateaudit, WUWT, climatedepot, and FoS, if they had no effect? And indeed, the IPCC reports and the reports from the National Academy of Sciences? One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.

I can understand Rasmus Benestad’s doubts when a website skeptical of manmade global warming,  WattsUpWithThat, has gained visitors since 2008 while RealClimate is floundering. The web information company Alexa shows that WattUpWithThat’s daily reach began to surpass RealClimate’s in May 2008. And for the last 6 months, Alexa could no longer rank RealClimatebecause its percentage dropped too low. On the other hand, the daily reach of WattsUpWthThat increased greatly and WattsUpWthThat has become the world’s most-viewed website on global warming and climate change.

Over the past 30 years or longer, James, you’ve created a global surface temperature record called the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index.   It shows global surface temperatures have warmed since 1880. While there are some problems with that dataset we need to discuss, it is something you can be proud of. But in those 3 decades, you’ve also developed and programmed climate models with the sole intent of showing that manmade greenhouse gases were responsible for that warming. Those models are included, along with dozens of others, in the archives used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their reports. Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has to conclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models.

I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures. Other researchers and I understand two simple and basic facts, which have been presented numerous times on blogs such as WattsUpWithThat. Keep in mind WattUpWithThat reaches a massive audience daily, so anyone who’s interested in global warming and climate change and who takes the time to read those posts also understands those two simple facts.

Fact one: the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it.

The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4th Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the early warming period (1917-1944). The IPCC acknowledges the existence of those two separate warming periods. The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-based warming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same.

If the supposition you peddle was sound, James, manmade carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases should have warmed the surface of our planet at a much faster rate in recent decades, but they have not. In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years. It’s a topic that surfaces often, so often that it’s joked about around the blogosphere.

Some independent researchers have taken the time to present how poorly climate models simulate the rates at which global surface temperatures have warmed and cooled since the start of the 20th Century. We do this so that people without technical backgrounds can better understand that very fundament flaw with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I resurrected it again in a two-part post back in December 2011 (see here and here), both of which were cross posted at WattsUpWithThat. I’ve published numerous posts about this since December using different datasets: sea surface temperature, land surface temperature and the combination of the two. I’ve published so many posts that show how poorly the IPCC’s climate models simulate past surface temperatures that it’s not practical to link them all. The posts also include the new and improved climate models that were prepared for the IPCC’s upcoming 5thAssessment Report.  Sorry to say, they show no improvement.

Fact two: natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases.

In your opinion piece, you mentioned the predictions you made in the journal Science back in 1981. Coincidentally, that’s the year when satellites began to measure the surface temperatures of the global oceans. Those satellites provide much better coverage for the measurement of global sea surface temperatures, from pole to pole. You use a satellite-based dataset as one of the sea surface temperature sources for your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. That NOAA sea surface temperature dataset is known as Reynolds OI.v2. It is the same dataset I have used to illustrate that natural processes, not greenhouse gases, are responsible for surface temperature warming of the global oceans since 1981. Since land surface temperatures are simply along for the ride, mimicking and exaggerating the changes in sea surface temperatures, the hypothesis you promote has a significant problem. Climate models are once again contradicted by observation-based data.

I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record. Those misrepresentations ensure misleading results in some climate science papers.

ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.” In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. And I know of no scientific studies that show any one climate model is capable of correctly simulating all of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO.

If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.

Climate scientists have to stop treating ENSO as noise, James. The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.

Note 1: El Niño events (the discharge mode) are not always followed by La Niña events (the recharge mode). Both El Niño and La Niña events can appear in a series of similar phase events like the El Niño events of 2002/03, 2004/05 and 2006/07 and the La Niña events of 2010/11 and 2011/12. El Niño and La Niña events can also last for more than one year, spanning multiple ENSO seasons, like the 1986/87/88 El Niño and the 1998/99/00/01 La Niña. When a strong El Niño is followed by a La Niña like the El Niño events of 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 it is very obvious that two portions of ENSO are acting together and redistributing warm water that’s left over from the El Niño. The results of the combined effects are actually difficult to miss in the sea surface temperature records.

The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years, as noted earlier. It illustrates the effects of La Niña events are not the opposite of El Niño events. In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans. And since the Eastern Pacific Ocean has not warmed in 30 years, those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades.

