Over at The Conversation Andrew Glikson asks Fact check: has global warming paused? citing an old Skeptical Science favorite graph, and that’s the problem; it’s old data. He writes:
As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.
…
To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.
Hmmm, if “…ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming…” I wonder what he and the SkS team will have to say about this graph from NOAA Pacific Marine Environment Laboratory (PMEL) using more up to date data from the ARGO buoy system?
Sure looks like a pause to me, especially after steep rises in OHC from 1997-2003. Note the highlighted period in yellow:
From PMEL at http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
The plot shows the 18-year trend in 0-700 m Ocean Heat Content Anomaly (OHCA) estimated from in situ data according to Lyman et al. 2010. The error bars include uncertainties from baseline climatology, mapping method, sampling, and XBT bias correction.
Historical data are from XBTs, CTDs, moorings, and other sources. Additional displays of the upper OHCA are available in the Plots section.
As Dr. Sheldon Cooper would say: “Bazinga!“
h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for the PMEL graph.
UPDATE: See the above graph converted to temperature anomaly in this post.
Werner Brozek says: “There was a volcanic eruption that affected 1992 and satellites give more extreme values. So you are cherry picking with a volatile data set over a short period.”
Werner, thank you for taking on the question. I agree with your answer: that natural factors can have a large influence on the trend in an interval as short as 15 years.
So, if that was true in 2007, why isn’t it true today?
D.B. Stealey says: “An inference is not measurable scientific evidence.”
It’s frustrating when we can’t even agree on the meaning of words.
Here is the definition of inferred, from Google: “Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.”
Here is the definition of evidence, from Google: “The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
Do you agree that Harries et al made measurements?
Do you agree that those measurements are information?
Bart says: “Respect is not a part of the equation.”
Ideally, yes. But human limitations mean one cannot independently reproduce or verify every piece of data and every calculation. Therefore, one must make judgements about how trustworthy the works of others is, and respect — one’s opinion gathered from prior encounters — is certainly part of that.
Phobos says:
“So, if that was true in 2007, why isn’t it true today?”
Listen to a true expert, instead of the pseudo-scientists over at SkS:
See, nothing is static. There are cycles within cycles, sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes canceling. The planet is not in equilibrium, and there is no need to invoke a magic gas to explain tenths of a degree changes.
No doubt William of Ockham is spinning in his grave: “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.” CO2 is an extraneous entity, which is not necessary for any explanation of the curent climate.
Finally, as I have repeatedly pointed out: there are no testable, empirical measurements of AGW. None. If there were, the question of the sensitivity number would be answered. But it is not; there is a long running debate over that number, with estimates anywhere from zero to 3+ºC and more. Measure AGW, and you will have the answer.
But I suspect you wouldn’t like the answer, because it would be much too small for your liking. You can’t scare people with a small sensitivity number. It might even be zero.
@MiCro: People have also measured changes in downward longwave radiation:
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
There was also this poster:
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Similar work is listed here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 3:21 pm
“But human limitations mean one cannot independently reproduce or verify every piece of data and every calculation.”
As Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” However difficult you might find it to tease out the truth of an hypothesis, it is not so difficult to prove it wrong through a single contradiction. The links I have given you contradict the hypothesis. Therefore, it is wrong.
D.B. Stealey says: “Finally, as I have repeatedly pointed out: there are no testable, empirical measurements of AGW.”
It is based on a series of inferences, each of which itself is based on the combination of theory and experiment.
This is done all the time in science.
* Can you show me a testable, empirical measurement that shows smoking causes lung cancer?
* What experiment measured the mass of the Higgs boson, when it exists for only 10^-22 seconds?
* Where exactly does one stand in order to measure the mass of the Earth? Of the Andromeda Galaxy?
Phobos,
Typical misdirection. You avoided the logical conclusion:
“…there is a long running debate over that number, with estimates anywhere from zero to 3+ºC and more. Measure AGW, and you will have the answer.”
No one has the climate sensitivity number. No one. It is all speculation. Therefore, there is no empirical, testable measurement of AGW.
QED
D.B. Stealey says:
“The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.
~ Prof Richard Lindzen, M.I.T.”
Where is the proof that this is happening?
There isn’t any, because no one knows what is happening to the bottom half of the ocean.
On the other hand, we do know what is happening with GHGs, and we know (for clear skies, at least) that the Earth is radiating less at their absorption frequencies, and that downward longwave radiation is increasing, and that average humidity has increaased. That is, that the increase in GHGs is causing warming.
Whatever is going on in the deep ocean doesn’t undo what we know about GHGs.
Phobos says:
“Where is the proof that this is happening?”
Now you’re just saying something to be saying something — and to avoid my logical construct that proves CO2 has no measurable effect.
You cannot empirically, testably measure AGW. If you could, the sensitivity number would be established. It is not. There is a wide range of opinion.
If you would like some estimates of the sensitivity to 2xCO2, just ask, and I’ll educate you.
