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.
@Mark Bofill:
So, what you’re saying is that you really have no idea if burning 10,000 GtC will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Yet you criticize those who’ve worked on planetary climates for decades and do have some idea about it.
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.
James Hansen is a very good scientist of considerable experience, who believes our accelerated burning of fossil fuels in disregard for their environmental impacts will have deleterious effects on the future of life on Earth, and has decided, based on this knowledge, that he should vigorously speak out about, and act on, these dangers.
Okay, I can see you guys are talking about more important things. I was just idly curious about your view and your take on AGW believers on Dr. Hansen, but it’s not of any real importance obviously.
RACookPE1978 says:
“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.”
What? You think there has been no increase in satellite-measured temperatures for 40 years?
Nice try, Mr RA Cook. Goodbye.
D.B. Stealey says: “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.”
You made this statement, not me.
What measurement shows it?
Either start answering some questions directly, or expect no further replies.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm
“What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?”
These do. The temperature record of the last 100+ years has been composed of a non-accelerating trend, superimposed with a regular, well-behaved, approximately 60 year cycle. While CO2 has increased markedly, temperatures have shown no divergence from pre-existing patterns.
Bart says: “…what assurance is there that the earlier warming was not due to it?
I’ve seen you do this on other sites.
Without data, there is no assurance whatsoever. And no proof whatsoever, either.
By such standards, intelligent minds on the planet Gzilt may be warming our planet by methods we can’t begin to comprehend.
Are they? Your question is in the exact same category.
On the other hand, we know that certain gases create a greenhouse effect. We know that an increase in their abundance should decrease the amount of outgoing longwave radiation, and theoretical calculations give us a good idea of how much. We know that measurements do, in fact, show a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation at GHG absorption frequencies, and that the surface is receiving more infrared radiation, i.e. warming. The best models show that this warming is, on average, now about 0.1-0.2 C/decade, after natural fluctuations. And that’s what’s observed.
But it may all be due to the Gziltians — who knows, right??
Mark Bofill says: “…February 28, 2013 at 6:12 pm…”
And your warming for 10,000 GtC is???
Phobos,
Turn tail and run away then, fine with me. It won’t stop me from pointing out that the absence of any testable, empirical measurements of AGW means that your conjecture has failed. You have the onus of providing such a measurement to support your AGW conjecture. But there are no such measurements, so you are now trying to make the questioning skeptic prove a negative. It doesn’t work like that.
You have no understanding of the scientific method. No wonder your assertions and beliefs are getting thrashed here.
D.B. Stealey says:”It won’t stop me from pointing out that the absence of any testable, empirical measurements of AGW means that your conjecture has failed.”
Harries et al 2001 shows that the Earth’s brightness temperature is decreasing at GHG absorption frequencies:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf
How do you interpret such results in terms of planetary heating?
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:24 pm
“I’ve seen you do this on other sites.”
Maybe. I don’t get around a whole lot, though. Is “this” something really terribly awful?
“Without data, there is no assurance whatsoever. And no proof whatsoever, either.”
As D.B. admonished you, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one advocating extraordinary action be taken to avert this putative threat. If you cannot offer anything of substance, then you have no cause for action.
“On the other hand, we know that certain gases create a greenhouse effect.”
Yes. But, we do not know the actual functional form. It’s not something that can be tested in a laboratory. Thus, we do not know local sensitivities.
“We know that an increase in their abundance should decrease the amount of outgoing longwave radiation…”
Intuition may suggest it, but intuition is often a horrible guide. When you work out the math, it just ain’t necessarily so. I gave the example of Willis Eschenbach’s “steel greenhouse” construct, in which it can be proved mathematically that the surface temperature decreases with thickness of the shell.
…and theoretical calculations give us a good idea of how much.”
There is no controlled experiment to provide confirmation of such calculations. Without confirmation, the calculations are conjectural.
Bart says:
“What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?”
These do.”
So your understanding is that surface temperature depends on, and only on, the level of atmospheric CO2?
Phobos says:
“So your understanding is that surface temperature depends on, and only on, the level of atmospheric CO2?”
You have it backward. Atmospheric CO2 depends on temperature.
Look closely at that chart. You will see that ∆T causes ∆CO2, not vice-versa. This happens on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia. Further, there are no comparable charts showing the opposite cause and effect.
When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong. The alarmist crowd always assumes that ∆CO2 causes ∆T, but in fact it is the other way around.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Mark Bofill says: “…February 28, 2013 at 6:12 pm…”
And your warming for 10,000 GtC is???
——————————-
Sure Phobos, let’s walk through what can be walked through for laughs and see where it goes. Jump in where I make a mistake, please.
1) 10,000 GtC burns to produce 36,666 Gt CO2.
2) In recent years, we’ve been burning about what, 9, 10 Gts a year, and atmospheric CO2 is increasing by 2 ppm per year. Making the completely unjustified assumption that the CO2 sinks available in the system will behave the same way for 3,666 times as much CO2, and that I can estimate ppm from Gts burned this way and end up in the ballpark, and god only knows what elsee, we’d be looking at 7,333 ppm increase, or about 7,733 ppm total.
400+400=800, +800=1600, +1600=3200, +3200 = 6400, closest ballpark figure. Doubling 4 times.
3) Using the most naive approach, we’d take the climate sensitivity at this point and work out the temperature increase. Completely ignoring the degree of saturation of CO2 absorbtion bands, the sinks of atmospheric CO2 in the system, the sign and magnitude of overall feedback in the system, we could stupidly claim 4*1.2 = 4.8C temperature increase.
