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.
The Harries et al 2001 result has been confirmed by others:
“Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
“Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Are the measurements perfect? Of course not — no measurements ever are. But I don’t see you offering work that counters them. You never do — you just dismiss results you don’t like, while offering no results of your own. Talk about not understanding science.
Bart says: “The best, most up-to-date, and most reliable measurements indicate that temperatures are responsible for the rise of CO2, and not the other way around.”
(Ha ha.) Just to play along, why then are CO2 levels still rising if temperatures have been flat for 15-16 years?
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm
philincalifornia says:
“He could be an idiot, or just a sh!t scientist like the rest of them.
More likely, he doesn’t actually think that, as he’s a paid liar/climate fraudster.”
Do you have anything scientific to say? Or just insults? Insults convince no one, and reflect poorly on the one making them.
—————————————————-
Yeah, unlike your sorry ass, I have real scientific things to say for 16 hours or more a day because, unlike you, I’m a real and practicing scientist.
….. and don’t be so sensitive. Most people who view this site know that “paid climate fraud liar” is a profession. It’s not an insult – you do what you have to do.
Phobos, why did you just accept Martin C’s figures without checking them yourself? I got 0.1C/decade.
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm
philincalifornia says:
“He could be an idiot, or just a sh!t scientist like the rest of them.
More likely, he doesn’t actually think that, as he’s a paid liar/climate fraudster.”
Do you have anything scientific to say? Or just insults? Insults convince no one, and reflect poorly on the one making them.
——————————————————————————————
Phobos, this is not an insult, it’s a genuine question that I believe deserves a genuine answer.
You’ve demonstrated (in fact, stated outright) earlier in this thread that you don’t understand the very simple scientific fact that it is POSSIBLE for “the last decade to be hotter than the previous one” even if warming has, in fact, stopped.
Given that self-confessed level of (mis)understanding of a very simple point, how can you convince us that you actually understand any of the other points you’re trying to make and are not just “flying them in” from some check-list?
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm
philincalifornia says:
“He could be an idiot, or just a sh!t scientist like the rest of them.
More likely, he doesn’t actually think that, as he’s a paid liar/climate fraudster.”
Do you have anything scientific to say? Or just insults? Insults convince no one, and reflect poorly on the one making them.
——————————————————————————————
Phobos, this is not an insult, it’s a genuine question that I believe deserves a genuine answer:
Given that you’ve already shown (in fact, stated outright) that you don’t understand the simple fact that it’s POSSIBLE for “the last decade to be warmer than the previous one” even IF the warming has, in fact, stopped, how can you convince us that you actually understand any of the other (more technical) posts your’e making?
You see, without convincing us of that it inevitably looks as if you’re simply “flying them in” from one of the checklist for talking to skeptics that we all know have been made. There’s nothing wrong with that per se but it does mean there’s not point discussing things with you because you won’t understand what’s being said. It’s a bit like trying to “explain” to a toddler why touching the cooker is a bad idea – they may know the word “hot” but they don’t understand the danger.until they’ve experienced owie for themselves.
MiCro says: “That’s nice, but nothing to do with what I said, or was talking about.
You’d have to go read my work. But you’ve already dismissed it.”
Yes; again, a couple of amateurish spreadsheets are simply no comparison to detailed, peer reviewed, published science.
Bojan Dolinar says: “Phobos, why did you just accept Martin C’s figures without checking them yourself? I got 0.1C/decade.”
I don’t know what figures you’re talking about, or who “Martin C” is. Or what quantity you’re referring to. Any figures I’ve given are either from the literature or calculated from available data.
MiCro says: “Is it a surprise that GISS, CRU, and BEST all get the same answer, when they’re doing the same thing?”
You mean reading thermometers and analyzing their data?
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 10:02 pm
“The Harries et al 2001 result has been confirmed by others:”
Confirmation bias. It has been rife in the community. They know the result they want, so all they have to do is find data, no matter how uncertain or tainted, which confirms their idea, and it becomes part of the liturgy.
“You never do — you just dismiss results you don’t like, while offering no results of your own.”
I have offered a plethora of results. That you do not understand them does not make them null and void.
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 10:17 pm
“(Ha ha.) Just to play along, why then are CO2 levels still rising if temperatures have been flat for 15-16 years?”
Because the relationship is
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
Apparently, you do not know what a derivative is. You are like a teenager with very little knowledge of the world, but strong opinions about it nevertheless.
Mark Bofill says:
Hey, just out of curiosity again, how’d you end up with 5,000 ppmv for burning 10,000 GtC? I did this wrong in my earlier post, but revisiting – if we’re burning about 9 GtC a year now and CO2 is increasing 2 ppmv in the atmosphere, one might think we’d increase by another 2,222 ppmv at 10,000 GtC. I’ve read that by computing our CO2 contribution theoretically instead of taking the observations we see that we’re actually putting out something more like 6 ppmv per year, but the CO2 sinks in the system are absorbing some of that, so what we measure is 6 ppmv. Are you figuring some of the sinks saturating somewhere along the line in your calculation?
