Another “the science is settled” moment. From the ABC:
A new US-led study, featuring research by Tasmanian scientists, has concluded that warming ocean temperatures over the past 50 years are largely a man-made phenomenon.
Researchers from America, India, Japan and Australia say the study is the most comprehensive look at how the oceans have warmed.
The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.
It found natural variations accounted for about 10 per cent of rising temperatures, but man-made greenhouse gases were the major cause.
One of the report’s co-authors, Hobart-based Dr John Church, is the CSIRO Fellow with the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research.
He told AM the study was one of the most comprehensive looks into the changes in ocean heat to date, “by quite some margin”.
Dr Church said the breadth of the study had “allowed the group to rule out that the changes are related to natural variability in the climate system”.
He said there was simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius through natural causes alone.
“Natural variability could only explain 10 per cent, or thereabouts, of the observed change,” he said.
Professor Nathan Bindoff is one of the world’s foremost oceanography experts, and has been a lead author on past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports.
“Ninety per cent of the temperature change stored in the whole of the Earth’s system is stored in the ocean, so global warming is really an ocean warming problem,” he said.
Professor Bindoff said the new research balanced the man-made impacts of warming greenhouse gases and cooling pollution in the troposphere against natural changes in the ocean’s temperature and volcanic eruptions.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.
“We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.
Full story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-11/research-taps-into-ocean-temperatures/4063886
h/t to reader Mick Muller
… we can actually say that we’re virtually certain …
Really “unequivocal”.
That’s it then. We we’re all wrong. Who knew?
And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.
“We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.
Unequivocal you say…well, when you put it this way… I’m convinced!
More MODELS?!?!?! Give it a rest already.
Paper here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html
People with two heads are twice as smart as people with one.
As soon as you get to the first mention of climate models, you know what to expect.
Given that our proportion of the global atmospheric CO2 content from fossil fuel use is 3% I find it difficult to understand the conclusions of this ‘research’.
Also given that the GHG theory has failed to agree with the actual observations I find the whole report strange. It seems not to agree with the ARGO data either so is this research based on modeled data?
Brilliant. Comparison of observation with models enables these authors to conclude that “warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily”.
But presumably the conclusion is only justified if those same models can also simulate observed natural variations over the relevant time scales. And perhaps they don’t.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/esubmissions/Nature.climate.withfigsandsupp.mat.12.5.12.pdf
Link to the paper:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate1553.pdf
John M Reynolds
“…examined a dozen different models used to project climate change…”
Tells you everything you need to know.
The paper is here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html
I remain highly skeptical that a change of +0.15 C since 1960 can be measured at all – the measurements from the pre-ARGO area (i.e. for all except the last 8-9 years) were sparse and crude.
“The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.”
More scientists incapable of telling the difference between computer models and real data.
Note the old chestnut “over the past 50 years.”
Since the models are tuned primarily to that period and pretty much fail before that time it is obvious that they do not correctly model natural climate changes.
As stated by John Kennedy of Met Office here, their models are tuned to fit 1960-1990:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-188363
Studying “dozens” of failed models does not tell us much about attribution.
Of course the authors are well aware of this and this study is deliberately misleading and dishonest in suggesting otherwise.
“The study …. examined a dozen different models used to project climate change and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.”
Its all a bit like
“The study examine a dozen different star clusters and only found one that matched the requirements to indicate the presence of the God Aries.”
Hey guys,
Look up – see that bright object? That is called the Sun. It is warm. Now read Svensmark & Milankovitch.
“a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.”
JK—Did any of the models consider Solar effects beyond simple direct heating? (A dozen times garbage is still garbage.)
“And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.”
JK—Care to share that evidence with us? (I mean real empirical evidence, not computer models that even the CRU crowd mistrusts – see climategate II emails.)
And please justify thinking that you can
Thanks
JK
Given the sparsity of data over much of the worlds oceans particularly prior to Argo systems it seems impossible to measure the heat content of the oceans to anything like that accuracy, much less assign responsibility. A look at :-
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JPO3005.1
“One important finding from these 20-yr results is that
oceanic trends estimated over any particular 20-yr period
are very unlikely to provide even a sign-consistent
estimate of the trends over a 50-yr period. And because
trends can be so large over a particular 20- or 25-yr
period, even trends estimated over 50 yr may be dominated
by much shorter term events that occurred within
that 50-yr period. Evidently, oceanic regional trend estimates
pose substantial sampling challenges and very
long records are needed.” ——
” Further, the magnitude of the 20-yr
trend variability is great enough to call into question
how well even the statistically significant 51-yr trends
identified here represent longer-term trends.
The analysis approach outlined does not allow examination
of the less well-sampled regions of the World
Ocean. There are no results to offer for most of the
ocean south of 20°S. Thus, it remains to be determined
what the characteristics are of multidecadal trend variability
in these areas.
will show this sparsity of data, like one sample per decade or two per 1° grid !
0.022 – 0.028C rise. In 50 years. Yawn.
“we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes”
Virtually is spot on, models all the way down again. I wonder if they can show how natural causes can be ruled out as they claim?
More trot for the next IPCC report.
How did they prove that the warming was not natural? What experiment did they perform?
The journal Nature Climate Change?! If you publish a journal devoted to climate change, well then, I guess the climate has to change. A it always has. Just for different reasons.
It is almost as if these reports are pre-written, and only need the title and and topic filled in.
AGW is a pernicious social mania that is remarkably immune to critical thinking by its true believers.
From the link
The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.
Note the m word . Models=video games.
No mention of the “science” then. Just assertions. Next?
I have not read the paper so I may be completely wrong about it but I sense circular reasoning here. If climate models are tuned to match reality based on assumption that greenhouse gases are main climate factor – and then they are compared with reality to which they are tuned – there’s no wonder the conclusion is that greenhouse gases are main climate factor.
That does not prove them right, though.
OMG! This really is a world-wide conspiracy. The leftist American democrats have suckered in the Japanese, Indians AND the Aussies. Time for damage control — Anthony, you secure South Carolina and Mississippi and I will call Jim Inhofe and get Stephen Goddard to whip up a rebuttle quick smart.
BS Alert.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
“First time” – odd I thought the warming oceans had been known about before??
“virtually certain” – oh, like being virtually pregnant??
“greenhouse gases primarily” – so what are the secondary causes and what proportion of the 0.1 is from the other causes??
cheers David
He said there was simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius through natural causes alone.
Well on our way to Hansen’s boiling oceans then! I wonder how long the next 0.1 degree will take. I can throw off my wetsuit by 2350 at this rate.
Climate models,blah, blah, Virtually certain, blah blah. ALL the Oceans blah, blah. Renowned IPCC scientist, blah, blah. I suppose I should read the paper but better minds than mine will rip it to shreds. My BS indicator is hammering the top stop. That is enough for me. After reading Willis’ work on Argo it does not take much to call 0.1 degree as BS. Please join this one Lazy teenager I could do with some more laughs.
Proving surface warming would be one thing. Proving linkage to any specific cause would be something else entirely. I hope people insist on the kind of rigor that a causality claim like this would require, which would be exceptional, and beyond anything I can imagine. Simply saying that there’s energy here that we can’t account for in any other way would not be sufficient.
Gerry Parker
“examined a dozen different models used to project climate change,”
Well, that’s enough for that “study”
(DEAR MODERATOR, please I request you not to remove my comment if you want the solution to the CC.)
Dear ANTHONY WATTS,
1. “…but man-made greenhouse gases were the major cause….”
