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.
Phobos,
I asked first, and repeatedly, and you dodged. Answer my question — specifically, using numbers:
What would it take for you to admit that your CO2=CAGW conjecture has been falsified?
Your credibility is already low, so if you move the goal posts out much farther, it will be shot completely.
When you have answered, I will answer.
I note also that you did not respond to my challenge to you to attempt to falsify my testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
D.B. Stealey says: “What would it take for you to admit that your CO2=CAGW conjecture has been falsified?”
Asked and answered:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/#comment-1233326
Now, about the MWP and that trend from 2007….
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:53 pm
“What would you have said to someone who said that, based on that, we’d have a catastrophe by 2100?”
The situation is not symmetric. Today, there is supposed to be a relentless process driving temperatures higher. CO2 is roughly 30 ppm higher than it was 15 years ago, 35 % of the delta from the pre-industrial era which is supposed to be responsible for the temperature increase of the period roughly 1970-2000. The signal should be much greater than the noise, and yet… nothing. No more rise in temperature. If you do not see that as a significant failure of the hypothesis, then you are in very deep denial.
Bart says: “Today, there is supposed to be a relentless process driving temperatures higher.”
Oh my, if that’s what you think, you really haven’t understood anything.
Phobos,
I asked for specific numbers. You gave none. Vague answers are non-answers; they can mean whatever you want them to mean.
Keep in mind that moving the goal posts very far from 17 years sharply reduces credibility.
Finally, I note your reluctance to try and falsify my testable hypothesis. Smart move on your part.
“…because the surface temperature is a massless two-dimensional global field while heat content involves mass, the use of surface temperature as a monitor of climate change is not accurate for evaluating heat storage changes.“
– Roger Pielke Sr., Physics Today, Nov 2008
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 4:23 pm
“Oh my, if that’s what you think, you really haven’t understood anything.”
Riiight. So, sometimes, CO2 is forcing and sometimes, it’s just not in the mood. What a lame response.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm
But, the oceans are not showing any heating from CO2, either. That’s the whole point of this thread.
If you disagree, if you persist in this absurd idea that surface forcing can cause the lower ocean layers to heat without leaving any trace in the upper waters, then please give us your theory as to how the heat is getting down there. Is it a Star Trek transporter beam operated by the evil oil companies?
D.B. Stealey says: “I asked for specific numbers. You gave none. Vague answers are non-answers; they can mean whatever you want them to mean.”
I don’t have specific numbers. There are still a lot of uncertainties in calculating surface temperatures: aerosols, clouds, ENSOs, deep ocean dynamics.
As I’ve said already, the radiative part of the calculation is among the best known parts of the science (and easiest to calculate). Fundamental physics, proved long ago, shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase causes warming. That’s 100% certain. The warming is about 1.2 K of surface warming for a CO2 doubling, and feedbacks (which are known to exist from paleoclimate studies) increase that, but they are difficult to fully incorporate, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is unknown to a factor of about 50% and maybe more. Many lines of evidence support these broad conclusions, but getting more specific is very, very challenging, both theoretically and observationally.
If you’re asking me to say when would I conclude that increases in CO2 won’t cause warming, there is no point at which I would say that. CO2 causes warming. If surface temperatures do not increase over climatologically significant intervals of several decades (15 years reveals nothing about climate due to oceanic weather), there has to be something else going on that is not understood — it won’t be that CO2 is misunderstood. Good bets would be clouds, or low-lying aerosols.
Now you can answer my questions.
The comments section was hilarious! I love watching people scramble to confuse the topic while they pretend they are speaking from a place of scientific authority.
I used to be as die hard of a believer myself, until of course I dug into the raw data. It will be interesting to watch the AGW theory die, it is to bad it will hurt reality based environmental threats.
We have a dynamic moving system with several factors not being fully understood that could more then account for our small shifts in temps. We have feedback loops that are simply not following their marching orders that are mandatory for the temps to even get to the levels we are told to fear. But still the choir is in full force. This generations climate “science” will alter how science is viewed for generations to come.
Bart says: “So, sometimes, CO2 is forcing and sometimes, it’s just not in the mood.”