@D.B. Stealey: My response was *not* misdirection. It says that, like much of science, the result [for climate sensitivity] is based on a series of inferences.
in science, very few things are measured directly — most of them are inferred from a combination of theory and experiment. Heck, most scientists don’t even try to measure something until theory gives them a good idea of what the answer should be.
Do you reject the results for the mass of the proton because no one has placed it on a scale and weighed it? (And by the way, even a mass balance scale relies on inferences.)
P.S. Are you ever going to directly answer my two questions?
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Mark Bofill says: “I don’t know, has Dr. Hansen heard of the Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit?”
I am interested in the science, not in personalities. As soon as I see someone write “But so-and-so did it!” I know they don’t have a scientific answer. I get that — most people don’t have the scientific background to really understand climate science, and it’s easier to just spit and fume about James Hansen or Al Gore or Richard Lindzen. But I have absolutely no interest in engaging in debate on that level. Sorry.
———
Phobos,
Considering the relative unimportance of the original point, I’d have probably let this slide if you hadn’t responded at all. But seeing as how I don’t particularly enjoy being dismissed as not having the scientific background to really understand climate science by an anonymous troll with unknown credentials or listening to one suggest that I’m spitting and fuming about personalities, I feel compelled to address the matter. Therefore, allow me to begin by noting that your answer is without factual basis, unsupported, and unresponsive to the point I raised. Regardless of this, it contains interesting content that I’d like to address. In more detail:
Your answer is without factual basis in that I in fact do have the scientific background to understand climate science, and in that I was neither spitting nor fuming about anyone. Under other circumstances I’d be glad to present my credentials, however, I refuse on principle to enter a discussion about my qualifications in a discussion with someone who is not even using their real name. Your answer is unsupported, in that you assert (by implication) that I lack the scientific background to understand climate science without offering any evidence to back up your claim. Further, you offer nothing to support your contention that I was ‘spitting and fuming’ about any personality, as of course I obviously was not. Perhaps most importantly, your answer is unresponsive to the point I raised, as can be demonstrated by reviewing the pertinent portion of the thread.
—
—
I reproduced the relevant sequence here above, because out of courtesy I did not attempt to rub your nose in the obvious in my post by explicitly stating that your statement No one is predicting “runaway” global warming is certainly questionable, if not demonstrably false, by my citing Dr. Hansen. Additionally, whatever supporting point you believed you were making by invoking the Kombayashi-Ingersoll limit is reasonably called into question if you accept Dr. Hansen as a competent authority regarding climate change.
This segues conveniently into what I referred to earlier as the interesting content in your post I’d like to address.
The first question I’m interested in is simple enough, and I mean it very sincerely; please construe no sarcasm or devious intent. IS Dr. James Hansen a credible climate scientist and an authority on climate change, or do you consider him a personality like Al. Gore? I ask this honestly because it irritates me no end when people confuse me with the Sky Dragon slayers, for example. Is this a similar case?
Thanks for your attention, and looking forward to your considered response.
P.S. – I am aware of your subsequent post regarding this material. I would not clutter up the discussion by creating a simultaneous branch. If you feel that this subsequent post has relevance to the issues I’ve raised of course feel free to reference it, but I’d prefer that we pick up our discussion here.
I note that your latest post debunks your ‘inference’ claim. There are plenty of inferences of the sensitivity number, based on all kinds of evidence.
Which number is the correct number?
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Werner, thank you for taking on the question. I agree with your answer: that natural factors can have a large influence on the trend in an interval as short as 15 years.
So, if that was true in 2007, why isn’t it true today?
It is true today as well! Natural factors do have a large influence on any trend as short as 15 years. It is NOAA that says if natural factors are strong enough to produce a slope of 0 for 15 or more years, then something is wrong with the models that predict catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
D.B. Stealey says: “Now you’re just saying something to be saying something — and to avoid my logical construct that proves CO2 has no measurable effect.”
What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?
Werner Brozek says:
“It is true today as well! Natural factors do have a large influence on any trend as short as 15 years. It is NOAA that says if natural factors are strong enough to produce a slope of 0 for 15 or more years, then something is wrong with the models that predict catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”
Thank you, finally, for being at least one person to admit this. Others here won’t even tackle the question.
You’re right, of course: typical natural factors such as volcanoes and ENSOs mean 15 years is so short a time period to make meaningful conclusions about climate change.
But, where did NOAA make this claim?
And who said NOAA was the last word in climate science? That their words are holy writ?
Who said ANYBODY was the last word in ANY science?
Werner Brozek says:
“then something is wrong with the models that predict catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”
What do you mean by “catastrophic?”
After all, that’s a term of human values, not of science. So you’ll need to define it, according to your values (which means others can define it according to their values).
Mark Bofill wrote: “your statement No one is predicting “runaway” global warming is certainly questionable, if not demonstrably false, by my citing Dr. Hansen.”
Hansen isn’t predicting this. He wrote “if we burn all the coal.” *If.* That’s 10,000 GtC, when so far we’ve burned 380 GtC of fossil fuels.
The IPCC predictions are based on economic scenarios. Is there any IPCC scenario in which we burn 10,000 GtC? No, of course not.
