A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – Peter Gleick Edition

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

I recently came across a January 21st, 2012 Peter Gleick article 2011 Climate Change in Pictures and Data: Just the Facts, which appears to mimic the format and approach of my January 1st, 2012 article A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature”.

What I find particularly amusing about Peter’s article is that a week after noting that, “Lost in this verbal debate are often the simple facts and data of climate change and the immense and definitive global observations of the ways in which our climate is actually changing around us.” Peter Gleick was perpetrating Fakegate. Why, if the “simple facts and data” support his viewpoint, would Peter resort to subterfuge and fakery?

If you read through Gleick’s article, you’ll see some of his “immense and definitive global observations”, like “anyone watching or reading the news or looking out the window probably had a sense that 2011 was a weird year with one bad, extreme weather disaster after another”…

Anyway, in honor Peter’s reinstatement as President of the Pacific Institute I figured that an update on the “simple facts and data” was in order.

Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.

Global Surface Temperatures:

Generally, when referring to Earth’s “climate” warming, proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative, refer to Earth’s Surface Temperature, e.g. “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory

As such, here’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present;

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) Annual Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Over Land & Sea – 1880 to Present;

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) – Click the pic to view at source

Note: The chart above hasn’t been updated with 2011 data for unknown reasons. The chart resides here and the data to update it is here.

It appears that a significant decline in temperatures occurred during the last 17 months:

2010 1 0.6335

2010 2 0.6708

2010 3 0.7815

2010 4 0.7518

2010 5 0.7064

2010 6 0.6764

2010 7 0.6581

2010 8 0.5783

2010 9 0.4975

2010 10 0.5655

2010 11 0.7182

2010 12 0.4226

2011 1 0.3962

2011 2 0.4200

2011 3 0.5226

2011 4 0.5894

2011 5 0.5093

2011 6 0.5882

2011 7 0.5687

2011 8 0.5401

2011 9 0.5264

2011 10 0.5739

2011 11 0.4347

2011 12 0.4800

2012 1 0.3630

2012 2 0.3678

2012 3 0.4477

2012 4 0.6514

(Source: NOAA NCDC)

UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to Present;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature – 1850 to Present

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Depending on the time frame, it certainly seems that Earth’s Surface Temperature has increased, but it does not appear to be warming rapidly and there is no indication of acceleration. Furthermore, the surface temperature record is burdened with issues of questionable siting, changes in siting, changes in equipment, changes in the number of measurement locations, modeling to fill in gaps in measurement locations, corrections to account for missing, erroneous or biased measurements, and the urban heat island effect. Thus to see the big picture on the temperature “Earth’s Temperature”, it also helps to  look up.

Atmospheric Temperatures:

Since 1979 Earth’s “temperature” has also been measured via satellite. “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA

The following are 4 Temperature Anomaly plots from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), each one increases in altitude as is illustrated here:

RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT)- Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) -Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present:

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

According to Remote Sensing Systems, “For Channel (TLT) (Lower Troposphere) and Channel (TMT) (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.” RSS

Also, the 2009 – 10 El Niño event is also called out on this RSS Latitudinal Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly from 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and the 1998 El Niño event, along with the tropospheric cooling attributed to the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinitubo, is called out on this University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

Note: Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”

The May UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly was 0.29 degrees C above the 30 year average. Keep this mind the next time you see claims that recent weather was caused by Global Warming.

There are also regional variations in Lower Troposphere that contribute nuance to the picture. For example, RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

shows a .337 K/C per decade increase, whereas the The RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

shows a .011 K/C per decade decrease. I am still not aware of a compelling explanation for the significant divergence in the Lower Troposphere temperature trends between the poles.

The satellite record seems to show slow warming of Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events. Lower Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of Earth warming rapidly.

Moving higher in the atmosphere, RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been incredibly flat since, with a trend of just -.010 K/C per decade. The 1997-98 and 2009 – 10 El Niño events are still readily apparent in the plot, as is a spike from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Note that the effect of Mt. Pinatubo is the opposite in the Lower and Middle Troposphere versus the Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS), i.e. “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere; the gases convert into submicron particles (aerosol) with an e-folding time scale of about 1 year. The climate response to large eruptions (in historical times) lasts for several (2-3) years. The aerosol cloud causes cooling at the Earth’s surface, warming in stratosphere.”

Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

It is interesting that, incorporating the impact of three significant surface driven warming events, Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperatures (TTS) have been quite stable, however there is nuance to this as well.

RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been increasing by .046 K/C per decade, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been decreasing by -.066 K/C per decade.

Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

“is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS

The eruptions of El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo are readily apparent in the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source

“The stratosphere” … “in contrast to the troposphere, is heated, as the result of near infrared absorption of solar energy at the top of the aerosol cloud, and increased infra-red absorption of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface.”

“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

The Lower Stratosphere experienced “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS “The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.” … “Here we provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, we provide evidence that the unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, we argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, we reveal the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer-Dobson circulation” David W. J. Thompson Colorado State University

Above the Stratosphere we have the Mesosphere and Thermosphere, neither of which have I identified current temperature time series for, but of note is that on “July 15, 2010” “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”

“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”

The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.

The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.” NASA

In summary, Earth’s Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of warming rapidly or warming at an accelerating rate. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but to have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009” “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.”

Ocean Temperatures:

“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Parliamentary Library

As such, changes inOcean Heat Content are important in understanding Earth’s “Temperature”. Here is NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-700 Meters – 1955 to Present;

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) – Click the pic to view at source

and here is the same from Ole Humlum’s valuable climate data site Climate4you.com, NODC Global Ocean Heat Content – 0-700 Meters – 1979 to Present:

It seems apparent from the plots above that Global Ocean Heat has increased over the last several decades, however Global Ocean Heat doesn’t appear to be warming rapidly. Furthermore, there is no evidence or indication of an accelerating rate.

Sea Level:

“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC

Global Mean Sea Level Change – 1993 to Present:

Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present:

Snow and Ice:

A proxy often cited when measuring “Earth’s Temperature” is amount of Snow and Ice on Earth. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.” Source USGA

However, there is currently there is no generally accepted measure of ice volume, as Cryosat is still in validation and the accuracy of measurements from Grace are still being challenged. Sea Ice Area and Extent are cited as proxies for “Earth’s Temperature”, however there is significant evidence that the primary influences on Sea Ice Area and Extent are in fact wind and Atmospheric Oscillations. With this said, here are

Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area from 1979 to Present;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly – 1979 to Present:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or Greater

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent and a positive trend in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, thus the resultant Global Sea Ice Area trend appears to be slightly negative.

In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

 alt=
Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

While none of the Snow plots offers a global perspective, when looking at the Northern Hemisphere, there appears to have been a slight increase in Snowcover and Winter Snow Extent, a decrease in Spring Snow Extent and no change in Fall Snow Extent over the historical record.

Based on the limited Global Ice and Snow measurements available, and noting the questionable value of Sea Ice Area as a proxy for temperature, not much inference can currently be drawn from Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid warming in Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements.

Conclusion:

“Earth’s “Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or accelerating warming.

Additional information on “Earth’s Temperature” can be found in the WUWT Reference Pages, including the Global Temperature Page and Global Climatic History Page

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 10, 2012 7:44 pm

Babsy says:
June 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm
JohnB says:
June 10, 2012 at 4:55 pm
John,
Just out of curiosity, what should the temperature be at Dallas Love Field at 2330 UTC on September 4?
=================================================
He’ll get back with you September 5th.

ferd berple
June 10, 2012 8:01 pm

mfo says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:48 am
“California Penal Code Section 528.5.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another
actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other
electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening,
or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable
pursuant to subdivision (d).
Why has Peter Gleick not been arrested and all the computers he might have used been seized for forensic examination? Which person or people in the police and state authorities has failed to make a public decision and why?
++++++++++++
This is a very good question. If you live in California demand an explanation from your representatives.

