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 horizontal line here is within error of any given point, but it requires the upper end of the error bars on some points and the lower end on others. Together, those leave it very unlikely to be accurate. This is why having more data can narrow down results. The trend is small, the system is poorly modeled, and the data itself may have systematic errors or unaccounted-for sources of uncertainty so under no conditions would I support basing policy on this trend, but this is the sort of thing we are supposed to shoot down here.
Bottom line, even if the little bit of ocean warming claimed was perfectly accurate, it is still a very long way below what the models predicted, The fact that once again “climate scientist” produce charts without error bars makes them WORTHLESS for public policy.
Phobos, where is the C in your CAGW world of very minor ocean warming without error bars?
Anyone? Anyone at all? (Still trying to find out what mechanism best correlates with the warming since the start of the industrial revolution). (Thanks, Phobos. I already know what Muller and you and myself think; just trying to get some sort of hypothesis from the rest of the folks on here).
Phobos says:
February 26, 2013 at 8:06 am
Not at all. CO2′s effect hasn’t “stopped” (of course). The surface temperature is subject to many factors, especially over short intervals — GHGs, but also ENSOs, solar irradiance, aerosols…. The effect of typical aerosols — that is, air pollution — is a big uncertainty in the equation.
———————————————————————————————
The problem is, phobos, that the length of “pause” is now approaching the length of the warming that started all this.
Very roughly, warming from 1975 to 1997 = 22 years (too short to be called climate under the AGW 30 year rule incidentally) followed by no warming 1997 to 2013 = 16 years with at least another 4 (to make 20) now predicted by the met Office. Note, I said “approaching the length”, not “reached”. i’ve noticed how you like to mischaracterise things that others post so thought I should make that clear 😉
So if the pause is a “short term effect of other factors” what’s to say that the (almost equally short term) increase in warming wasn’t also a short term effect of other unknown factors? Apart, of course, from the VERY unscientific (not to mention unconscionably arrogant) attitude that “It must be that because we can’t think what else it might be”!
@ur momisugly Roy feb 26 2:24pm
,
The mod’s reply seems clear enough to be honest. The line isn’t intended to suggest a trend.
In fact, if you look again you’ll see that it’s not even a straight line. It’s a simple “brush stroke”, presumably done with a paint package, in exactly the same way you might swipe a highlighter pen over a printed diagram to highlight an area of interest. If it was intended to show a trend then we could expect (as is customary) a line in the same weight as the graph itself rather than a wiggly yellow felt-tip!
Perhaps he could have made it “more wavy” to make that clearer but he did actually refer to it as “the HIGHLIGHTED PERIOD in yellow”
David says: “The fact that once again “climate scientist” produce charts without error bars makes them WORTHLESS for public policy.”
The charts are presented both with and without error bars; per the note on the main page, the latter are here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html
Mark Buehner says: “Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years”
This is very easy to calculate; the raw data is here:
0-700 m:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
0-2000 m:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
For 0-700 m, the 10-year trend is 44 TW, with an OLS 2-sigma uncertainty of 30 TW.
For 0-2000 m, the trend since the data began in 3/2005 is is 240 TW, with an OLS 2-sigma uncertainty of 50 TW.
Joe says: “Very roughly, warming from 1975 to 1997 = 22 years (too short to be called climate under the AGW 30 year rule incidentally) followed by no warming 1997 to 2013 = 16 years with at least another 4 (to make 20) now predicted by the met Office.”
If you guys keep repeating the same mistakes, I’m going to keep pointing them out.
Surface warming over the last 15 years according to GISS is 0.07 C/decade, with an 2-sigma uncertainty of 0.04 C/decade. According to HadCRUT4, it is 0.04 C/decade, with a 2-sigma uncertainty of 0.04 C/decade.
That’s just the surface. In this period, the lower troposphere has warmed by one dataset (UAH), but not by another (RSS). And the oceans, where more than 90% of the extra heat goes, have warmed over this period in the 0-700 m level. (0-2000 m data is only 8 years old.)
The surface (especially) is influenced by other factors and fluctuations that can temporarily swamp the underlying GHG warming of about 0.15-0.20 C/decade.
Phobos keeps tap-dancing around the inconvenient fact that every alarmist prediction has failed. Every one of them.
