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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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