June 10, 2012 8:10 pm

Mike says:
June 10, 2012 at 5:34 pm
“@Smokey: Picking thermometer data from a few cities and picking one proxy data set from Greenland is called cherry picking. Scientists look at as much of the data as they can…”
Mike reminds me of Joel Shore. When Joel accused me of ‘cherry-picking’ a particular chart, I took the time to post fifty (50!) separate charts that showed what the first one did. All of them had different time scales, various X and Y axes, and they were from dozens of different sources. So, guess what: Joel Shore argued about every one of them – and then he accused me again of “cherry-picking”! Sheesh!
A couple of things to note here: First, Mike is just emitting his personal opinion. He provides no charts of his own to counter the ones I posted. Therefore, Mike’s accusation of “cherry-picking” is just his weak fallback position. He uses it because he hasn’t got a credible argument. It’s the alarmists’ version of calling someone a ‘racist’. The intent is to shut down the side with the real data. Because the side with zero data has already lost the argument.
And second, I provided the data that is available. Data that is a couple of centuries old may be far from perfect. But it is the data that we have. Mike has nothing.
And there is something to be said for using the same mercury thermometer every day for a few hundred years. It is not a global proxy – but there are eight other cities in that link, and their mercury thermometers all show the very same upward trend from the LIA. No acceleration of temperatures is taking place in any of those cities – despite a 40% increase in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.
With such a big increase in CO2, maybe Mike can explain why we are not seeing accelerating global temperatures. Could it be that the effect of CO2 is insignificant compared with many other factors? If so, that kills the AGW argument, doesn’t it?
I will be happy to look at any evidence Mike can provide, showing that global temperatures are accelerating above their past parameters. But as we’ve seen so far, Mike has nothing.

Mike
June 10, 2012 8:21 pm

Semantics aside, Neville’s post June 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm pretty much confirms what JohnB has been asserting:.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3522242.htm
“A new American-led study featuring research by Tasmanian scientists has concluded that warming ocean temperatures over the past 50 years are largely a man-made phenomenon.
The researchers from America, India, Japan and Australia say theirs is the most comprehensive work to date on how the ocean’s have warmed.”
Reality happens. Pay attention.

James Allison
June 10, 2012 8:26 pm

JohnB says:
June 10, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Smokey,
Like “CAGW”, “runaway global warming” is a phrase only used by “skeptics”. Reality is that the world is warming, as even JTF acknowledges, the warming is anomalous, which is why we now have a hockey league, not just a single stick, and CO2 is almost certainly the cause, as the vast majority of climate scientists, looking at the overwhelming evidence, recognize. When will you guys join the real debate on what we do about it? Maybe “nothing” or “just wait” is the right answer. But you can’t take part in that debate as long as you continue to ignore reality.
John
Haha very funny John – HS league indeed – aren’t they all broken! I haven’t an axe to grind either way, just listen to both sides of the debate and quite frankly can’t see anything anomalous going on. Until recently just a continuation of a gentle increase in temps since the LIA. You say CO2 is almost certainly the cause – really? show me some empirical evidence then. Show me how the global system is operating outside normal variation. And no I’m not ignoring reality as you say, just that, like virtually everybody I know, WE do NOT believe anything unusual is going on. You are apparently part of a decreasing minority of true believers while the rest of us become more informed.

pat
June 10, 2012 8:26 pm

another version of the umpteenth definitive proof CAGW is real:
11 June: Radio Australia: Research shows humans main cause of global warming
A US-led research group is claiming to have bolstered the argument that global warming is real, and humans are largely to blame…
The research has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The team looked at rising ocean temperatures over the past 50 years, and a dozen models projecting climate change patterns.
Australian based co-author, Dr John Church from Australia’s island state of Tasmania says there’s no way all of the world’s oceans could’ve warmed by one tenth of a degree Celsius without human impact…
He says nature only accounts for 10 per cent of the increase.
Leading climate change and oceanography expert, Professor Nathan Bindoff says scientists are now certain man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
“The evidence is unequivocal for global warming,” he said…
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-06-11/research-shows-humans-main-cause-of-global-warming/958298

June 10, 2012 8:39 pm

Mike says:
“Reality happens. Pay attention.”
Pay attention to the satellite reality, Mike:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/paintimage2111.jpg?w=640&h=422
As we see, sea levels are decelerating. Look up ‘steric sea level rise’. And the ARGO buoy network falsifies that ‘study’. Reality trumps your “study”.
Have you ever considered that financial grants have the effect of consistently placing the blame for natural events on human activities?