The planet is simply not doing as they predicted. In any other field of science, that would require the rejection of their conjecture, hypothesis or theory. Honest scientists test their conjectures against real world observations. If observations contradict their hypothesis, then their hypothesis is falsified.
But the climate alarmist crowd is not honest. Despite being consistently wrong, they hang on to their belief system, proselytizing to skeptics here, who know better: Planet Earth, the ultimate and final Authority, is falsifying the alarmist narrative, which is proving to be pseudo-scientific nonsense.
What would it take for climate alarmists like Phobos to admit that his belief system has been falsified? For many years the alarmist crowd went along with noaa’s conclusion that 17 years would be sufficient to debunk the CO2=CAGW claim. We are at that cutoff, but all we see now is the ratcheting up of endless arguments about why we cannot use that time frame. It’s called moving the goal posts, and they do it all the time.
D.B. Stealey says: “What would it take for climate alarmists like Phobos to admit that his belief system has been falsified?”
As long as the ocean continues to warm as strongly as it is, and ice keeps melting, and each decade keeps being warmer than the past decade, AGW will certainly not be falsified. There is simply no other explanation for these, and the underlying science of the greenhouse effect is robust. (Aerosols, clouds, deep ocean dynamics, not so much.) The question is, without such an explanation, what will it take for your idea (that there is no AGW) to be falsified?
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:07 am
As long as the ocean continues to warm as strongly as it is, and ice keeps melting, and each decade keeps being warmer than the past decade, AGW will certainly not be falsified. There is simply no other explanation for these […]
——————————————————————————————————
You see, phobis, you’re using that appeal to arrogance again – what you mean is “there is simply no other explanation THAT WE KNOW OF”. Your stance, by contrast, relies on the implicit assumption that “we know everything”.
In scientific terms that’s a VERY big , VERY arrogant, and VERY basic fail – especially in a scientific discipline that hasn’t even crawled out of daipers to use the potty by itself yet!
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 7:13 am
If you guys keep repeating the same mistakes, I’m going to keep pointing them out.
Surface warming over the last 15 years according to GISS is 0.07 C/decade, with an 2-sigma uncertainty of 0.04 C/decade. According to HadCRUT4, it is 0.04 C/decade, with a 2-sigma uncertainty of 0.04 C/decade.
—————————————————————————————————–
Perhaps you could point out this continued warming-as-usual to the UK Met Office and the head of the IPCC, both of whom seem to have acknowledged the pause that we’re “mistaken” about? Just saying, like 🙂
Phobos – please go educate yourself about the First Law of Thermodynamics and stop bothering us with your politically-motivated CAGW diatribes… Do you work for NOAA or the controversial NASA/GISS? Wouldn’t surprise me…
Phobos says:
“As long as the ocean continues to warm as strongly as it is, and ice keeps melting, and each decade keeps being warmer than the past decade, AGW will certainly not be falsified. There is simply no other explanation for these, and the underlying science of the greenhouse effect is robust. (Aerosols, clouds, deep ocean dynamics, not so much.) The question is, without such an explanation, what will it take for your idea (that there is no AGW) to be falsified?”
May I deconstruct that pseudo-scientific nonsense? Thank you:
First off, the ocean is not ‘warming strongly’, as Envisat and ARGO both show [and before the latest “adjustment”, ARGO showed a clearly declining ocean temperature, and before another “adjustment” Envisat showed this.].
Next, “ice keeps melting”. But that is only in one hemisphere, and recovery has begun. The alarmist prediction was that ‘polar ice’ would decline. Currently, global polar ice has recovered to its long term average.
Next, Phobos dodges the question, saying, “AGW will certainly not be falsified.” Earth to Phobos: your belief system is showing. Answer the question: what would it take to falsify your belief in your CO2=CAGW claim? Specific numbers, please. Or is it a fact that nothing could falsify your belief system?
Next: “There is simply no other explanation for these…” That is the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: ‘Since I can’t think of any other cause, then CO2 must be the reason for global warming’. Arguing from ignorance is a hallmark of the alarmist crowd.
We are just beginning to sort out the various climate forcings. Many are still unknown. But the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that CO2 is, at best, only a minor third-order forcing, which is swamped by second-order and first-order forcings [each higher order being an order of magnitude greater]. “Carbon” is claimed to be the primary reason for global warming. But that is false, as radiative physics makes clear. At current concentrations, additional CO2 is insignificant — as the planet is verifying.