How can freely moving molecules of gases form a green house? It can’t. So green house gases are NOT possible to exist. Can you explain how your statement can be justified scientifically? That statement is ridiculous scientifically. Troposphere is not layered, it is homogenous; if layered the heaviest gas, co2, would be the lower most layer. Details in devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
2. “Ninety per cent of the temperature change stored in the whole of the Earth’s system is stored in the ocean, so global warming is really an ocean warming problem,” he said.”
Ocean is warming no doubt but land surface is warming much higher, concretes and blacktops are absorbing the heat but disturbing cooling system; we have disturbed the cooling system of Nature (evaporation and rain) by urbanization, deforestation, and desert formations. One of the main reasons for temperature of the ocean is the draining millions of tons of warm if not hot water by developed countries.
I challenge you to have discussion on GW. If you like you may email me. dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk
DEAR MODERATOR, please I request you not to remove my comment if you want the solution to the CC.
[Reply: Anthony Watts does not have the time to answer individual email correspondence. ~dbs, mod.]
From the abstract:
“Recent identification of systematic instrumental biases in expendable bathythermograph data has led to improved estimates of ocean temperature variability and trends and provide motivation to revisit earlier detection and attribution studies. We examine the causes of ocean warming using these improved observational estimates, together with results from a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature changes in the newer observational estimates is similar to that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the effects of volcanic eruptions. Our detection and attribution analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to a variety of model and data-processing choices. When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.”
Paper here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html
“examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming”
Proof positive that the “models” say that humans are causing warming.
This is proof of nothing.
Yes I can see where he is virtually certain, that is what is called an escape clause in case we find out he is not fully convinced of his own findings. Much like evry other report we have seen from the warmers.
No matter how you look at it the report is nothing but fluff and weasel words designed to blackmail us into believing his findings. Maybe he should get some tips from Flim Flam Flannery on how to better word his press releases.
The atmosphere has a mass of : 1.5 x 10 to the p18 tonns compared to the oceans of 5×10 to the p15 tonns so that the oceans have a greater heat capacity by 3,300 times. So it is almost impossible for the atmosphere to exert a significant heating effect on the the oceans. For to heat one litre of water by 1 deg C will take 3300 litres of air that was 2 Deg C hotter or 1 liter of air that was 3300 deg C hotter.
I would propose everyone should read some real science that did not use models in the
Journal of Geophysical Research, VOL. 113, A11101, 13 PP., 2008 doi:10.1029/2007JA012989
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing by
Nir J. Shaviv of Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Giv’at Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
available here: http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf in PDF
Of course Nir Shaviv used a scientific approach whereas these climate ‘scientists’ were generating models based on your hypothesis then training them to match the observations then checking the observations against the models so therefore your hypothesis must be right.
He said there was simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius through natural causes alone.
Did he explain how the oceans managed to warm in the past when we weren’t around?
Thought not.
I still can’t take anything that climate ‘scientists’ say very seriously.
“He said there was simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius through natural causes alone.”
And the error bars are what; +/- 0.3C? +/-0.0025C?
Color me Sk(c)eptical.
“we’re virtually certain”
I love the ‘certainty’ of that…
Is this the paper in question?
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nclimate1553.pdf
I guess these macaroons have never studied the transport of heat in the oceans. Conveyer-belt? Yeah we have heard of it. Isn’t that when we ask a lady to disrobe and she takes off her belt and gives it to us?
My rough estimate tells me that the amount of CO2 mass released by man is roughly the equivalent ( oceans and atmosphere): Olympic sized swimming pool filled with ping pong balls; 1
to 2 pink ones for 39 million of blue ones if you take the oceans into the mass of the atmosphere. I could be wrong with the numbers? Please oblige me?
Gee that CO2 plant food stuff, must be a really deadly powerful poison to make all those other ping pong balls start to glow red. Must be the feedback, lol, really, one to two to 39 million will upset the
balance?
You did it, all right.
Starting the clock until this has been fully debunked just like all the other major papers recently.
The production of this article was clearly provoked by zombies. We have run numerous models and there is no other plausible explanation for this silliness. Therefore it must be zombies. We did it. We proved it.
Moderator: do I really have to add the /sarc?
Is it really wise to lump the pre ARGO data in with post ARGO data and expect a good result? Reading their methodology they infilled missing data in a grid fashion – i swear i just read recently on WUWT how futile that was…
Also, if our GHG,s account for 90% of the warming, which as I read it, is about 0.9 degrees, between 1960 and 2010, what miraculous natural phenomenon suddenly had the oceans stop warming in the last decade?
Why not: “Here’s what we did, here’s what we conclude, what do you think?”
Instead we get: …he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.
“We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.
A most unscientific attitude!
So, there’s no possible way a reduction in clouds could allow the Sun to warm the oceans? This kind of silly nonsense will only make more people doubt their statements.
Where on earth are they getting their facts from? Do they have some top secret source that isn’t available to anyone else but them? To answer my own question I say they are pulling their facts from where the sun don’t shine. It is call the practice of ( proctocranialogy).
Wolf!
Pure boilerplate (“most comprehensive study”, “unequivocal”), but they left out the much-loved ‘near to a tipping point’ and ‘must act now’.
Note to Bindoff: You’re whistling, but the dog’s out of range.
“The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.”
So, since the observations differ from the models, that means we are the cause of a “problem” … is it just me or does this seem like more fortune-telling masquerading as science?
Well, I’m glad they settled that!
The uninitiated, like me, might wonder if they really know the temperature of “the upper layers of every ocean in the world” to an accuracy of 0.1°C, but these folks have not only measured it, not only proven it has risen by 0.1°C, but proven that it could not occur without a human cause.
Proof, you say? We don’t need to see that. They’ve *told* us it is true. Surely that is enough.
I guess that Anthony will be shutting down WUWT now.
Einstein used to say that a single factual observation that would contradict his theory would, therefore, disprove the whole theory (I don’t remember the exact wording, but that’s the gist of it).
These guys “did it,” and “that’s it”! Really.
I am not a climatologist or an oceanographer, and I would leave it to the more mathematically inclined to criticize their scientific methods. But I can observe human behavior, and these scientists’ behavior is very similar to that of a group of teenagers who stole or broke something, and then conspired to tell the adults some prearranged lies.
Well they have to say that, don’t they, otherwise it is game over.
What do they say about the decreased global albedo during the warming period and the fact that albedo is now increasing again despite a continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 ?
Ocean temperatures are following global albedo and not CO2 emissions.
The Troposphere then follows the oceans.
Where has the alleged extra energy in the oceans come from if not from solar input ?
Due to the difference in thermal capacity between air and water the air could never have been able to heat up the oceans as much as they say if it were simply a matter of transferring the 0.7C warming of the air into the oceans.
And if the oceans were absorbing energy from the air it would be millennia before we would ever be able to tell even with our most sensitive sensors.
Not caused bynatural short term cyclic changes, or not caused by any natural cause?
How have they absolutelyrule out changes in solar efectswhich might (just) vary over centuries – the maunder and dlaton effects for instance?
I don’t see the story at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/current_issue.html
Among other things, I’m curious to see the author list to resolve:
Did they just find and use the Tasmanian data or were all these researchers in Tasmania and hence “Tasmanian scientists”? Or am I just clueless and Tasmania is part of Australia? Or that any native ABC reader would know the answer?
Pretty confident sounding group.
How can you get a PhD in a scientific field and be this logically challenged?