Now, I don’t for a second believe the climate system is this simple. See, you seem to be confused about the roles and responsibilities involved here. I’m a S-K-E-P-T-I-C. I don’t have to have a solution to point out that your solution looks wrong. I know Stealey probably went over this with you half a dozen times today, but since you persist in asking for a figure, 4.8C is as good as any other as far as I’m concerned, considering how hopelessly complicated the real system is.
Okay, so spring it on me. What was the point of the exercise?
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm
“So your understanding is that surface temperature depends on, and only on, the level of atmospheric CO2?”
Hardly. It doesn’t appear to have any significant impact from CO2 at all. I think maybe you lost track of the conversation. Take a mulligan and try again.
On this:
Bart says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm
“What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?”
And, these do. The relationship is
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where k is a coupling parameter, and To is an equilibrium temperature anomaly. Of necessity, such a relationship is causal from temperature to CO2, for it would be absurd to claim that the rate of change of CO2 is driving temperature, and not the level of CO2 itself.
Bart says: “On the other hand, we know that certain gases create a greenhouse effect.”
“Yes. But, we do not know the actual functional form.”
It’s not a relationship that can be expressed in a simple functional form.
Is it really your belief that a simple function is necessary for all natural laws?
“We know that an increase in their abundance should decrease the amount of outgoing longwave radiation…”
” Intuition may suggest it, but intuition is often a horrible guide. When you work out the math, it just ain’t necessarily so.”
It’s not intuition that suggests it, it’s the detailed mathematical calculation. And, indeed, experiment verifies it — the Earth’s brightness temperature is changing at exactly the frequencies expected.
“There is no controlled experiment to provide confirmation of such calculations.”
Of course, there are no controlled experiments for much of science, especially for complex systems. Yet we know that smoking causes lung cancer, even though we can’t do a controlled experiment on any particular patient. So this criticism is just silly.
D.B. Stealey says: “You have it backward. Atmospheric CO2 depends on temperature.”
And what if independent actors (let’s call them “humans”) are digging up fossil fuels and burning them as fast as they can, emitting CO2 regardless of anything that’s going on with climate.
What then?
I am going to call it a night. Will pick up again tomorrow.
Phobos says:
“And what if… What then?”
If I’ve got you at the ‘what if’ stage, that means you’ve used up your talking points. Now you’re cruising on emotion.
I’m with Bart. See you tomorrow.
Aww.. I missed the party. How about you Phobos, looks like you’ve been at it for at least 5 or 6 hours now, want to pick up tomorrow? I’ve got to work but I can take a couple of breaks so long as my overall hours total up properly.
@D.B. Stealey: If humans are shoveling up carbon and burning it, why does the atmospheric level depend on the surface temperature?
Are the shovelers checking their thermometers first?
D.B. Stealey says:
February 28, 2013 at 12:32 pm
“Evan Bedford,
I rarely click on a name, but your comment sounded so silly I did in your case.
I found some stale old debunked propaganda showing a supposedly stranded polar bear on an ice floe. Really, you must be an Algore acolyte.
This is a science site. What are you doing here?”
I’m asking a simple question. So far, I’ve gotten 3 different answers: 1) I don’t know, 2) it’s the hot air from the MSM, and 3) it’s the sun (but with nothing indicating any sort of correlation).
Can anyone do any better than the greenhouse gas correlation that is the current scientific consensus? So far, it doesn’t look like it.
“Bart says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm
“What measurement shows that CO2 has no measurable effect?”
These do. The temperature record of the last 100+ years has been composed of a non-accelerating trend, superimposed with a regular, well-behaved, approximately 60 year cycle. While CO2 has increased markedly, temperatures have shown no divergence from pre-existing patterns.”
Most of ’em look like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1900/to:2010 Why would you be choosing monthly anomalies?
Evan,
What exactly part of that temp trend is due to Co2?
And how would you explain that trend if on average the temp goes down as much at night as it did the prior day?
One more quick look back…
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:43 pm
“How do you interpret such results in terms of planetary heating?”
This is mostly water vapor and CH4. The central CO2 region barely budged. These were different instruments and a single comparison does not constitute a statistic. More data needed.
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 7:11 pm
“It’s not a relationship that can be expressed in a simple functional form.”
You have to be able to calculate the sensitivity. And, you have to know the assumptions which went into that calculation.
“Is it really your belief that a simple function is necessary for all natural laws?”
It doesn’t have to be simple, but you’ve got to have something which you can use to make predictions which can be verified.
“It’s not intuition that suggests it, it’s the detailed mathematical calculation.”
Then, provide it, and all the assumptions which went into it.
“And, indeed, experiment verifies it — the Earth’s brightness temperature is changing at exactly the frequencies expected. “
Changing by how much? How were the parameters governing the relationship fitted? Is the parameterization unique, so that the model has predictive power (not likely)? Are you relying on scanty information such as above?
“Of course, there are no controlled experiments for much of science, especially for complex systems.”
Of course there are. That is how science is verified. If you can’t verify it, it’s just conjecture.
“Yet we know that smoking causes lung cancer, even though we can’t do a controlled experiment on any particular patient.”
Not even remotely similar. Carcinogenesis has been observed in innumerable experiments on laboratory animals and in cell cultures. And, we have millions of premature deaths recorded, some of them near and dear to me.
Evan, don’t expect answers from D.B. Stealey.
He avoids questions, no matter how simple you make them.
In fact, it’s the simple ones that he avoids the most.
Evan Bedford,
CO2 has no measurable effect.