Again, you either don’t understand or choose to pretend not to. There are other factors besides CO2 that influence surface temperatures, and over a short time period like 15 years they can combine to overwhelm the underlying GHG warming (like now) or combine to exaggerate it (like 2007).
“But, the oceans are not showing any heating from CO2, either. That’s the whole point of this thread.”
But they are. I’ve given the numbers many times now, and no one knows what they are for the bottom half of the ocean.
“If you disagree, if you persist in this absurd idea that surface forcing can cause the lower ocean layers to heat without leaving any trace in the upper waters, then please give us your theory as to how the heat is getting down there.”
Oceans circulation works like a conveyor belt. It may be that heat is being being carried to the North Atlantic and convected downward, or there may be changes in its circulation upwards. There are still many unknowns in this area.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 5:14 pm
“As I’ve said already, the radiative part of the calculation is among the best known parts of the science (and easiest to calculate). Fundamental physics, proved long ago, shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase causes warming. That’s 100% certain.”
It isn’t. I have explained why. It’s presence increases warming relative to its absence, but the partial derivative (incremental warming for incremental increase) is not certain to be positive. It depends on the distribtution of the gas and the state of the system.
“…and feedbacks (which are known to exist from paleoclimate studies) increase that…”
Again, not demonstrable. You can’t diagnose the sign of feedback based on a scatterplot. Phase relationships can tilt the graph in either direction regardless of dc sign. A proper analysis, such as shown here can clearly identify the feedback as negative (180 deg phase at dc).
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 5:25 pm
“There are other factors besides CO2 that influence surface temperatures, and over a short time period like 15 years they can combine to overwhelm the underlying GHG warming (like now) or combine to exaggerate it (like 2007). “
Or, can cause a brief accelerated rise, as happened in the ~1970-2000 era. You are playing with a two-edged sword. If the current lull is not significant, then there is no reason to conclude that the previous run up was not due to “other factors” as well.
But, my point still stands. CO2 is supposed to be a relentless forcing. It does not take time off. And, it is supposed to be getting stronger, not weaker, so it should be even harder to override it now than it was during the previous warming spell.
“Oceans circulation works like a conveyor belt.”
OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!! Where is the warming that is supposed to be occurring right now???
Well, let’s look at these “mythical” other influences that are claimed to have stopped global qwarming in its tracks for 14-15-16-17 years (take your pick) …
No volcanoes to speak of since Pinatubo. They are the cause, nor the excuse.
Western aerosols and particulates had never even been measured in the period when THEY were supposedly cooling the world (1940-1973), but China’s aerosols haven’t been measured either – and they’ve likely been increasing up ONLY up north. Not much circulation between north and south though – what overall reflectivity then? The same.
Actually, China excepted, the world’s air is more clear now than in the past 70-odd years. But temperatures stabilized? Hmmmn.
CO2 rose, but temperatures remain stable. Hmmmn.
Quick somebody think of something else. I’m afraid Phobos needs to look at his namesake, but, then again, they told us that the sun did NOT cause heating during 1973-1997. A very short 24 year period.
Actually, the ONLY 24 year period in the history of the world that both CO2 and temperature rose at the same time.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 27, 2013 at 5:53 pm
“Actually, the ONLY 24 year period in the history of the world that both CO2 and temperature rose at the same time.”
Well, if you believe the ice core data, they were both increasing in the period ~1910-1940, too. But, the increase above the nominal trend was the same in that period as ~1970-2000, about 0.4 deg peak to peak, even though CO2 was dramatically lower.
In fact, it is pretty clear that the temperature record is essentially a trend with an approximately ~60 year cycle superimposed, which hasn’t varied in the last century while CO2 levels have increased inexorably. It’s currently turning down right on schedule. There’s nothing unusual or CO2 related about it.
Phobos says:
“Now you can answer my questions.”
I note that your own ‘answer” was so vague as to be completely meaningless. I repeatedly asked for numbers, and you gave lame excuses. The fact is that you are a True Believer in your alarmist pseudo-science narrative. If you gave specific numbers you would no doubt be proven wrong. There is nothing more upsetting to a religious True Believer than to find out his god doesn’t exist.