They did not prove CO2 warmed the oceans. They only proved that the models BLAME CO2 for 90 percent of warming. Now to do some real science, they need to take observational data and attempt to falsify the models. If the warming is adjusted not real, or natural variation accounts for more than 10 percent then the models can be proven wrong. But nothing can be proven by models other than proving the model is wrong.
AR5 publication date strikes again, get out any old rubbish in time to meet the deadline leaving not enough time for a rebuttal.
If we ever get to see the paper instead of the press release the word Model will be all over the place. Program model to tell it only 10% of temp variation is natural and then run the model, of course the result will be only 10% of temp variation is natural.
Models confirming models. Move along……move along.
wow! now suvs create super el ninos! hey I know how to start an ocean cooling trend Al gore+cement shoes= Gore effect.
Talk about ignorance and arrogance.
Its those models again you know. If of course they do not account for solar variation in all its forms let alone clouds I suppose you are bound to get a result which does not show these effects.
As to those temperature measurements and how precise they might be and how much of the oceans were measured by area and depth: well there is a mystery not to be explained to the likes of us.
Wonder how much the whole thing cost. Not cheap I’ll bet.
Still another useless one for the wagger pagger.
Kindest Regards
Yes .. the science is settled … but don’t forget .. not so settled that it can’t be worse than we thought.
Pillocks.
Here in the UK we are suffering the wettest drought ever! Everywhere is flooded and we are banned from using hosepipes to water the garden!
So, how does Professor Bindoff explain the cooling of the oceans in recent years? Is that due to a decline in greenhouse gases or part of a natural cycle?
Now give me my reward,money,new grant, and a new position at the UN.
Is this the same Dr Chuch from this sea level study?
“Dr. Vincent Gray weighed in:
Have you heard of the Australian study on 12 Pacific islands, some of them mentioned by Church? They used much more reliable equipment than the others. They claimed an upward trend but this was done by the dishonest use of a linear regression which made use of the temporary depression on all the records caused by the 1988 hurricane. If you look at the actual records in their report (attached) and ignore this temporary event you will find that there was no change for the last sixteen years.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Hmm …
Greenhouse warming does not warm the oceans. The air in contact with the ocean only warms the top few millimetres, which is largely lost to evaporation. The oceans are warmed by direct sunlight which penetrates to around 100 metres. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/ocean_warm_and_cool.pdf
When we fail to distinguish between discovering order IN nature and imposing order ON nature, we have lost relationship with the very thing we yearn to know. Whereas once we were students of nature, looking to her for meaning, we now denigrate her in the belief that it is our inalienable right to have dominion. – Kerry Gordon
Hat tip – Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/10/psychology-of-uncertainty/
Wow. 90% of the 0.1 degree increase! We’re doomed! What were the error bars on that? I know they put them in the actual paper but not always as prominently as I do in my own papers. But in any public discussion they usually leave the error bars off. Unless they need them to prove that there is still a chance that observations are just barely within the range of possible outcomes of their models.
This may very well be true. That makes 0.2 +/- 0.1?? in a century?
And the oceans hold most of the heat. We all know the energy from sun and cosmic rays heats the planet and there is an important role for CO2 and other GHGs. It’s just the doomsday stuff I object to.
These guys didn’t do the homework. The English translation of “Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity by L.B. Klyashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin can be downloaded for free thru this link:
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes__and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
NB: This mongraph is 224 pages and is not about climate science. The Russian edition was published in 2005. The English translation was published in 2007 and was edited by Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study.
By analyzing numerous time series of empircal data (e.g., temperature records, sediment and ice cores, fish catches, etc), they found that the earth has several global climate cycles with periodicities of 50-70 years and that the average of these cycles is about 60 years which has a cool and warm phase of 30 years each.
The last warm phase began in ca 1970-75 and ended in ca 2000. The global warming from ca 1975 was due in part to this warm phase. A cool phase started in 2000, and their stocastic model predicts that it will last until 2030.
At about 1975 the “Great Climate Shift” occured according to Don Easterbrook.
Several others studies have found this 60 year cycle. See ,for example, Alan Cheetam’s “Global Warming Science” at:
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming.
Ok scratch that, it looks like they didn’t use any of the ARGO data at all. I assumed an analyses would include s much recent information as possible – looks like they stopped at 1999. I wonder why they didn’t want to look at data from 2000 – 2012 ….. ? /sarc
Well if the models say it’s so then it must be.
/sarc
I did it I did it I heated my Olympic sized swimming pool with a hairdryer. Stupid fools don’t realize the ocean only has roughly 100000X the heat of the atmosphere.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
This is fantastic news, because if he is virtually certain then he can provide the observed data to justify his certainty?
Please don’t hold your breath I think he’s gergised up. 🙂
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views… which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” – Dr. Who (B-BBC)
H/T – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/world-flat-and-other-tales-spain
“One of the report’s co-authors, Hobart-based Dr John Church, is the CSIRO Fellow with the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research.”
’nuff said.
The paper can be found here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html
Keith Battye on June 11, 2012 at 5:32 am said:
Well if the models say it’s so then it must be.
/sarc
—————
According to the text above they compare models to observations. So maybe you need to read the actual paper to find out what their actual reasoning is.
Maybe you need to have more respect for evidence and less for preconceived notions.
0.1 degrees C in 50 years, eh?
Pretty sure about that initial reading 50 years ago, eh? Lucky there are no cycles involved which would make this a little more difficult ….. um … hang on a minute….
“And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.
“We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.”
=========
Hmmm, yes if the warm air above sinks into and mixes well with the oceans below – at all depths, then I suppose the Atmosphere will warm the oceans. –
However if things are still the way they once were then the oceans’ surface temperatures have no other option than to be transferred to the atmosphere above. – Not the other way round!
Are they claiming that the ocean heated 1 deg celcius the last 50 years?
The problem is there isn’t a copy of the study that can be read and properly understood. All we’ve got is some quotes from some authors and another expert.
Some of the comments about the paper are almost shrill and begging the reader to accept that they must believe everything in the paper is true. If you don’t believe it then tough cheese.
Bindoff’s quotes at the end of the above are strange and bizarre. ( for a scientist)
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed”
virtual realityn: an artificial environment that is experienced through sensory stimuli (as sights and sounds) provided by an interactive computer program.
http://climate-change-theory.com/360month.jpg
the only certainty I can see is the divergence of virtual and measured, still leaves me skeptical…
Praise the lord it’s settled!!!!!!
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
I would say that with this conclusion what is certain is continued funding.
If Iam going to get in trouble for the gore effect comment then dont post it.
The models can’t explain it, so it can’t be natural? Really?
““We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.”
Did what? Ran 12 models and kept the answer you were looking for?
Is there any other field of research where models trump actual observation or is climate science the only one?
Has anyone been able to identify the article referred to? I went to Nature Climate Change and can’t find it?
Anthony: Link to Gleckler et al (2012) Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1553.html
Based on a quick look at the abstract, it appears to be a study of a dataset (long-term Ocean Heat Content) made up of mostly make-believe data that is supported by climate models that have no bases in reality.
Models all the way really but they claim a temp increase, (observed,) of 0.1°C. Any error bars for that? I’d bet the error bars are an order of magnitude greater.
Can anyone translate this into English please?
DaveE.
Hey, this is good news. Now we can turn attention to the multi-decade ocean cycles and make some real progress against short-term doomists.
So, models which have been programmed to behave properly when given one amount of carbon dioxide will behave differently when that is removed. And that proves that reality is affected by that factor?
If I have a global temperature model which includes the amount of sand trucked to a lake beach in Kansas, and it behaves differently when that factor is removed, does that prove that temperature is affected by the amount of sand?
