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
“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.