So I will answer your question as follows:
In science, measurements are necessary. Without measurements, a conjecture can proceed no farther. It can become neither a hypothesis, nor a theory. It remains an assertion; a conjecture. An opinion. That is not good enough to implement policy.
A logical and persuasive case can be made that CO2 does not have the claimed global warming effect:
The best charts are the longest term charts. Whether or not there is great accuracy in the temperature recording instrument does not matter. It is the long term trend that matters. Because whether or not a centuries-old thermometer is accurate, it certainly will show an accurate trend line over time. Thermometers work, even old ones.
The Central England Thermometer record is a case in point. It clearly shows that the natural recovery since the LIA warmed the planet along the same long term trend line [the decelerating green line] for hundreds of years, without any recent acceleration.
If AGW was a scientific fact, then following the ≈40% rise in CO2 over the past century and a half, we would have observed a decisive acceleration in global temperature. But there has been no such acceleration. Rising temperatures have remained within fairly tight parameters, and they have not broken out above those parameters — as they must, if AGW does what the alarmist crowd had incessantly predicted. But the alarmists were wrong in that prediction, as in every other prediction they made.
Radiative physics is a fact, so how do we explain this glaring discrepancy? Easy: the first few dozen parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere produce most of the warming effect. But at current CO2 levels, there is such a minuscule effect that it is not even measurable. As Willis points out, CO2 is, at best, a minor third order forcing, which is swamped by second order forcings — which are in turn swamped by first order forcings. Each order is about an order of magnitude larger than the previous order. Conclusion: at present concentrations, CO2 — and thus, AGW — are non-events that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
This is not just an opinion; it is backed by the actions of Planet Earth — and Planet Earth is deconstructing your ‘evil carbon’ belief system. Why should anyone listen to you, when the planet is decisively proving you wrong?
Finally, looking at the big picture, we see that all the wild-eyed arm waving is based on a myopic short term, coincidental parallel between CO2 and temperature. But that coincidence is breaking down, and the alarmist crowd is frantically running around [and incessantly thread-bombing], trying to rationalize the failure of another of their predictions.
Phobos seems to be one more mindless troll from the sks stable sent here to mouth inanities and obfuscate. But like all trolls, he ends up having his backside tanned and handed to him on a plate. This a scientific site, Phobos. The beauty of that is the facts are presented and speak for themselves. You on the other hand have presented nothing but arm waving and are being made to look like a fool with every inane post of yours, not that it was a very difficult task.
I find it astonishing that nobody on this learned website seems to know — or to even want to hazard a guess — as to what mechanism (other than those inconvenient greenhouse gases) might have caused the run up in temps since the start of the industrial revolution. The silence is deafening.
Evan Bedford says:
February 28, 2013 at 6:27 am
I think it remains to be determined, personally I think it’s somehow related to what the Sun is doing and or “Space Weather” and how it effects the Earth.
What I think has been determined is it can’t be from changes to Co2, and up until this pile of rubbish, I’ve never heard Scientists claim that because we can’t think of another cause it has to be X. I don’t have a problem with this being the basis of future research, but using it for policy that has led to people freezing to death, and dying from heat exhaustion is insane.
But it’s pretty easy to get an IR thermometer and when the temp is low enough to remove most of the moisture from the air(near freezing), then when the sky is clear measure the DLR from Co2. I measured the skies temp as -42C when it was ~1.5C outside. I suspect that even if an increase of Co2 increases that temp from -42C to -40.8C, it’s not going to do much of anything to surface temperatures. Especially when water vapor adds 20-30 more degrees of temperature to the sky.
IE water vapor, not Co2 controls surface temperatures, and a change from -42C to -41.8C isn’t by itself going to increase surface evaporation, causing an increase of temperatures. High CS values are fantasy of activists that are doing their own version of geopolitical engineering.
@D.B. Stealey:
You didn’t answer my specific questions. They’re rather simple ones:
1) Would you judge the climate changes of the MWP based solely on what was happening from 997 AD to 1012 AD?
2) What would you have said to someone in January 2007 who pointed out that the 15-year trend of the UAH lower troposphere data was 0.32 C/decade?