Professor Bindoff said the new research balanced the man-made impacts of warming greenhouse gases and cooling pollution in the troposphere against natural changes in the ocean’s temperature and volcanic eruptions.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
More of the model based junk science.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
“Climate models are confirmation bias on steroids.”
So they are saying that the man-made CO2 is responsible for 90% of the oceans’ warming? Does that CO2 have magical properties that natural CO2 doesn’t have that makes it much stronger, considering its share of the output is much smaller than the “natural” component?
I’ll concede there may be a correlation between greenhouse gases and oceans warming.
“Realclimate” has worked out the figures here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
“There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship.”
So in theory, a doubling of CO2 would increase the surface flux by 3.7 watts, resulting in ocean warming of 0.002K* 3.7 = 0.0074 K, which we won’t reach before CO2 has doubled. I wouldn’t lie awake nights worrying about such an insignificant warming.
“…we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
Saw this reported on the ABC site today. The word “certain” lept off the page. Took me all of 30 seconds to find the dreaded word “models” used with a virtual straight face so I stopped there, dismissed it and moved on.
A new push to get Agenda 21 rolling again.
Some scientist believe that under water volcanism is responsible for the rise in sst.
So that’s it then we know everything about global warming and don’t need to spend any more money on climate scientists. Time to sack them all and save a bit of money!
Was climate science created so stupid people could find jobs, too?
“>>>we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed…
by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius”
________________________
Keith Battye nailed it: “Well if the models say it’s so then it must be.”
So did Frank Zappa:
“I know, I think, the love I have for you will never die- well, maybe never.”
– The Mothers of Invention
“,,,,,,we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed,…..”
They are sort of sure that warming has occurred but know without doubt what the cause is. I am virtually certain which horse will the 3 o’clock and I am totally certain as to why it will win and thus you can risk your shirt on it.
So how does this “study” use the Argo data?
I love the ‘improved estimates’ part.
0.1 deg C accuracy, hahaha!
“we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed”.
Virtually certain.Can’t quite bring themselves to say they are certain.Because if they were certain then they would not have to be unequivocal because they would be well certain. 🙂
More billboards on the road to Rio…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend
Greenhouse gases cool the ocean. True story bro.
Computer models are like hot dogs, no better than what you put in them.
Steve Richards, thank you for the link to the paper. Surprisingly, it’s not paywalled.
From the abstract: .We examine the causes of ocean warming using these
improved observational estimates, together with results from
a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced
simulations.
Now they can make their predictions for the next 20 years, and 20 years from now we’ll know whether any of the models is a candidate to rely on for the subsequent 30+ years.
While at it, I would like to see the model output for the 1910-1945 period. Because the reality per HadSST2 is as follows:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend
This early 20th century warming is never replicated in any model, nor it is explainable by “GH forcing and here and there aerosols” climate models. If this warming, probably natural, will be captured by models, then we can discuss the alleged anthropogenic one, which is even less steep than this one. Any takers?
Why don’t they just use the sea coral that is able to tell us surface temperature and river flow thousands of miles away? Surely it also remembers the temperature of the water that is was immersed in?
Business of catastrophe as usual, you had “Maddoff” we got “Bindoff” and a “Church” of Global warming to justify Julia’s Green Carbon Tax and the ABC say it is so. it all fits in a model weird world……
So, “we” can actually say for the first time that:- we’re almost certain that the oceans have warmed; and we’re almost certain that warming is caused not by natural processes; and we’re almost sure that warming primarily is caused by rising greenhouse gases.
I could have sworn I’ve actually heard that said many times.
Anyway, I can easily accept what Bindoff unequivocally claims, on behalf of others, about the evidence of global warming: “We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it”.
Wonder what they make of this http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/ocean-warming-over-last-135-years-twice-as-great-as-over-last-50-years/
“And if warming in the last 50 years was just half the rate of warming over the last 100 years it follows that warming in the first 50 years was 3 times greater than the rate in the second 50.”
So, if their assertion that greenhouse gases are the cause of 90% of the ocean warming over the last 50 years and that ‘natural causes’ could not be responsible for more than 10% of the increase. What exactly caused the accelerated warming the previous 50 years since greenhouse gases where not a significant factor prior to 1940?
These guys – I dont call them scientists because they aren’t – have to blame Co2 because if they didn’t they’d be out of a job. The Australian government’s position is global warming is real and if you want a paycheque you had better agree with them.
The Climate Liars will use any means possible to impose their ideology on people. If they can’t convince us, then they’ll use force of law and if need be, violence.
I can see so many applications for any technique that can estimate correctly a 50 year trend with 20 years of data. Harry Nyquist must be completely amazed.
Is it really as bad as it looks? Is this really the argument that’s hiding coyly behind the media assurances? “Well, we guessed how much it would warm *without* AGW, and then we looked at how much it had really warmed and they weren’t the same! So that means AGW is unequivocal!
I’m seriously asking not just rhetoricising (if that’s even a word). Can it really be as bad as that?
what global warming?
Since oceans have a high heat capacity and air does not, air cannot heat oceans, but oceans can heat the air.
REPEAT: It is the oceans which send heat into the air, The atmosphere doesn’t even retain heat to put into the ocean.
That is just basic physics
As always its:
1. We build some models
2. We pick some forcing factor estimates, in which natural factors are ~10%, and different aerosol histories/estimates for each model
3. We run the forcing factor estimates through the models
4. The models don’t look like reality without the “anthropogenic forcings”
5. Including everything and the models look like reality
6. Therefore, natural factors are ~10%
7. Also, every model is correct when it says the sensitivity is high even though they all disagree about just how high
The conclusion in step six is inevitable after step two. As is seven. One might as well stop after two, the other steps just conceal that the conclusion is actually an assumption.
I’m sorry but Dr Church, unless he is being deliberately disingenuous, ought to go back to primary school to learn rudimentary physics
No matter how much food I put into my dog, no matter how different types of food I put into my dog….it all comes out as a turd, every single time. Same rule applies. My dog however is considerably cheaper and faster.
Isn’t being “virtually certain” like being a little pregnant?
Only around 380 parts per million of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.
Only 3% of the CO2 results from human activity.
Only about 2-5% of the infrared radiation can be absorbed by a greenhouse gas, as shown by the IR absorption spectrum, which consists of a narrow band of frequencies.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not determined by production, because it is regulated by the oceans. Cold oceans absorbs more, and warm oceans release more back into the atmosphere.
The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century indicates oceans heating (due to other causes), and it is too minuscule to be relevant. It is an indicator, not cause, of oceans heating.
Air has a much lower heat capacity than water, which means oceans can heat the air, but the air cannot significantly heat the oceans.
CO2 change temperatures less than 0.000001 degrees all of the time.
When el Nino heats the Pacific, CO2 increases in the atmosphere; and after El Nino, it normalizes. It wouldn’t normalize if oceans were not reabsorbing the CO2. And if oceans can reabsorb that CO2, they can absorb any other CO2.
timetochooseagain said:
“The conclusion in step six is inevitable after step two. As is seven. One might as well stop after two, the other steps just conceal that the conclusion is actually an assumption.”
I thought so. I just can’t bring myself to believe it, even after all this time. I’m kind of curious about the mindset of the people perpetrating it. They must know it’s bogus, right? What processes of excuse and projection must go on in the mind once you’ve committed yourself to broadcasting what is basically propaganda masking as science?
Alex says:
June 11, 2012 at 5:43 am
Are they claiming that the ocean heated 1 deg celcius the last 50 years?