I have been presenting and illustrating those ENSO-caused upward shifts for more than 3 years. I have plotted the data, discussed and animated the process of ENSO using numerous datasets: sea surface temperature, sea level, ocean currents, ocean heat content, depth-averaged temperature, warm water volume, sea level pressure, cloud amount, precipitation, the strength and direction of the trade winds, etc. And since cloud amount for the tropical Pacific impacts downward shortwave radiation (visible light) there, I’ve presented and discussed that relationship as well. The data associated with those variables all confirm how the processes of ENSO work for my readers. They also show and discuss how those upward shifts are caused by processes of ENSO. I’ve written so many posts on ENSO that it is impractical for me to link them here. A very good overview is provided in this post, or you may prefer to read the additional comments on the cross post at WattsUpWithThat.

James, you are more than welcome to use the search function at my website to research the process of ENSO. With all modesty, I have to say there’s a wealth of information there. I’ve assembled that same information in my book If the IPCC was Selling Manmade Global Warming as a Product, Would the FTC Stop their deceptive Ads? You might prefer the book since then you’d have a single source of more detailed discussions on the topics presented in this memo. It also illustrates and discusses how the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to reproduce the global surface temperature record since 1901. Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause. An overview of my book is provided in the above-linked post. Amazon also provides a Kindle preview that runs from the introduction through a good portion of Section 2. That’s about the first 15% of the book. Refer also to the introduction, table of contents, and closing in pdf form here. My book is written for those without technical backgrounds so someone like you with a deep understanding of climate science will easily be able to grasp what’s presented.

In closing, I was sort of surprised to see your May 10, 2012 opinion in the New York Times. I had discussed in the second part of my August 21, 2011 memo to you and Makiko Sato that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the recent 30-year rise in global sea surface temperatures. You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.

Sincerely,

Bob Tisdale

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David

Very nice letter, too bad Dr Hansen will not read it.

stricq

There are more people than you know. My browsing has been invisible to Alexa for years.

Bill H

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAA…………………….
claps widely for Bob…
That has got to sting, even though it was done with grace and control…. Excellent Post Bob!

robert barclay

Check out the fact that you can’t heat water from above. Thats the key to killing this monster. Emissions are irrelevant because you can heat them as much as you like, the heat will not pass through the SURFACE TENSION. Water ignores the second law of thermodynamics. Thats the killer. Try heating water with a scource of heat, its not as straight forward as you think.

Bill H

David says:
May 12, 2012 at 8:44 am
Very nice letter, too bad Dr Hansen will not read it.
——————————————————————————————-
I will bet he receives MULTIPLE COPIES… just saying…

John Peter

Well, why does Bob Tisdale not send the memo to Dr James Hansen. Surely it should be possible to get a hold of his e-mail address. He could also try and get Gavin Schmidt to pass it on. What’s the point of writing it if no attempt is made to pass it on? Bob Tisdale could also try and get an abbreviated version published in The New York Times.

Luther Wu

Hey Bob,
You’re wasting your time trying to talk sense with Jim.
Regards,
Luther

Bernal

Mr. Hansen, it’s OK if your views…..evolve.

Bill H

robert barclay says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:01 am
Have you ever sen sea roll?
Its a condition where the surface tensions are changed. Salinity and sub flows in the oceans are the primary cause.. Some are caused by the expansion of gases as the water warms at lower levels, causing a rolling flow. we know that certain forms of radiation penetrate the surface of the ocean and just how are those 30 meter depths warmed? those types of radiation are commonly greater in times of low solar output.
there are lots of ways to warm the ocean. and direct sunlight does warm it.. just take temps of the ocean floor in Caribbean sands of a clear ocean.. or green matter in the first 3-9 feet of other areas… tenths of a degree matter.. especially in a pool of that size..

dp

Robert Barclay said:

Try heating water with a scource of heat, its not as straight forward as you think.

I think the science on this is not settled.
http://www.flasolar.com/heat_loss.htm

pokerguy

Bob,
Don’t tell us, tell them. Well ok, tell us as we’re interested, but we’re not the ones who ned to be educated. Have you sent a letter of protest to the NYT’s? I hope so. They likely won’t publish it, but you never know until you try.