Mike
June 10, 2012 8:46 pm

“And no I’m not ignoring reality as you say, just that, like virtually everybody I know, WE do NOT believe anything unusual is going on.” –James Alison
This is actually evidence that you are ignoring reality and just going along with what your peer group thinks. Notice how different scientists react to criticism: when some people, including
“skepitics,” found flaws in the work on Australian temps they admitted their mistake and withdrew the paper. (I am not saying they are all perfect; actions by Gleick and Jones show they can be ethically flawed. But as a system the scientific methods of peer review and debate work well in that they produce knowledge reliable enough to make policy decisions.) As for evidence CO2 warms the Earth pick up any textbook on climatology. Evidence comes from lab experiments, basic physics and paleoclimatic studies. The issue is will the amount of CO2 (and other GHGs) we are pumping into the atmosphere cause enough warming to be ecologically and economically disruptive; and will human CO2 emissions cause serious ocean acidification.

Mike
June 10, 2012 8:52 pm

@Smokey,
I never claimed sea level rise was accelerating. I imagine it again depends on what time interval one looks at. But thanks for dodging the issue. That shows where you are coming from.

June 10, 2012 8:54 pm

pat says:
June 10, 2012 at 8:26 pm
another version of the umpteenth definitive proof CAGW is real:

Nobody’s saying that the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn’t exist — except the cultists, obviously.

pat
June 10, 2012 9:03 pm

quite the misleading headline, about misleading data, that gives CO2 trading even less credibility:
10 June: Reuters: China emissions study suggests climate change could be faster than thought
By David Fogarty and David Stanway
Editing by Jonathan Thatcher
China’s carbon emissions could be nearly 20 percent higher than previously thought, a new analysis of official Chinese data showed on Sunday, suggesting the pace of global climate change could be even faster than currently predicted…
“The sad fact is that Chinese energy and emission data as primary input to the models will add extra uncertainty in modelling simulations of predicting future climatic change,” say the authors of a study in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The team of scientists from China, Britain and the United States, led by Dabo Guan of the University of Leeds, studied two sets of energy data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. One set presented energy use for the nation, the other for its provinces.
They compiled the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission inventories for China and its 30 provinces for the period 1997-2010 and found a big difference between the two datasets.
“MORE UNCERTAIN THAN EVER”
“The paper identifies a 1.4-billion tonne emission gap (in 2010) between the two datasets…
Guan added the China is not the only country with inconsistent energy data…
The findings also expose the challenges China faces in introduce emissions trading schemes, which need accurate measurement, reporting and verification of energy use and carbon pollution at the local and national level…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/10/us-china-emissions-idUSBRE8590AD20120610

Werner Brozek
June 10, 2012 9:18 pm

Neville says:
June 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3522242.htm
Just thought others should know about this new study especially those with a lot more expertise than myself.

A sentence from this study says:
EMILY WOODGATE: He says there’s simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than one-tenth of a degree Celsius through natural causes alone.
They specifically mention “upper layers”. See the graph below to see what happened to sea surface temperatures over the last decade and a half. There has been no change for 15 years and 4 months, and over the last 10 years, there has been a cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002.33/trend
P.S. The April value of 0.292 is not on WFT yet, but that will not change what I have written above.

June 10, 2012 9:21 pm

Mike says:
“…thanks for dodging the issue. That shows where you are coming from.”
A perfect example of psychological projection [imputing your own faults onto others]. Mike totally avoids all responses to his posted nonsense, and simply moves on to other talking points.
Mike continues: “The issue is will the amount of CO2 (and other GHGs) we are pumping into the atmosphere cause enough warming to be ecologically and economically disruptive; and will human CO2 emissions cause serious ocean acidification.”
OK, bigboy, produce your evidence – falsifiable and testable, per the scientific method – showing evidence that “pumping into the atmosphere cause enough warming to be ecologically and economically disruptive; and will human CO2 emissions cause serious ocean acidification.”
Pay attention to the term ‘evidence’, which excludes computer models, appeals to authority, and other emo-alarmist claptrap. Evidence is testable, verifiable data.
So far, there is no such data. There is no evidence of global harm due to anthropogenic CO2; and there is plenty of satellite data showing that the planet is greening in lockstep with the rise in CO2. Greening is good, no? Therefore, CO2 is good. More is better.
All the available evidence points to the fact that more CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. And because there is no evidence showing any global harm due to the rise in CO2, then ipso facto CO2 is “harmless”.
Mike is arguing from emotion, religion, and talking points. He wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit him on the a… nkle. The fact is that AGW is an untestable conjecture, fed by enormous piles of grant money. But when the rigorous scientific method holds the alarmists’ feet to the fire, they have no credible facts to support their belief system. And that is the difference between real scientists, and religious witch doctors.