Actually, they’re claiming that their models prove that AGW has raised the temperature of the oceans by 0.09⁰C over the course of fifty years — followed by the weasel-words that they’re *almost sure* that the oceans have actually, y’know, *warmed*…
Greenhouse Effect CAN NOT warm the Oceans.
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
from
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/oceaanopwarming-of-zeespiegelstijging-door-co2-is-niet-mogelijk_193094.html
I don’t bother reading beyond the author list if it contains the name Ben Santer.
quidsapio says:
June 11, 2012 at 7:21 am
“I thought so. I just can’t bring myself to believe it, even after all this time. I’m kind of curious about the mindset of the people perpetrating it. They must know it’s bogus, right? ”
Its a selection process, otherwise known as peer review, a process in which scientists sell their integrity to the highest bidder, based on the political pragmatism/expediency of the period. Those who can’t commit to selling their integrity risk loss of position and funding.
I’m increasingly drawn to the idea that the pension money for these jokers should be invested in the stock market based upon a stock market computer model they get to design themselves. I am virtually certain they would embrace that considering their unwavering trust in their modeling work.
You could write to the University of Melbourne
E: rebeccas@unimelb.edu.au
and ask them to justify Gergis continuation at that Institution at taxpayers expense
This study is all about getting your name in lights in the IPCC AR5. If it had said “no sign AGW” there is no way it would have received any notice. If on the other hand it said “proof of AGW” it will receive widespread attention and rewards for the authors. So, as a scientist trying to make a living and a name for yourself, which one are you going to publish?
The theory predicts that the ocean should have warmed by 2 to 3 times this much.
So either the theory is wrong is their 10% natural factors were providing a much larger negative temperature influence.
They can’t have it both ways.
(And of course the warming rate is down by another half since the Argo floats started providing world-wide coverage).
It is interesting that Church is involved in this study. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Later Dr. Vincent Gray weighed in:
Have you heard of the Australian study on 12 Pacific islands, some of them mentioned by Church? They used much more reliable equipment than the others. They claimed an upward trend but this was done by the dishonest use of a linear regression which made use of the temporary depression on all the records caused by the 1988 hurricane.
Australian climate scientists – all you need to know? Down Under is competing with Lotus Land for “virtual reality” world leadership status. Did the study measure the amount of unicorn poop that has fertilised the upper layers of the ocean over the study period or was it modelled? Unicorns -they fly you know and they all live on Atlantis, or is that Australia?
Model outputs are nothing more than maps of existing data. A map is a good analogue for amodel output:
Given enough parameters, one can make a three dimensional map of an explored region to great accuracy. One could use a complete set of functions in a tailor expansion and fit with as many parameters as are necessary for the fit. Obviously a map is very useful, but its predictive power to uncharted regions is very small. For example if a mountain is fitted, maybe a prediction can be made of whether the land goes up or down in the uncharted region from the slopes at the interface, but one would not trust them to great distance.
These General Circulaion Models do not use a complete set of functions in the usual sense of fitting, but in a sense they do, they use the Navier Stokes solutions or the whatnot solutions but still they have a large number of parameters that can be manipulated to create a good fit. If the fit is good, their outputs are just as valid as maps. In unknown values of the variables they cannot be reliable.
This is obvious in weather predictions, which can change even within a day, and nobody is surprised. The GCMs are just similar weather programs where averages are substituted for hourly values in order to make future projections. It is inevitable that the outputs will diverge, as they have already, from the AR4 IPCC projections.
You could write to the University of Melbourne
E: rebeccas@unimelb.edu.au
and ask them to justify Gergis and the team that produced this drivel to continue working at that Institution at taxpayers expense
A study of the frequency of alarmist papers as a function of time to IPCC report dates might produce interesting results.
Hilarious! Can only go back far enough for 1/2 an oceanic cycle, not that there is any implied understanding of oceanic cycles in this paper. I’d assumed it would use detrended enso and amo…not even that crafty. I REALLY AM IN THE WRONG PROFESSION! Easy money…
In proper science, a model run that disagreed with observations would be an observation which would lead to a (falsifiable) hypothesis, which would lead to an experiment to determine the truth (or more likely not) of the hypothesis.
In post-modern science, a model run that disagrees with observations is a conclusion. As everyone since Trofim Lysenko knows, you can’t produce good science by flailing around in the dark, asking questions you don’t know the answer to.
So. The tuned fudge factors used in the models (kind of like solar stuff – they don’t know how it works to drive temperature so they use a fudge factor) show that fudge-modeled oceanic warming correlates with observed oceanic warming. I suppose this piece of circular reasoning cost more than a bit of coinage.
If natural variability can only explain 10% of the late 20th century warming, what caused the early 20th century warming?
From Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales
I wonder how much this fakery cost us fools in the US.
Translated: We decided without any direct evidence of causation based on our multiply data adjusted and infilled datasets that man is responsible. And that if anything, we underestimate man’s effects on the warming oceans. Oh yeah, our analysis proves we’ve not identified any error that could cause us to think otherwise, so don’t bother asking.
sarc (Oh how I wish this could be true, but they don’t think they’re being sarcastic nor do I think I am in translating their fakery).
Data sets used have undergone ‘adjustments’ perhaps many times. It has been throttled till it tells us what we desire.
Model runs Many models and many model runs were used. We also averaged model runs to make a dataset we call a ‘multimodel run MMR’.
Man’s fingerprint of proof There isn’t any, so we decided that the change in temperature we identified in the MMR of all our MMRs is definitively the fingerprint of man. No doubt about it, we scientists know it when we see it.
Noise We concatenated all available control data for a given subset and performed a skilful magical series and decided there was no errors of substance. We suggest alternative methods of tomfoolery, but we don’t want to try methods that might be better.
Adjusted data + many model runs, averaged + CAGW wisdom = positive proof man warmed the oceans a fraction of a degree and we are absolutely positive!
/sarc
I hope the Inspector Generals of the US funders of this nonsense start asking real questions and seize evidence. Of course though, I wouldn’t be surprised if they might be afraid that one of this paper’s co-authors might beat them up…
He said there was simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius through natural causes alone.
He specifically mentioned “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 and 4 months, there has been a cooling. (-0.0100897 per year or -1.0 C/century)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend
P.S. The April value of 0.292 is not on WFT yet, but that will not change what I have written above.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
Virtually certain? Virtual is the word, considering it’s virtual reality.
Study of models which are just a form of virtual reality, so “virtually certain” seems an appropriate phrase.
“This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”
Virtually certain? Virtual being the word, considering it is virtual reality.
DDP says:
June 11, 2012 at 7:14 am
No matter how much food I put into my dog, no matter how different types of food I put into my dog….it all comes out as a turd, every single time. Same rule applies. My dog however is considerably cheaper and faster.
LOL What an apt analogy!!
Are there any papers comparing the number of studies that rely on models versus the number of studies that make use of observed data?
There needs to be.
Kaboom says:
June 11, 2012 at 7:26 am
I’m increasingly drawn to the idea that the pension money for these jokers should be invested in the stock market based upon a stock market computer model they get to design themselves.
=============
How about payment for forecast accuracy. Not the accuracy of how well the instruments they maintain meet the forecasts, any child can figure out how to make that work. Rather, if they forecast 500,000 climate refuges by 2012, then bet their pensions on this forecast.
If they turn out to be wrong then they lose their pensions. If they turn out to be right, then their pensions are increased. Perhaps substantially, depending on the odds. This will almost certainly significantly improve the accuracy of the forecasts.