Run along now back to SkS, Phobos. You are getting a thrashing from everyone here when you post your anti-science beliefs. The talking points you raise have been deconstructed here repeatedly in the past, and as you can see you are making no headway bringing them up again.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 7:13 am
“Surface warming over the last 15 years according to GISS is 0.07 C/decade, with an 2-sigma uncertainty of 0.04 C/decade. According to HadCRUT4, it is 0.04 C/decade, with a 2-sigma uncertainty of 0.04 C/decade.”
Based on an arbitrary statistical model which produces notional results, and even the high end is markedly lower than what would be required for significant warming. It is high time you started entertaining the possibility that the alarm has been, to say the very least, overstated, and plan your retreat to a more defensible position.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:07 am
“As long as the ocean continues to warm as strongly as it is…”
It hasn’t warmed strongly in the upper reaches. There is no pathway for the lower layers to warm from surface forcing without any complementary warming of the upper layers.
“…and ice keeps melting…”
Ice is always melting somewhere, and growing in other places. You are cherry picking your evidence, and leading yourself astray.
“…each decade keeps being warmer than the past decade…”
Even by a negligible amount? This is thoroughly specious. When you are on a plateau, the measurement error alone is enough to continue setting new illusory records.
“There is simply no other explanation for these…”
Argument from ignorance fallacy, as Joe explains. Thus, the leaders of the Church insisted Galileo must be wrong about the Earth moving about the Sun – they just couldn’t think of a way that could happen.
“…the underlying science of the greenhouse effect is robust.”
With large and increasing divergence between projections and reality? This is some definition of the word “robust” of which I was previously unaware.
“Aerosols, clouds, deep ocean dynamics…”
Grasping at straws, and getting bent out of shape over the trees whilst losing sight of the forest.
“The question is, without such an explanation, what will it take for your idea (that there is no AGW) to be falsified?”
That the model projections start agreeing with reality. That it be definitively proved that 1) water vapor feedback is positive and as large as assumed, and there are no countervailing significant feedbacks 2) that the local sensitivity to additional CO2 is, in fact, positive 3) that either the temperature data or the CO2 data are wrong, so that CO2 can indeed force temperature, and that the rise in CO2 concentration of the past century can indeed be laid at the feet of humankind.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:07 am
…
The question is, without such an explanation, what will it take for your idea (that there is no AGW) to be falsified?
———
Phobos,
I’m glad that you asked. I swear to you, I would not be here on WUWT today if somebody presented an AGW theory of temperature and climate with CO2 as the driving variable that proved to be useful in making accurate predictions. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard warnings about accelerating sea level rise, and yet sea level rise remains virtually constant at about 3mm/yr. I look at IPCC AR4 projections that are obviously in disagreement temperature-wise with conditions today, and in fact see that the case presented that most closely matches what has occurred is the ‘Year 2000 Constant concentrations’ case. This is not science.
Perhaps it’s the beginnings of a science. Maybe it will get there someday. Maybe the AGW theory is in fact correct! However, I don’t see how anyone can reasonably hold that it has been validated today. The state of AGW thinking right now, imho, is best described by this quote:
Take quantum physics. I hate the very idea of quantum physics. I don’t like it, it doesn’t make any sense to me, trying to follow the math gives me brain damage, and to put it very bluntly and simply I don’t want it to be true. Tough Noogies For Me, nobody has been able to falsify it. I promise you, you won’t find me on blogs arguing against quantum physics. So, on the day you (or anyone) can present an AGW that’s both useful and accurate in making predictions, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.
@D.B. Stealey: If someone asked you what was happening to climate during the Medieval Warm Period, would you base your answer on what happened from 997 A.D. to 1012 A.D.?
Bart says:
“…each decade keeps being warmer than the past decade…”
“Even by a negligible amount? This is thoroughly specious.”
The latest 10-year period is 0.14 C warmer than the previous 10-year period.
–
I realize you’re going to dismiss anything I write (all of which is, of course, just the standard scientific view). I’m wondering why you spend your time on blog comments instead of writing a series of papers that would set everyone straight and end all this debate once and for all?
Evan Bedford says:
February 26, 2013 at 8:29 pm
“Still trying to find out what mechanism best correlates with the warming since the start of the industrial revolution.”
Hot air from scientifically illiterate members of the press corps?