June 10, 2012 9:35 pm

“Like “CAGW”, “runaway global warming” is a phrase only used by “skeptics”.”
Or you can see “runaway global warming” by looking at IPCC projections. I.e., A2 or A1B. IPCC must be full of sceptics then…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Willhelm
June 10, 2012 10:16 pm

For those that are interested, Michael Mann’s “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” has been posted on all the usual pirate sites. I am reliably informed that you could try: http://isohunt.com/torrents/?ihq=michael+mann
Note that this notification is for research purposes only; I strongly condemn illegally downloading Mann’s work.

Keith Minto
June 10, 2012 10:37 pm

Ocean Temperatures:
“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of
ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Parliamentary Library

Got a 404 error with the provided ink.

P. Solar
June 10, 2012 10:42 pm

“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University
Thank you for that quote and link.
Winter warming due to volcanoes is something I have been suggesting for about 18m now, I was not aware of any recognised sources noting this effect. Since the stratospheric warming clearly shows incoming energy is getting blocked, the statement that the winter warming is larger than the summer cooling shows a fast negative compensates for the reduced incoming solar energy.
This means that current estimates of a strong negative “forcing” due to late 20th c. volcanoes is a mistake. This mistake is used to justify pumping up the CO2 “forcing” to compensate. This is further exaggerated by Hansen , who’s volcanic forcings are even bigger.
This is a key effect in understanding how climate models have been so badly wrong since 2yk.

P. Solar
June 10, 2012 10:52 pm

Conclusion:
“Earth’s “Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or accelerating warming.
This statement or something similar is made several times in this excellent article but it is fundamentally flawed. There *is* an acceleration in temperature: it’s negative !
Just about all the evidence that has been presented here: temps, OHC, mean sea level ALL show a reduced rate of warming since around y2k. That is a (negative) acceleration.
It should be made clear that there is an acceleration in climate indicators and it’s unequivocally NEGATIVE.
Otherwise excellent. Thanks.

June 10, 2012 11:05 pm

Mike says:
June 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm
…….. Notice how different scientists react to criticism: when some people, including
“skepitics,” found flaws in the work on Australian temps they admitted their mistake and withdrew the paper. (I am not saying they are all perfect; actions by Gleick and Jones show they can be ethically flawed. But as a system the scientific methods of peer review and debate work well in that they produce knowledge reliable enough to make policy decisions.) As for evidence CO2 warms the Earth pick up any textbook on climatology. Evidence comes from lab experiments, basic physics and paleoclimatic studies. The issue is will the amount of CO2 (and other GHGs) we are pumping into the atmosphere cause enough warming to be ecologically and economically disruptive; and will human CO2 emissions cause serious ocean acidification.
===================================================
Holy crap, I wasn’t going to comment on this thread until I read these absurd statements!
Mike, that was one study which had to be withdrawn because of the quick exposure. There are many more studies with errors that haven’t been withdrawn. The peer review process is broke, and the recent studies demonstrate it. Take Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, for example. It’s a study that states if things were different things would be different. And they pretended to understand all of the variables which went into our global temps, when obviously, no one knows all of the variables. Year after year we’ve seen an endless parade of idiotic papers which fly through “peer-review”. Dessler’s rebut to Spencer/Braswell, was another fine example of idiocy run amok. The damned thing couldn’t even get printed after being accepted for publication. Anyone believing the peer-review process in climate science is providing reliable knowledge should go measure the ice in the Himalayas, no, I’m not talking about the absurd IPCC debacle. I’m talking about the explanation about why the satellite measurements were so far off from the other estimates.

The bias was particularly strong in Asia, said Wahr: “There extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up.”