Send this to the NYT op-ed Dept. or better chances with WSJ or NY Post.

Jack

Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?

go_home

Bob,
Doesn’t your response, even though unsent, liken to a death threat to all AGW scientists on the public dole?

John Peter says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
Well, why does Bob Tisdale not send the memo to Dr James Hansen. Surely it should be possible to get a hold of his e-mail address.

Don’t fret, John. I guarantee you, Jimbo will see it…

P. Solar

“….You must not have read that memo. Hopefully, you’ll read this one.”
Well since it is an “unsent” memo I guess he won’t !

John F. Hultquist

Well written, good information. Still, I agree with the notion that “hope” is not a plan. I do suspect that should James H. read this letter he will not accept most of it nor will he follow the links and connect the dots. He’s a busy activist – bless his heart.
Perhaps a plan can be fashioned by those of us that agree with you (you have educated us about the topic) by sending a note to our local representative (so called here in the USA). That’s 435 folks but as their e-mails are likely intercepted first by an aide (or maybe more than one), and we might assume they will send it to a few others, the number might grow exponentially. I also will send it to some non-politicians and ask them to send it on. So that’s my plan. Embrace the plan.
——————-
Another plan is to use the phrase “connect the dots” in numerous and unrelated (to climate) places. I’ve read that is the new phrase replacing “the science is settled” and “97% of all climate scientists agree” — these cute sayings are conjured from thin air and can be obscured easily with a little stirring. So – embrace the plan and connect the dots.

theduke

Scientifically and philosophically speaking, that’s a helluva takedown, Bob.

Steve from Rockwood

Nice work Bob Tisdale.

David, UK

John Peter says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
What’s the point of writing it if no attempt is made to pass it on?

John – it is now on the most popular science blog on the internet. How much more exposure do you think it needs to be considered “passed on?”

robmcn

Preacher Hansen will not heed your advice. Globaloney Warming is upon us and he has to protect non existent generations from sins of the living today.
It would be great if Schmidt & Hansen spread their wings and protested further afield at China’s coal mines in Inner Mongolia or the huge coal mines coming online in Xinjiang Uygur, considered the largest in Asia. Maybe he could save their grandchildrens children from climate armageddon.

Vincent

I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect?
Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?
BTW, I count myself as sceptical of AGW, but this is not an argument until you find a driver.

albertalad

What are the number of estimated under water volcanoes and what are their effects on oceans and atmosphere?

Bill H

pokerguy says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:21 am
Bob,
Don’t tell us, tell them. Well ok, tell us as we’re interested, but we’re not the ones who ned to be educated. Have you sent a letter of protest to the NYT’s? I hope so. They likely won’t publish it, but you never know until you try.
———————————————————————————-
WUWT has better circulation and reader ship world wide…

surfskiwxman

Word from Old School Mets at MIT the same time as Student Hansen, is that he is very good at programming model output to match his beliefs.

Jack says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?

Not personally, but — “Suspects: The identity of who perpetuated the hoax is unknown but there are several suspects: Charles Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward, the initial finders of the first two skull fragments; Lewis Abbot, owner of the Hastings jewelry shop; Hargreaves the laborer, who did most of the digging at the site; Martin Hinton, curator of the British Museum at the time of the fraud; and recently Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.”
http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/piltdown.html

John Game

Bob, What causes the change in frequency of El Nino/La Nina events in different time periods? Do we have any information about that?

jimash1

Very fine article.
Who is it that could fire Hansen ?
Why is this not on their desk ?
How does this man persist in his mendacious untruthfullness year after year ?
When was the last time he did anything of value ?

ferdberple

Bill H says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:16 am
there are lots of ways to warm the ocean. and direct sunlight does warm it
=========
There may not be as many ways as you think. For example, take plastic jug of water and place it in the shade in the desert. It will warm to match the air temperature. Now pour the same water into a canvas bag and place it in the shade. It will cool to less than air temperature. If the wind is blowing, it will cool even further.
What is largely ignored when people talk about warming and mixing in the oceans is that wave action is driven by the wind, and the wind does not warm the ocean. Quite the opposite.