Right now the system is similar to newspapers. It rewards the most spectacular headlines. “1 billion to die in 10 years” is going to draw attention, even though on average that is the number that can be expected to die from a population of 7 billion and an average lifespan of 70 years.
“The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.”
This is the practice of comparing one or more dependent variables with another dependent variable, and then applying statistics as if one of them was a dependent variable to arrive at your conclusion. It’s not valid.
Often this kind of research is conducted, treating atmospheric CO2 as an independent variable. It isn’t, and it never will be.
the hubris of these “scientists” is just staggering. these are the same guys whose models have completely failed to predict reality and over predicted warming by 90%.
they then have the chutzpah to use these same utterly failed models to make negative inferences that “it must be CO2 because we have accounted for all other variables”? wow. just wow.
this is a child’s argument. you could use this same logic to argue for aliens using heat rays on us.
the “logic” of these models is as flawed as it is circular.
how have these “scientists” not been laughed out of the profession?
Not long ago WUWT posted a great review of what we know about climate. Regarding the oceans, two big factors to consider are: 1) Visible light is absorbed from the surface down to tens of meters below the surface of the ocean, and that is where the big change in energy content is derived; 2) IR is absorbed at the surface only, and leads to evaporation of water, producing more clouds.
Are the observations consistent with that? Well they don’t say because the models don’t handle clouds and water vapor consistently or correctly. Different models make different assumptions and use different algorithms. That is, they guess differently. No doubt they used an “ensemble” to arrive at their conclusion. What does that mean? The dozen models might get the “right” answers, but clearly for the wrong reasons. Otherwise, they would only need one model.
Skeptik says:
June 11, 2012 at 3:40 am
People with two heads are twice as smart as people with one
What if they are both schizophrenic
This is all one day going to be a model study in the processes of indoctrination.
I just cannot understand why all real scientists do not just instantly recoil in horror when presented with studies as imprecise and modelled as this is, and hear that amazing statement, “And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal. “We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.
The whole thing seems almost a caricature of all we know about the processes of science. These people must be mightily ‘programmed’.
According to Max Planck Institutes’ Dr. Solanki’s October, 28 2004 Nature article, the solar cycles from 1930 to 1996 were the strongest 70yr-string of solar cycles in 11,400 years.
With higher solar cycles comes much higher levels (over 15%) of UV radiation, which penetrates deeper into the surface of oceans, which increases ocean warming. In addition, these high solar cycles generated stronger solar winds, which prevented GCRs from hitting the troposphere and reduced cloud cover, which further intensified the warming cycle.
CAGW theory discounts all these factors, and attributes almost all the 0.6C of warming last century to CO2’s ability to absorb a tiny sliver of IR around 15 microns….
Isn’t funny that there hasn’t been any warming trend since 1998 according to HadCRUT3, CRUTEM3, RSS and UAH temp data, even though CO2 levels continue to rise….
Did someone send the memo to the CAGW *sigh*entists that SC23 was a dud, SC24 is the lowest solar cycle in 100 years and SC25 will be the lowest in 300 years??
Hmmmm. What a coincidence…. It’s almost like the Svensmark Effect explains things perfectly.
I can’t wait until Dr. Svensmark’s new paper showing how GCRs + UV+ SO2 +O3 creates
cloud seeds >50nm comes out. That should really cause the CAGW *sigh*entists to circle the wagons…
BTW, any news on how the peer-review process is going on Svensmark’s new paper?
If you want to know “why” these so-called scientists behave the way they do, just read “The Firm”
by John Grisham. It’s an example of “Servitude Volontaire” (La Boetie)
Gavin writes at RC playing down the Gergis affair,
Contrast that statement with this one made in relation to a new peer reviewed paper,
I’d also like to find evidence how warm air can actually heat oceans. Waters specific heat capacity is large, and it takes a vast quantity of energy to hear it up. The chances that the atmosphere and “Global Warming” is actually heating the oceans is probably rubbish.
Its more likely the vast quantity of underground thermal vents that are being discovered all over the place.
Is that abstract right?
“…When global mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence…”
At a one percent significance level?
WUWT?
These climate apparatchiks have zero interest in and even less knowledge of natural variability. It has been the skeptical debate that has forced them, unwillingly, to even address the issue of natural variation. “Natural” for them is a dirty and scary word. Does this paper address ENSO and Bob Tisdale’s work showing OHC changes can be traced to changing ENSO regimes? Thought not. Of course, in their climate-ocean models, ENSO is just noise.
But they should be applauded for the clever trick they use to eliminate any solar forcing effect: in the place from which they get their 10% value for natural variation, the sun does not shine.
VIRTUALLY – adv. “In essence but NOT IN FACT.”
May be I am not very smart, but I fail to see how one can measure the temperature of all the oceans in the world to that degree of acuracy
I saw this statistic tossed out above “Given that our proportion of the global atmospheric CO2 content from fossil fuel use is 3%…”. I’ve always wondered what the cite for that statement is. Does anyone know of a good link for it? Everything I found on Google was a “debunking” of it by the alarmist sites.
Is this the missing heat that has been as elusive to global warming as the missing link has been to evolution?
Sounds like saying the water in the pot on the stove is getting hotter due to the hot moist air above it.
So if we set aside all of their navel gazing with the falsified climate models, tell me again how exactly did they actually conclusively rule out natural causes?
Also how can anyone draw any reliable conclusions about what the ocean may or may not be doing temperature wise with such a short time scale of sparse temperature data available?
How does this junk pass for science?
I am really tired of propaganda being passed off as science.
I would love to see a good estimate of ocean temperature/heat content error bars based solely on the spatial density and variability of the measured data. I don’t even think the ARGO data is remotely close to resolving this to a meaningful global value due to extreme undersampling, let alone the previous data to cover the claimed 50 year period. BOB TISDALE have you ever tried to quantify this or can you point us to a source that has?
Quite right. If this study doesn’t stray into the realm of argumentum ad ignorantiam, it comes perilously close.
Let me see if I have this right: They wrote a computer model that forced agreement with observations and declared victory?
Science? Really? Hell, anyone can do that….
There must be lots of these power stations worldwide dumping waste heat into the water, which makes its way to the sea, warming the oceans a bit. Have the warmists taken this into account? It ought to reduce the warming attributable to CO2.
So, the apparently warming Atlantic means all oceans are warming?
Sigh. Another one trying to get into AR5. Pretty models, Prof, but thank Heaven we don’t live in one.
Most here are dismissive of this study but it does seem to confirm results published in Nature Climate Change on April 3 2012. In this study temperatures from the Argo buoys, averaged over the period 2004-2010, were compared at those measured at 273 sites where ocean temperatures were measured by HMS Challenger in the 1870s. At 211 of the 273 sites surface temperatures measured by Argo were significantly higher. The authors estimated that the global average surface temperature measured by Argo was 0.59C greater than that determined in the 1870s. The average difference at 366 meters was +0.39C, at 914 meters was +0.12C and no difference was seen at 1500 meters. As these comparisons are not model based and so cannot be criticised on that score.
I wonder it CA will take this one on.
Was reading an article regarding High-Dimensional Propensity Score Analyses and wondered if any of our readers here on WUWT were familiar with the technique. Uses an algorithm to sort out covariant factors which lead an analysis to wrongly ascribe higher or lower relationship values to an independent variable. Of course we still have the problem of causality but it would be interesting to see what would happen to CO2 as a supposed causal variable in all of these models if the data were analysed with such an algorithm. Sounds like the old AID (automatic interaction detection) analysis in some respects. An attempt to deal with “exogenous” variables or possibly issues of multicolinearity. Perhaps the Sun actually has something to do with ocean warming? I do not have access to such a tool and would probably do more harm than good at any rate but thought perhaps someone here might give it a look.