—————————
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner; I was thinking about this.
You’re right — I assumed all emissions stay in the atmosphere. If instead that fraction is (say) 0.5, then I find burning 10,000 GtC results in an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels of 2,350 ppmv.
Since 1959 this fraction has averaged 0.45, and has actually (and mysteriously) been decreasing slowly over the decades (“Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years,” A. P. Ballantyne et al, Nature v488, August 2 2012). That is, the land and oceans are taking up a larger fraction of CO2 emissions than they once were, with global carbon uptake doubling in the last 50 years.
For 10,000 GtC though — about 25 times what we’ve burned to-date — I don’t know if anyone has a clue how much would quickly enter the land and oceans. I suspect not.
Bart says:
March 4, 2013 at 8:43 am
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 10:17 pm
I will assay this one more time for your benefit. In the plot shown here, you will note that not only temperatures have been flat for ~15-17 years, but so has the rate of change of CO2. They are in lock step with one another. As I explained before, this is characteristic of a continuous flow model in which the rate differential between input and output flow is modulated by the temperature. It is quite elementary.
You may be assured that, as temperatures decline with the underlying ~60 year cycle for the next couple of decades, the rate of CO2 input to the atmosphere will decelerate. All perfectly natural, and uncoupled from anything humans do or fail to do short of a global thermonuclear war.
Phobos says:
March 3, 2013 at 7:48 pm
…
No — they show these higher concentrations are reducing the amount of longwave radiation leaving Earth.
Independent measurements show their concentrations are increasing. If there weren’t greenhouse gases, there’s be no dips in OLR at their absorption frequencies. If the greenhouse effect wasn’t increasing, there’d be no change in these dips. But there is.
——————–
You never make it past this in your thinking. I keep pointing out that your argument is a straw man, and you keep ignoring me. Listen to me for once. From Philipona et al 2004:
No kidding, really? NOBODY HERE DISPUTES BASIC RADIATIVE PHYSICS. This result doesn’t show anything except that our understanding of radiative physics is correct. That there is a study that shows increased longwave downward radiation due to increased CO2 does not demonstrate that therefore anthropogenic global warming will occur. You keep beating this dead horse as if it’s going to get you someplace. Until you address the feedbacks in the system, you haven’t addressed the behavior of the system, you’re just making noise about one part out of the context of the (extremely) complicated whole.
Why don’t we move on and talk about some other part of the system for a change? There’s a heck of a lot more to this problem than basic radiative physics.
Phobos says:
“No — they show these higher concentrations are reducing the amount of longwave radiation leaving Earth. Independent measurements show their concentrations are increasing.”
Wrong again, Phobos.
Bart says: “Confirmation bias.”
This is typical of your easy and quick answers to any result you don’t like — you find a reason, some reason, any reason, to immediately dismiss it. Instead you have built yourself an alternative planet where you accept all data and results that you do like (even if you have to make them up, like heat coming out of the deep ocean (“why not?”), and reject out-of-hand all results you don’t like, and then try to bluff you way to acceptance by throwing in a few technical words to show you understand what a partial derivative is or some such.
Funny how “confirmation bias” only applies to one side. It’s very easy to recognize and easy to see through, and not scientific in the least. But it’s fun to watch you squirm when even your constructed results display inconsistencies.
I like doing real science, not pretend science.
D.B. Stealey says:
“Wrong again, Phobos.”
Graph source? Methodology? Data source?
Definition of OLR (wavelengths)?
OLR changes at specific GHG absorption frequencies?
Trend statistics? (That graph looks to have a positive slope since about 1980.) Where is the calculation of the trend and its statistical significance?
I do science with numbers, not by eyeballing graphs of unknown origin.
@Mark Benson
“I do science with numbers, not by eyeballing graphs of unknown origin.”
I’m skeptical of your claim, where do you do science with numbers? Citation please. – Anthony
Mark Bofill says: “That there is a study that shows increased longwave downward radiation due to increased CO2 does not demonstrate that therefore anthropogenic global warming will occur.”
Of course it doesn’t, and I never said it did. Finally you are starting to get it.
There are other anthropogenic factors on climate beside GHG emissions: aerosol emissions, land use changes, ozone destruction, etc. These have to all be considered, and then feedbacks have to be included.
Knowing that the greenhouse effect is increasing and by how much, and including other anthropogenic influences, and doing one’s best to determine feedbacks from paleoclimate and from calculation (climate models) and observations (water vapor, ice/albedo), gives the ability to calculate equilibrium climate sensitivity. At present is still has large uncertainties (~50%),
AND WHAT HAS EVERYONE SO CONCERNED is that the large carbon emissions under a business-as-usual scenario will dominate these other factors over time (especially if air pollution is cleaned up), and the possibility that climate sensitivity might be on the high side of its uncertainty range and not the low side. They therefore believe it is prudent to reduce CO2 emissions to minimize risk.