richardscourtney

Vincent:
At May 12, 2012 at 9:57 am you say;
“I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect?
Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?”
I do not know if ENSO explains the recent global temperature rise but – if you accept Tisdale’s argument – then it is a ‘driver’ of global temperature. Please read the section of his ‘open letter’ that says;
“The process of ENSO serves as a source of naturally created and stored thermal energy that is discharged, redistributed and recharged periodically. Because these three functions (discharge, redistribution and recharge) all fluctuate (see Note 1), impacts of ENSO on global climate vary on annual, multiyear and multidecadal timescales. Common sense dictates that global surface temperatures will warm over multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events, causing more heat than normal to be released from the tropical Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere and to be redistributed within the oceans. And the opposite will occur, global surface will cool, when La Niña events dominate ENSO over a multidecadal period. It is no coincidence that that is precisely what has happened since 1917.”
Clearly, Tisdale is saying that ENSO is the mechanism which is responsible for warming and cooling periods because the “the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events” vary such that sometimes “El Niño events outweigh those of La Niña events” and at other time periods the opposite occurs.
There may be a “driver” for these variations, but no such “driver” is needed because pure chance would tend to provide some variation. However, if Tisdale’s argument is right then it does explain why slight solar changes seem to result in relatively large changes in global temperature (as Veizer observes): the slight changes in energy input could be expected to alter the rates of “discharge and recharge”.
Richard

Stephen Wilde

Nice work.
Can we now try to explain why there have been at least two (probably more) successive periods since the LIA when upward slopes were much the same resulting in overall warming of the troposphere ?
Unless we can go back further it is still open to AGW proponents to argue that the human influence goes back to at least the start of the industrial revolution, even though the IPCC has already said that the warming period of the early 20th century was most likely solar induced because the human contribution didn’t take off sufficiently until after WW2.
It is likely, also, that similar successive downward slopes occurred from MWP to LIA and I’m sure that the cause was solar variability changing global cloudiness and albedo to alter energy input to the oceans and skew the balance between El Nino and La Nina.

Ed Reid

“I’m one of the independent researchers who study the instrument-based surface temperature record and the output data of the climate models used by the IPCC to simulate those temperatures.”
The outputs of climate models are not DATA. They might be estimates, or projections, or prognostications, or perhaps even prestidigitations or hallucinations, but they are not data.

As I see it, one of the main problems of trying to replicate the heating of water in a lab. (or any form of test equipment) is that it has to be contained in a vessel of some sort and therefore heating of the walls of the vessel would be passed through to the water… which doesn’t happen in the oceans.

rw

AGW or no AGW, I just wish it would warm up over here where I am in the British Isles. (It’s now the middle of May, for Christ’s sake!)
Incidentally, we experienced something similar last year – through August, no less. (And it is noticeably cooler now than it was several years ago.)

But on the subject of Bob’s memo, it IS a brilliant take-down. Well done Bob (and Anthony, but that goes without saying!). One wonders how much longer this whole hoax has left to run before the backlash gains so much momentum it becomes swamped.

Matthew R Marler

off topic, another note on one of my favorite subjects: developing salt-tolerant varieties.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/japan-uses-nuclear-accelerator-to.html
rice, mangrove trees, soy beans, asparagus, tomatoes, miscanthus. Green horizons everywhere? Roses to make the desert blossom?

Otter

I did a google search shortly after this post was made (there were 9 comments). ‘an unsent memo to james hansen’ produced 880 results. It has since jumped to 940. Guessing by tonight Eastern time, it will show some thousands, if not tens of thousands.
(Bing, btw, shows a LOT more (over 400,000)- but seems to be picking up other things along with)

ferdberple

surfskiwxman says:
May 12, 2012 at 10:03 am
Word from Old School Mets at MIT the same time as Student Hansen, is that he is very good at programming model output to match his beliefs.
=============
At one time we believed that linear programming models could predict the future, after all they were very useful at predicting optimum yields in many industrial applications. Great investments were made in model building, and we were all convinced that we would make out large on the stock market.
We programmed all the economic indicators into the models. All the economic forcings and feedbacks and low and behold, the models performed spectacularly. They matched the past performance of the market. When we checked their predictions against our human “expert” predictions for the market, the models did a very good job of matching what the “experts” said was going to happen in the market in the future. Except the experts were wrong.
Climate science is walking down the same dead end that economics went down 40 years ago. Computer models don’t predict the future. Computers are very good at predicting what the experts will predict. Which is why the experts like them. It makes the experts appear to be right. It allows them to charge higher prices for their predictions. In that respect, computer models are very high priced “yes men”.