MiCro says:
February 28, 2013 at 8:05 am
Actually I think it’s more likely the bulk from the temp swing if from AMO and PDO cycles in ocean temperatures. Which might be influenced by the Sun and or space weather.
D.B. Stealey says: “It is the long term trend that matters.”
Then why have you been spending so much time and effort on the short, 15-year trend??
What would you have said to someone who pointed out, in Jan 2007, that the UAH LT 15-yr trend was a scary looking 0.32 C/decade? I suspect you’re not answering this because you know have said, that’s too short of an interval, let’s wait and see. Right? And if so, why doesn’t that same answer apply now?
The fact is (as Roger Pielke Sr pointed out in the quote above), the surface is subject to relatively large natural variations, and it’s a lousy place to look for the energy imbalance created by GHGs and other climate factors. It’s two-dimensional, so it can’t hold any heat anyway. There are many better places to look: the ocean especially. Also, ice. If those are warming and melting, who wouldn’t believe that the surface is bound to warm also, over the long-term?
D.B. Stealey says: “The Central England Thermometer record is a case in point.”
Why are you basing planetary climate based on what’s happening in one tiny corner of it?
As soon as you do that, you open yourself up to claims about other tiny corners, of which there are no end. You’re not doing planetary climatology, you’re doing very regionalized climatology.
REPLY: Apparently “phobos” hasn’t paid much attention to the lone tree at Yamal, the most “influential tree in the world”. Of course such focus on small data sets is OK when they do it. What a laugh phobos’ argument is. He/she/it is great entertainment. Another Linfield activist, no doubt. Love the name: Phobos (mythology); the Greek god of horror. Though… I think Comus would be a better fake identity for you. – Anthony
MiCro says: “I’ve never heard Scientists claim that because we can’t think of another cause it has to be X.”
And that’s not what they’re saying.
They’re saying
1) the Earth’s surface emits infrared radiation
2) GHGs absorb the upwelling IR, and re-emit it in all directions, some of it downward.
3) This continues until equilibrium is established, which is why the Earth’s surface radiates at 390 W/m2 when the Sun only delivers 240 W/m2.
4) Given this, it’s a matter of using spectroscopic data for the GHGs, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere to calculate the effect of changing GHG concentrations.
5) Compare measurements to expectations:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
They’re *also* saying, we’ve looked around, and can’t find any other influences that would cause the warming we’re seeing. This reinforces our GHG findings.
MiCro says: “Actually I think it’s more likely the bulk from the temp swing if from AMO and PDO cycles in ocean temperatures.”
Here’s something I’d really like to know the answer to, if anybody knows: what is the change in regional (or global) ocean heat content between a crest and trough of a PDO or AMO cycle?
The PDO and AMO indices aren’t temperatures, but normalized first principal components of regional SSTs. Can they be translated into changes in regional OHCs? If so, what is the change in regional (or global) OHC over half their cycle?
Phobos says:
February 28, 2013 at 8:36 am
MiCro says: “I’ve never heard Scientists claim that because we can’t think of another cause it has to be X.”
It’s exactly what they’re saying, all of the following is just window dressing.
Unfortunately the link is behind a paywall.
But, measure DLR with a IR thermometer on a clear day with temps near 30F, tell me what temp you read.
Then calculate the difference between how much the daily temp goes up, and how much it falls during the night. I have, follow the link in my name, and look at the updated temperatures blog. I don’t care what the radiation/temp trend is doing, it’s not causing a loss of cooling at night. It’s as simple as that.
Phobos says:
“Then why have you been spending so much time and effort on the short, 15-year trend??”
I cover all the bases, both short and long term, as you can see in my reply above. The inescapable conclusion: the climate alarmists’ case is debunked by the ultimate Authority, Planet Earth. That is why Phobos is arm waving in such excruciating consternation: the planet is proving him flat wrong.
Tap dance all you want, Phobos, but the rest of us can see that your runaway global warming narrative has been totally falsified. All of your predictions have failed. There is nothing unprecedented happening, much as you wish for your climate disruption fantasy to occur.
Run along now back to SkS, where they eat up your globaloney nonsense. This is the internet’s Best Science site, and your arguments fail here.