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 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.