Matthew R Marler

Bob Tisdale, that is a good letter. Send it to NYT and see whether they publish it.
Just a modest suggestion.

Nerd

Vince Causey

Hansen is as mad as the “cat lady” in the Simpson’s cartoon, jibbering nonsense. That’s all that needs be said. Measured words such as Bob has taken the time to write, are a complete waste of time.

Thanks for all your hard work, Bob.

Fredrick Lightfoot

I will let you all into a secret,
Dr. J. Hansen suffers from ignomania, this means that he can write, but not read, talk, but not listen, and from this arrives the word ignorant.

EthicallyCivil

John Peter says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:03 am
What’s the point of writing it if no attempt is made to pass it on? Bob Tisdale could also try and get an abbreviated version published in The New York Times.

Or… he could publish in an award winning high volume climate web forum… but where to find one 🙂

John from CA

Bob, you’re being to kind in your opinion of Hansen’s recent statements. “Game Over for the Manmade Global Warming Scare” is an understatement. Let the criminal charges commence.
Found this on HuffPost this morning. It shows Hansen’s statement, “Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history”, to be incorrect.
Canada’s Tar Sands Battle With Europe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/canada-tar-sands-battle-europe_n_1505658.html?ref=green
BRUSSELS/OTTAWA, May 10 (Reuters) – There’s a science to using science.
On May 9, the government of Alberta released a study into the extra carbon emitted by crude produced using oil sands instead of more conventional sources. The study, by a unit of California-based Jacobs Engineering Group, found that emissions from oil-sand crude are just 12 percent higher than from regular crude.

Gunga Din

Jack says:
May 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
Does anyone remember the person who created the Piltdown man hoax?
====================================================================
I can’t answer that but I think we all know who created the Meltdown Mann hoax.

@ Gunga Din. 11.50 am. It’s 2030 where I am. Red wine does not make a suitable medium for the cleaning of keyboards.

Latimer Alder

@robert barclay
‘Emissions are irrelevant because you can heat them as much as you like, the heat will not pass through the SURFACE TENSION’
Umm…why then does it get darker as you dive down through the ocean? At the top near the sea level it is quite light…but go down a few tens of feet and it is noticeably darker. If radiation cannot pass through surface tension, then would it not be inkyblack immediately you go underwater? Seems to me that some at last passes through and is then progressively absorbed as you get deeper. Absorbtion of radiation usually ends up as heat…which sort of explains why surface seawater can be warm even in the deep deep ocean.

Vincent

Richard says
“I do not know if ENSO explains the recent global temperature rise but – if you accept Tisdale’s argument – then it is a ‘driver’ of global temperature. Please read the section of his ‘open letter’ that says;…”
Richard I get Bob’s point. My question is really what came first – chicken or egg.
Is ENSO a symptom of additional heat input (from the sun) or the cause of temperature rise? I’m inclined to think that ENSO is a response mechanism to redistribute energy, and not a source of energy in it’s self.
Somehow the concept of conservation of energy tells me that the earth’s temperature is a pure and simple function of the source of energy (the sun) – so ENSO is a response, not a cause.

Vincent says: I’ve got one problem with ascribing temperature to ENSO – is it the cause or the effect? Does ENSO drive the temperature or does the temperature drive ENSO?”
Global surface temperatures respond to ENSO. There’s a 3- to 6-month lag between an El Nino event and the response of global surface temperatures to the event. Also, in looking at the sea surface temperature of the eastern equatorial Pacific, in an area called the NINO3.4 region (an ENSO index), there has been no warming there since 1900 based on the linear trend:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ed4oc5.jpg
Warm water created by an increase in downward shortwave radiation (visible sunlight) during an earlier or the preceding La Nina event (La Nina -> higher trade winds -> less cloud cover -> more downward shortwave radiation to warm the tropical Pacific) is collected in the West Pacific Warm Pool and released by an El Nino.