You can read some more inanities here….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/yes-yes-they-really-are-that-dumb/
What peer review science do you believe is adequate? Please be specific, because I haven’t seen one in the last year and a half that didn’t get me laughing at the authors and the journals.
But, you weren’t content to end your absurd statements there. Proof that CO2 warms the earth through experiments? Really? No, no experiment ever confirmed that statement. The only thing they’ve confirmed is that CO2 will absorb small frequency bands of IR and when excited will emit IR omnidirectional, which confirms some basic physics. But, they say nothing of the responses to such action. But, your statement about “paleoclimatic studies” confirming this goes beyond absurd and reaches the level of utter falsehood. In fact, of the paleo which has survived (likely because skeptics haven’t looked at them all, yet) some suggest quite the opposite, as we note that in times past CO2 levels were much higher than today and yet, some indicate that the temps weren’t much different than today, and others suggest a cooler globe. But, regardless of what they show, they can only show correlation, not causation.
And this is the difficulty with the discussion. Alarmists substitute journal papers for truth, and assumptions for observation. It doesn’t matter how many times skeptics show the assumptions wrong or how many times observations destroy the assumptions, alarmists won’t let go of their belief that peer-review is some sort of magical thing which trumps reality.
I’ll let others destroy the “ocean acidification” meme, but you need to understand what happens to CO2 when it enters the oceans, what uses the CO2 and how it is transformed. What keeps it in the oceans and what causes it to be expelled from the oceans.
If that sounded harsh, sorry, I didn’t mean for it to be, but, the rest of the rational world has moved beyond these talking points.

John F. Hultquist
June 10, 2012 11:09 pm

Will Nitschke says:
June 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm

I took that fellow’s statement to mean that things like the following do not exist . . .
http://www.zero-carbon-or-climate-catastrophe.org/runaway-heating.html
. . . and insofar as they obviously do, nothing else he said can be assumed to be true either.

June 10, 2012 11:16 pm

Was mooching about and found this article from 1994, when it was still possible to use words like “if” and “maybe” about manmade global warming. Some of the things it says about CO2 levels and climate in the distant past are quite interesting – am wondering how they compare to more recent reconstructions
http://discovermagazine.com/1994/dec/locationlocation463

P. Solar
June 10, 2012 11:18 pm

“Since the stratospheric warming clearly shows incoming energy is getting blocked, the statement that the winter warming is larger than the summer cooling shows a fast negative compensates for the reduced incoming solar energy.”
That should have read : “… shows a fast negative _feedback_ compensates for the reduced incoming solar energy.”
Despite significant changes in internal and external “forcings” over billions of years the atmosphere has not evaporated into space. The dominant climate feedbacks are negative, otherwise we would not be here to argue about it.

June 10, 2012 11:46 pm

Neville says:
June 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3522242.htm

What they are saying is that because the models can’t simulate the measured warming using natural causes, the cause must be anthropogenic.
This is, of course, nonsense. There are multiple other possible explanations. Starting with measurements of southern ocean temperatures, pre-Argo, were very sparse, and highly biased to certain locations. And ending with Southern Ocean circulation is poorly understood and poorly represented in the models. They basically ignore it.
You should also google ‘omitted variable fraud’, which should lead you to a good recent explanation here at WUWT.

Mervyn
June 10, 2012 11:58 pm

Just a small observation. Looking at the ocean temperature chart, it is evident that the oceans have been warming. The IPCC’s 2007 AR4 indicated that 97% of Co2 entering the atmosphere each year is from natural sources. As the oceans store so much Co2, I would suggest that most of the rising atmospheric Co2 in the atmosphere is actually Co2 released by the warming oceans. Just how much, god knows… but if any physicist did an estimation, my guess is it would dwarf the Co2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. People should step back and reflect just how huge the oceans of the world are… then try and pin point the industrialised areas of the world in comparison, and try and make some common sense of what I am implying.

June 11, 2012 12:09 am

O H Dahlsveen says:
June 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm
So then JohnB, as you are clearly not a “skeptic” I can only assume you are a person known as a “warmist” (AGW or CAGW believer). Please tell me what makes you so certain that CO2 is capable of causing “Global Warming”. – And don’t tell me CO2 is the miracle happening.
What should that “fingerprint” look like?

I don’t believe he’s ever thought about it, otherwise he’d have had some kind of answer for you by now.
Oh, wait. You took the “miracle” option away from him — he *can’t* answer your question.