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
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.