Hansen isn’t predicting we’ll burn that much. He’s saying if we did.
By the way, what is your result for the warming expected from emitting 10,000 GtC?
Phobos says:
“What do you mean by ‘catastrophic?'”
‘Catastrophic’ is anything that will derail the climate grant gravy train.
Got it?
See, the whole CO2=CAGW conjecture is overhyped nonsense. If AGW exists, it is a minuscule forcing that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. It simply doesn’t matter, as the planet is clearly demonstrating.
So who should we believe? The AGW hucksters? Or Planet Earth? Because they cannot both be right.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“Others here won’t even tackle the question.”
Not so. As I stated quite plainly, it is an asymmetrical situation.
If natural variablity was not strong enough to mask the supposed warming signal in the earlier period, why should it be large enough to mask it now?
And, if it is large enough to mask it now, what assurance is there that the earlier warming was due to it?
You can’t have it both ways. Either natural variation is enough to explain both periods, or it is weak enough that the CO2 forcing should still be apparent.
…what assurance is there that the earlier warming was not due to it?
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Mark Bofill wrote: “your statement No one is predicting “runaway” global warming is certainly questionable, if not demonstrably false, by my citing Dr. Hansen.”
Hansen isn’t predicting this. He wrote “if we burn all the coal.” *If.* That’s 10,000 GtC, when so far we’ve burned 380 GtC of fossil fuels.
The IPCC predictions are based on economic scenarios. Is there any IPCC scenario in which we burn 10,000 GtC? No, of course not.
Hansen isn’t predicting we’ll burn that much. He’s saying if we did.
By the way, what is your result for the warming expected from emitting 10,000 GtC?
—————
Phobos,
I understood the material presented in your subsequent post. The original point, as I noted, was of small relevance to the discussion to begin with. I have no interest in quibbling about whether or not Hansen is predicting we’ll burn that much, although an argument can certainly be made.
I am far more interested in an answer to the question I posed you, if you’d be so kind as to supply one. I was of the opinion that Dr. Hansen was a respected scientific authority among mainstream climate scientists. However, to choose one possible example of how I could be mistaken, he has gone to jail because of activism several times now; perhaps his activism affects his scientific credibility in your eyes? Or is there some other distinction by which you identify him as a personality similar to Al. Gore?
How much warming will result from burning all of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground? The question of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is subject to the sum of feedbacks in the system, a question which I do not believe has been answered decisively to date. This is another reason I remain skeptical regarding AGW.
My question is a simple one; a simple – yes, I consider Dr. Hansen a leading authority, or no, he’s a nutcase activist who’s wrong about X Y and Z will do, or anything in between. I’d really like to know.
Thanks in advance.
@DB Stealey:
Again, you are avoiding direct questions.
What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?
(Or is that an inference?)
There are two other questions outstanding, as well. (Don’t think I don’t know why you are avoiding them.)
Phobos,
For someone who runs and hides out from others’ questions, you don’t have the standing to keep asking more. You say, “What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?” Rather than point out how silly that questions really is, let me explain something to you:
As a climate alarmist, the onus is entirely on you. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. As to the conjecture that CO2 produced by human fossil fuel use is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies entirely on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.
Alarmists are always playing these games, trying to shift the burden of proof onto scientific skeptics. Trenberth wants to reverse the burden of proof for the Null Hypothesis and make skeptics; in effect, to make them prove a negative. But the scientific method doesn’t work that way. AGW is your conjecture. YOU have the onus of producing measurable evidence that it exists. Trying to shift the burden is typically dishonest.
And of course, you are failing big time. There is still no empirical, testable measurement of AGW. It is an assertion, that’s all. An opinion. A conjecture, for which you have no verifiable scientific measurements.
Now, if you want to see a real, testable, falsifiable hypothesis, here is mine:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
I challenge you to try and falsify it. In the mean time, your own conjecture has been destroyed in this thread.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Well, since the thermometer age began, CO2 levels have been steady.
During that time, temperatures have risen, been steady, and lowered.
During the last 80 years of thermometer age, CO2 levels have risen steadily since the mid-1930’s.
Temperatures have dropped, been steady, risen,and been steady.
During the last 40 years of the thermometer era, satellite records confirm that a 30% increase in the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere has resulted in … ZERO increase in worldwide temperatures.
During the last 14 years of the satellite era, NO natural “forcings” have occured: ENSO has NOT gone extremely high (as in 1997-1998), there have been NO substantial changes in TSI, there have been NO substantial volcanoes.
Further, there have been NO credible “natural forcings” over that 14 year period to “cancel” the supposed rising effect of CO2 – that change in temperature that did not happen that you are trying to blame on some sort of natural forcing or natural variation.
YOUR problem is: CO2 increased 30+ percent, no other “forcings” changed, and temperatures did NOT. Therefore, YOUR theory is wrong.
Therefore, a series of actual, scientific, direct measurements since 1850, and proxy measurements since 6000 years ago, confirm that CO2 levels have nothing to do with the earth’s 800-1000 year temperatures cycles, nor do they have anything to do with the earth’s shorter 60 year temperature cycles.