Bart says:
“I will assay this one more time for your benefit. In the plot shown here, you will note that not only temperatures have been flat for ~15-17 years, but so has the rate of change of CO2. They are in lock step with one another.”
So increasing temperatures cause CO2 production, but flat temperatures cause…CO2 production.
And the carbon content of both the land and ocean is increasing, but atmospheric CO2 is also increasing.
The ocean is warming, yet its acidity is increasing.
The isotopic signature of the extra atmospheric CO2 is different from CO2 from natural sources, yet it’s not caused by burning fossil fuels.
Humans emit over 30 billion tons of CO2 a year from burning fossil fuels, but strangely none of this finds its way into the atmosphere. Or any of the 1400 billion tons they’ve emitted since the Industrial Revolution. Where is it all going?
Sure, this all sounds VERRRRY consistent….
Phobos says:
“Graph source? Methodology? Data source?”
If you can’t find the source of the graph you are incompetent.
Phobos commented
It’s detailed and self published, review it Mr Scientist, tell me what flaws it has.
I’m not looking at temperature trends,but you’d know that if you looked. I’m looking at the rate of cooling over night. What one might look at if you were looking for a loss of cooling.
No you don’t, You read papers. You don’t do science, amateurish or not.
I do my own science. It’s a great way to learn a subject.
If you want to do science, I’ll provide you my code and my data, do some science, stop relying others to tell you what you should think. But you better have a server with Oracle 11g on it and space to load a 40GB dmp file.
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 9:17 am
“This is typical of your easy and quick answers to any result you don’t like…”
No, it is typical of studies put out by “the team”. And, you further cherry pick them, as D.B. Stealey shows above @ur momisugly 9:04 PM.
The presumption that CO2 is driving temperature is falsified by the plots to which I have directed you. You don’t understand it, and you don’t want to. OK. That’s your choice. But, you will see my prognostications confirmed in the not-very-distant future. It will be interesting to see to what lengths you, and your similarly minded brethren, will go to evade reality then.
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 9:40 am
Close. You’re getting there.
“So increasing temperatures cause CO2 production, but flat temperatures cause…CO2 production. “
I would say “release” rather than “production”. But, this is what the equation
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
says. This is the equation that the data confirm.
There is a rate at which CO2 is introduced into the surface system. From deep ocean circulation, from mineral reactions, and from biological processes. Conversely, there is a rate at which it is transferred out of the system from deep ocean circulation, from mineral reactions, and from biological processes. These processes are all temperature dependent. When there is a mismatch between the rate at which it comes in and goes out, you get either an accumulation, or a reduction, in the ambient concentration. And, that rate is necessarily an affine function of temperature. These processes are much too powerful for humankind to affect significantly. That is the ineluctable conclusion from the data.
“And the carbon content of both the land and ocean is increasing, but atmospheric CO2 is also increasing. “
I never said the carbon we put into the air disappears. But, it is only a small part of the overall flow.
“The ocean is warming, yet…”
The oceans are not warming.
“The isotopic signature of the extra atmospheric CO2 is different from CO2 from natural sources, yet it’s not caused by burning fossil fuels.”
The isotopic signature is merely consistent with the notion that the added CO2 is from human sources. Consistency is a long way from proof. When a witch doctor performs a rain dance, and it then rains, it is consistent with the claim that his rain dance conjured up the rain, but it is not compelling evidence. Such lines of argument are a throwback to a pre-scientific era.
“Humans emit over 30 billion tons of CO2 a year from burning fossil fuels, but strangely none of this finds its way into the atmosphere.”
It finds its way in, but quickly gets absorbed into the oceans, minerals, and biosphere. You can’t argue with the data. This is what it is telling us.
Anthony says: “I’m skeptical of your claim, where do you do science with numbers?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1232513
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1232510
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1235454
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1235619
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1236856
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1236867
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1237769
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1237772
D.B. Stealey says: “If you can’t find the source of the graph you are incompetent.”
I’m not incompetent, and I don’t see the data source listed, either on the graph or on the site’s front page. Please provide it (if you know it).
Phobos says:
March 4, 2013 at 9:21 am
I do science with numbers, not by eyeballing graphs of unknown origin.
——————————————————————————————————————
Come on, Phobos, if you want to keep any credibility at all you really need to support that statement somehow.
So far all you’ve demonstrated is an ability to cut and paste talking points. In the one case where something could actually be demonstrated conclusively (and simply) by using numbers you got it absolutely and completely wrong. Since I’ve pointed that out with nice logical explanations you’ve (a) attempted to set up a straw-man about my point and, when that was also demonstrably false, ignored the issue while continuing to claim scientific understanding of far more complex matters!
So far, your statement above looks a lot like someone who can’t write their own name claiming to have written War and Peace!
MiCro says: “It’s detailed and self published, review it Mr Scientist, tell me what flaws it has.”
I already did that and am not wasting any more time on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1235261