Martin C, in your calculus exercise, why didn’t you simply use energy imbalance of 0.7W/m2, where whole calculation is virtually a one liner? Oh yeah, this one liner gives 0.1C/decade, so it appears you made a mistake after all. You conceded that might happen, but I’m puzzled at why you would be totally unconcerned with order-of-magnitude error. Care to explain?!
“Im wondering why you spend your time on blog comments instead of writing a series of papers that would set everyone straight and end all this debate once and for all?”
Phobos – do you work for NOAA, NASA, or are employed by an agency (or academic institution) that is being funded by the government to work on climate-related research? And why are YOU spending your time on a blog?
And please – educate yourself on basic science like the First Law of Thermodynamics (which you clearly do not understand)…[sigh]
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:43 am
The latest 10-year period is 0.14 C warmer than the previous 10-year period.
———————————————————————————–
Oh for crying out loud! Can you REALLY not see the fallacy in that as evidence of continued warming? Or (more insultingly) do you really think that the rest of us can’t?
Here, let me help you.
10 minutes ago I put a kettle onto the gas hob to boil. The water out of the tap was very cold thanks to this global warming we’re having – around 6 degrees C. It took the kettle 5 minutes to reach boiling but I’ve been busy so haven’t turned it off yet and it’s still boiling away happily to itself.
Over those first 5 minutes, the average temperature of the water was 53 degrees C. Over the last 5 minutes the average temperature has been 100 degrees C – a whopping 47 degrees hotter!
That does NOT mean that the water is still heating up!
Phobos says:
“@D.B. Stealey: If someone asked you what was happening to climate during the Medieval Warm Period, would you base your answer on what happened from 997 A.D. to 1012 A.D.?”
Thank you for your strawman response. But my question to you concerned the fact that noaa stated 17 years as decisive. Argue with them if you want to move the goal posts. And when you answer a question with a question, it means you have no good answer.
My question, once again: what would it take for you to admit that your CO2=CAGW conjecture has ben falsified?
• • •
Here is my own falsifiable hypothesis, if you want to have a go at it:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
I have posted that same hypothesis numerous times over the past year. If you can falsify it, you will be the first. So give it your best shot.
Empirical observations show conclusively that CO2 does not have the claimed warming effect. AGW may exist, but there is still no verifiable, measurable scientific evidence of AGW. If there were verifiable measurements of AGW, the hotly debated question of the climate sensitivity number would be answered. As it is, WAGs range from the IPCC’s preposterous 3ºC+, to ≈1ºC, to many at ≤ 0.5ºC, to Dr Miskolczi’s 0.0ºC for 2xCO2.
CO2 probably does have a minor effect. But based on the fact that the only correlation was a temporary, coincidental one between around 1980 and 1997, AGW should be disregarded as inconsequential. You have hung your hat on the wrong rack, and now your comments are backing and filling, trying to explain away why your predictions all failed.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:43 am
“The latest 10-year period is 0.14 C warmer than the previous 10-year period.”
It wasn’t yet at the plateau. This is worse than specious. This is prestidigitation.
“…all of which is, of course, just the standard scientific view…”
Not really. Just standard. The crowd is often quite mad. Don’t be afraid to get separated from the herd. That way lies opportunity.
“I’m wondering why you spend your time on blog comments instead of writing a series of papers that would set everyone straight and end all this debate once and for all?”
It isn’t my job, I don’t get paid for it, and I don’t enjoy it. I just hate seeing others make such a hash of things. And, inter alia, making my life more difficult while closing off opportunities for my heirs. Besides, I am humble (or experienced) enough to know that there are more powerful forces than truth, and I’d hardly get a fair hearing, coming as I do from outside the clique. Maybe my observations will percolate up to someone with influence and make an impression. Best I can do. Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.
D.B. Stealey says: “Thank you for your strawman response.”
It’s not a strawman response — it’s a serious question, Please answer it.
Also, in January 2007, the 15-year trend for the UAH lower troposphere was 0.32 (0.06) C/decade. What were you saying then about the trend? What would you have said to someone who said that, based on that, we’d have a catastrophe by 2100?
“But my question to you concerned the fact that noaa stated 17 years as decisive.”
It’s not what NOAA says, it’s what one paper said (Santer et al) — a paper based on climate models. Are you now saying you consider the results of climate models to be natural law?