Robot Mayor: I intend to demonstrate beyond 0.5% of a doubt that these humans before us are guilty of the crime of being humans. Come to think of, I rest my case.
Computer Judge: Thank you prosecutor, I will now consider the evidence.
http://theinfosphere.org/Computer_Judge
Somehow seems appropriate 🙂
Do you think I could use the models to marry Carmen Electra?
They do seem to be able to produce miracles.
No. Wrong. The authors fail at math: the measurements conducted in the 1870s aboard a ship aren’t accurate to better than ±2K. Given that there is no random distribution and fewer than 300 samples, the law of large numbers does not apply. Anyone making statement of broad accuracy to one part in fifty thousand is either an idiot who doesn’t understand significant digits, or a liar who does understand.
The correct statement would be something like: “The authors estimated that the global average surface temperature measured by Argo was 1K(±2K) greater than that measured in the 1870s.”, although 0K(±10K) might be better.
P Wilson says: June 11, 2012 at 7:08 am
quote
Since oceans have a high heat capacity and air does not, air cannot heat oceans, but oceans can heat the air.
unquote
A 2008 study – “Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming”, by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)
[http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf] states: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.”
JF
Dr Church says
quote
….there was simply no way the upper layers of every ocean in the world could have warmed by more than 0.1 degrees Celsius through natural causes alone.
unquote
Dr Church, you’re in about the right part of the world, give or take a couple of thousand miles. Take a tanker and fill it with light oil. Take it somewhere relatively unpolluted and spill the oil — a couple of hundred miles from Tahiti would be nice*. What will happen to sea surface temperatures?
Now ponder Wigley’s question: ‘why the blip?’. Answer that (come on, it’s obvious), checking NASA’s estimate of world-wide oil spill (‘a city of five million people will cause more oil pollution than a major tanker spill just from road run-off’) and wait for the Nobel.
JF
*Can I carry everyone’s bags please?
DavidA says:
June 11, 2012 at 8:29 am
“Gavin writes at RC playing down the Gergis affair,
And as for peer review, you appear to be under a serious mis-apprehension that peer review is a guarantee of correctness – this is simply not so. Peer review is merely the first step in evaluating any new idea – it is a minimum condition and not sufficient in itself.
Contrast that statement with this one made in relation to a new peer reviewed paper,
We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,”
Gavin is quite mistaken about the peer review process in relation to climate science. In climatology under the consensus, there is a partial leaning towards AGW and therefore the peer review process is an a-priori form of censorship. It is only when this hurdle is passed that moderation is considered as a relevant factor, and that is why apocalyptic catastrophes are generally ruled out, in favour of results that “give rise for some concern”.
Should a comprehensive analysis occur considering all relevant factors (such as sea bed spreading, geological factors in submarine analysis etc) in fact, all complications/variables in climate related events, a near impossible task, then the human signal would be quite insignificant, except the Heat Island effect.
I doubt a supercomputer would even be able to analyse the climate as to what event produces what effect, though should this stage be reached, I doubt it would pass muster by the peer review process.
Was that a full dozen or a “baker’s dozen” of computer models? I”ll really believe the results if it was a “baker’s dozen”.
Ian….are you seriously asking us to believe the instruments and tecniques used in 1870 were as precise and accurate as that used by ARGO? And HMS Challenger had lines 1500m long? How did they read the thermometers? Challenger scooped seawater up in buckets and then stuck a thermometer (of sorts) into the water to measure the temperature. How does that equate to the ARGO system of measurement? Given the differences in methodology and technology I am astounded the differences are as low as you say.
I have a post on this here:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/11/causes-of-ocean-warming/
OH good grief.
This is such a crock of fertilizer, I can not believe that anyone is willing to put their name on it much less some one with a Phd.
Solar spectra with oceans included: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
Solar radiation at various ocean depths. http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif Notice the high energy wavelengths, visible and UV penetrate the deepest. Infrared can barely penetrate the surface tension. Incomming vs outgoing radiation: http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/energy_wavelength.gif
The only link between CO2 and SST is an increase in SST means MORE CO2 in the atmosphere due to outgassing! http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2-MBL1826-2008-2n-SST-3k.jpg
OH, and if you want to know why the oceans have been heating:
NOAA:GRAPH From the late 50’s the sun has been at its most active than for more than 11,500 years
And that does not include changes in cloud cover.
Variations in Cloud Cover and Cloud Types over the Ocean from Surface Observations, 1954–2008
….Among the cloud types, the most widespread and consistent relationship is found for the extensive marine stratus and stratocumulus clouds (MSC) over the eastern parts of the subtropical oceans. Substantiating and expanding upon previous work, strong negative correlation is found between MSC and sea surface temperature (SST) in the eastern North Pacific, eastern South Pacific, eastern South Atlantic, eastern North Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean west of Australia. By contrast, a positive correlation between cloud cover and SST is seen in the central Pacific. High clouds show a consistent low-magnitude positive correlation…with SST over the equatorial ocean….
Cosmic rays and cloud cover: http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3779-henrik-svensmark-the-cosmic-raycloud-seeding-hypothesis-is-converging-with-reality.html
Funny thing, I remember someone saying that the oceans weren’t warming as fast as should be the case given the radiative imbalance due to CO2. Wasn’t it dubbed Trenberth’s “missing heat?”
How does that sit comfortably alongside this new notion that ocean warming is too much to be the “result of natural cycles”.
Well good oh ,looks like man kind has lucked out and saved itself from an impending Ice Age . Big pat on the back everyone . P.S. that should keep most of you all where you belong=the Northern Hemisphere .
I have an old Windows 95 computer game called “Pacific General”. The last time I played the Japanese campaign, Japan won that virtual WW2. So we need to actually remove the surrender plaque from the deck of the USS Missouri. My computer simulation says so.
Hmmm: I haven’t looked at it. But Willis Eschenbach had a couple of recent posts about uncertainty in NODC OHC data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/
And:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/more-ocean-sized-errors-in-levitus-et-al/
The paper is an obvious joke … the authors are from Tasmania !
I cannot read this paper and tell if the results are valid. It may be withdrawn in a couple of weeks. But what is clear is that the reactions here are not skeptical. People who have not and likely cannot read this paper have concluded its conclusions are wrong. That is not skepticism, but not I’m not allowed to use the d word here.
[REPLY: No, you are not allowed to use the “d-word” and you are under-estimating the qualificiations of the readers of this site. You are not the only Ph.D. here. It is also site policy to supply a valid e-mail address when posting. You can check our site policy here. There are occassions when we need to contact a commenter. Your posts are welcome as long as they conform to site policy. -REP]
LazyTeenager says:
June 11, 2012 at 5:42 am (Edit)
Keith Battye on June 11, 2012 at 5:32 am said:
Well if the models say it’s so then it must be.
/sarc
—————
According to the text above they compare models to observations. So maybe you need to read the actual paper to find out what their actual reasoning is.
Maybe you need to have more respect for evidence and less for preconceived notions.
————————————————————–
I’m sorry but the article says from the models only human influence can explain this increase. I was not referring to the paper but I was referring to the article the newspaper produced. I don’t think that the inference is wrong, they say that the models show man is responsible. I don’t see the justification for the increase in surface temperature, just that man is obviously responsible.
Why is it obvious from the article? Do we have to take some journo’s word for this?
You seem to think the paper is more important than the ABC interpretation of it which is nonsense obviously. Why? Because a few orders of magnitude of taxpayers will read the newspaper interpretation than will read the paper. This is just propaganda at it;s worst, it uses a nugget of information to create a mine of misinformation.
Models? Meh….
It’s a simple fact. The fact is based on easily knowable and understandable technology. Nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid.
Why are the oceans cooling?
■ 1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA) – i.e., Sporer minimum
■ 1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA)
■ 1610-1700 cold – (LSA) – i.e., Maunder minimum
■ 1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
■ 1810-1900 cold – (LSA) i.e., Dalton minimum
■ 1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
■ 2010+ Possibly 3-7 decades of global cooling
Why are the Oceans Cooling?
Isaac Asimov, in his Foundation Trilogy (not the Fourth), had a future in which original research was no longer done. All work was a rehash of previous work, most of which was a rehash of original work some time before. The idea was that the original “authority” was so blessed with intelligence and insight, that no one needed to observe anything anymore. Of course the result was a pathetic loss of reality.
All the focus on computer models makes me think Asimov’s future has arrived a thousand years early.
The ‘10%’ is standard climate speak for natural variation, and is consistent with the Australian Academy of Science’s attribution to natural causes, who by their own admission still can’t understand why the world warmed in the early 1900s, without much C02.
It’s merely a throwaway percentage, and has no basis other than political, to allow the skeptics some leeway, for uncertainty, and anything else that doenst fit. You can only massage the data to the point where ~10% still doesnt fit, any more than this is difficult in a blog age.
OK, what do we have here?
Mike says: June 11, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Said; “…. People who have not and likely cannot read this paper have concluded its conclusions are wrong. That is not scepticism…”
Geez, I dunno about you, Mike, but reported statements such as this;
“And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal. “We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.”
…tend to evoke a feeling in me…. what would I call it? …. hmmm… lemme see….scepticism! .. that’d be right.
I think you may be over analysing your definitions.
I am absolutely horrified. Did someone say 0.1 degrees Celsius??? We are doomed.
Now back to actual reality which is far more shocking yet more robust than any computer model.
Coconut juice anyone?
http://www.news.com.au/world/palm-trees-flourished-in-arctic-study/story-e6frfkz9-1225791205191
Yamal was an observation. The BROKEN Australian hockey stick was an observation. It all depends on what you select to observe. Objectivity / non-bias is the fly in the ointment. This is difficult with lavish research funding slushing around you. Now grow out of your lazy teenage ways and be a man (or woman).
After my last comment on this thread I left WUWT to end up reading about the dingo baby case in Australia and suddenly the similarities with this paper became obvious.
Good night.
Forgot the link
http://www.news.com.au/national/the-azaria-chamberlain-inquest-live/story-e6frfkvr-1226392517376
Mizimi June11@10.47 am You ask: “Ian….are you seriously asking us to believe the instruments and tecniques used in 1870 were as precise and accurate as that used by ARGO?
No Mizimi, I’m not asking you to believe anything, its the authors of the studies published in Nature which as you know used to be considered the best science journal in the world who are telling you that. You can read a precis on the paper here:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/modern-ocean-temperatures-compared-to-challenger-expedition-data/
Whether you like it or not the work was published after peer review in a very reputable journal so why shouldn’t it be acceptable and it certainly is relevant to the discussion here. Although I’m on the sceptical side of the debate on CAGW, I try to look objectively at both sides of the argument rather than ignore reportts that do not support the sceptical point of view.
Well regardless; or irregardless, as the case may be, of whether it is unequivocal; or equivocal, that there is global warming, and that perhaps 70% of that must be ocean warming, simply as a result of there being water covering 70% of the earth surface, acceptance of that as fact, is a far cry from PROVING that CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases CAUSED that global/ocean warming; if it exists.
Perhaps these “Scientists” have an explanation for why the ocean warming is ONLY 70% of the global warming, given that water has a reflectance in the range of 2-3%, whereas non water areas of the earth tend to have reflectances that are more like 40% or higher, so the 30% of the non water areas of the earth are likely to reflect 20 times as much per unit area, as water does.
The “scientists” didn’t say how much of the oceans upper layers get warmed by CO2 and other GHGs; so that could be almost anywhere in the range of as little as 5 microns to as much as 100 microns; a 20 to one possible range of variation. On the other hand, the sun’s solar energy is only known to be able to warm as little as the top 700 metres, but some people think it could be as high as 2,000 metres; but still a much more restricted three to one range, as compared to the 20:1 range for GHG warming.
This looks to me as being not an equivocal discovery of some importance.
Doug Proctor says: June 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Isaac Asimov…
— — —
I recently read a twitter tweet (@wilw) that lefties have been re-tweeting of this Asimov quote:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ”
Its as if they don’t like democracy because people who don’t think like they do, get to vote.
I think something has been missed in the comments so far. From the paper:
“there are no significant differences between the ΔT trends (which range from 0.022 to 0.028 °C per decade) in the three improved observational data sets”
If we take this as over the 50 year timeframe in their Fig 1, then this leads to a very interesting implication.
Assume for argument’s sake the trend is entirely due to CO2. Between 1960 and 2010 the level in the atmosphere rose from about 315 to about 390 ppmV. Taking the median of 0.025 °C/decade we can do this calculation:
2XCO2 = (5×0.025xlog(2)) / (log(390/315)) = 0.4 K
This is below the values determined by Lindzen & Choi 2011 (0.7 K) and Spencer & Braswell 2010 (0.6 K). Even if, as Dr Gleckler points to, you assume some missing heat or a delayed response you still only bring this number up towards theirs.
Looks to me like Dr Gleckler and his coworkers (including Dr’s Church and Santer) have just about disproved CAGW. And supported the low sensitivity hypothesis.
Well, well…
Philip Richens says:
But presumably the conclusion is only justified if those same models can also simulate observed natural variations over the relevant time scales.
Assuming we know what natural variations are relevent in order to create a meaningful model in the first place.
Espen says:
I remain highly skeptical that a change of +0.15 C since 1960 can be measured at all – the measurements from the pre-ARGO area (i.e. for all except the last 8-9 years) were sparse and crude.
Even if it can be measured does it actually mean anything? Or is this another case where anyone other than a climate “scientist” would tend conclude that such a tiny number equates to zero.
Having read the study, well the main bits, it supports my observation that the real scientific value of climate models, is they provide numerical values for the modeller’s confirmation bias.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
The authors estimated that the global average surface temperature measured by Argo was 0.59C greater than that determined in the 1870s.
No. Wrong. The authors fail at math: the measurements conducted in the 1870s aboard a ship aren’t accurate to better than ±2K. Given that there is no random distribution and fewer than 300 samples, the law of large numbers does not apply. Anyone making statement of broad accuracy to one part in fifty thousand is either an idiot who doesn’t understand significant digits, or a liar who does understand.
Is Argo capable of accuratly measuring to 0.01K or is this another bogus assumption?
jonathan frodsham says:
June 11, 2012 at 4:37 am
“The atmosphere has a mass of : 1.5 x 10 to the p18 tonns compared to the oceans of 5×10 to the p15 tonns so that the oceans have a greater heat capacity by 3,300 times. So it is almost impossible for the atmosphere to exert a significant heating effect on the the oceans.”
Pity you didn’t check those figures before you posted. They indicate the ocean heat content as being a small fraction of that of the atmosphere, which is surely the opposite of your intention.