David Rose’s October 2012 article in the MailOnline generated a multitude of responses around the blogosphere. The article was titled Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it. There have been so many blog posts about the article it’s not practical to list them all.
SkepticalScience—a blog run by advocates of human-induced global warming, not global warming skeptics—attempted to counter the Rose article a number of times. They included a YouTube video in their January 2013 effort 16 More Years of Global Warming.
The following YouTube video On the SkepticalScience Video “Global Warming over the Last 16 Years” is my reply to it. It illustrates and discusses the blatant errors contained in the SkepticalScience video. I’ll go into more detail in a follow-up post. I simply wanted to upload this video in advance of that more-detailed discussion, which will be an update of and expansion on previous posts.
UPDATE: My apologies to those who are new to this discussion. I tried to limit the time of the video and that meant I couldn’t include a detailed explanation of the mechanisms that cause the natural warming of the oceans. However, I should have provided links to additional information in the post. The primary mechanism for the natural warming of the global oceans is El Niño-Southern Oscillation. It is discussed in detail in the following two-part video series titled “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”. Links: Part 1 and Part 2.
Also refer to the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” (42MB).
Hilarious “prediction” Eric1skeptic.
Bob Tisdale, thank you for another informative post. And I recommend Bob’s ebook to anyone interested in the climate.
berniel said “The steps up from one El Niño to the next is caused by the warm blanket of CO2…”
Do you mean “sustained” by the warm blanket of CO2? That is addressed here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/michael.alexander/2001GL014347.pdf
“Wang and Enfield suggested that atmosphere-ocean feedback in the WHWP occurs through long wave radiation. How- ever, a comparison of the ENSO signal in MLM and Control experiments indicated that the feedback was primarily through Qlh; differences between Qlw anomalies in the two experiments were negligible.”
In other words, the latent heat from Pacific warming is the primary cause of Atlantic warming, not CO2 blankets.
Another kiester-kicking of alarmies by skeptics. Way to go, Bob!
Let’s also don’t forget that actual temps are down considerably from their peak in the 1930s despite the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since then – and down substantially since 1998, as recent severe winters and poor summers over most of the world have shown. A stronger, more convincing proof of zero correlation between CO2 and temps could hardly be imagined. – except maybe the historical record going back to the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean war period, some 3,800 years ago. We don’t just have the last 16 years to prove the non-correlation – we have 3,800 years of records to prove it.
Temps aren’t level since 1998 – that is only the best the alarmies at NOAA and EPA can do without it being too obvious they’re fudging the data.
The effect of GHG on the atmosphere must be many, many times greater than on the ocean, due to the ocean’s much greater ability to store heat. (As usual. excuse my unscientific language!!).
And as the ocean warms the atmosphere, rather than vice versa, you would expect that the increase in land temperatures would be several time greater than that of ocean temperatures.
Bob will have a better idea of the numbers, but the latest GISS anomaly (v 1951-80 baseline) shows
Land & Ocean – 0.49C
Land Only – 0.69C
In other words, not much difference. Does not this indicate that SST’s have been increasing because of factors other than GHG?
Thanks Bob you always delivers the goods.
jakehearts the accountant, SkS’s goal was to show the residual heating was caused by mankind after removing their identified factors. The obvious problems are that: 1) Did they identify all the factors? 2) Was the amount accurate? so that the residual was also accurate? Bob shows us that the SkS ENSO factor was very wrong, therefore we can assume their residual heat answer is also.
Not being a scientist, I performed an unscientific experiment in one of my bathrooms, a smaller one that has a tub. I’m simple-minded: I have to see things work. I filled the tub with hot water at 8 PM. I borrowed my neighbor’s Dyson Hot room heater, added three other room heaters, and plugged them in. Left the whole thing undisturbed overnight. The following morning, the room was broiling, the top of the bathwater was lukewarmish, the water at the bottom was cold. So I decided to leave it for another 24 hours to see if the hot atmosphere in the room would warm the bathwater as people, such as those at Skeptical Science, tell me is should. The surface of the bathwater was even cooler the next day. And the rest if the bathwater was bone cold.
SkepticalScience is neither skeptical, nor science. Their “analysis” is simply an exercise in curve fitting, and the only thing it demonstrates is the efficacy of multivariate least squares fitting of time series. That method is robust, in that it always produces the best fit of the data to the series, but misleading in that it doesn’t really care if the data are related or not – it will always minimize the error between the model and the data regardless of any causal link.
I saw that SkS propaganda video referenced at a relatively decent tech site called Ars Technica …
Climate change may be irreversible, but we control the future trajectory
Very disappointing to see otherwise smart people sucked into this nonsense. Anyone that wants to help make a difference go over and help pound some sense into their thick skulls.
j ferguson says:
April 7, 2013 at 6:13 am
Bob:
SkepticalScience—a blog run by advocates of human-induced global warming, …
This isn’t quite right. Wouldn’t “blog run by advocates of recognizing a threat in human-induced global warming” be more accurate? Surely they don’t advocate global warming, just the amount and proportion of assignment of blame.
*
The line is correct. Read it again, they advocate that humans are doing it.
Well, no.
Linguistically — and perhaps pedantically — it isn’t correct. You’ve inserted additional words in it [“that humans are doing it”] with your restatement, making it correct.
When you advocate something it means you’re for it, you’re in favour of it. When you advocate an explanation for something, that’s different: you’re just claiming the explanation is accurate. This isn’t rocket science.
Paul Homewood says: “Bob will have a better idea of the numbers, but the latest GISS anomaly (v 1951-80 baseline) shows
Land & Ocean – 0.49C
Land Only – 0.69C
In both cases, the anomalies are positive, not negative as you show.
To use an analogy, “John advocates alcohol-caused unplanned pregnancies,” has a different meaning than, “John advocates the idea that alcohol results in unplanned pregnancies.”
Did you use a thermometer as a measuring instrument?
My speculation is that you measured the temperature with your hand. In which case, you weren’t accurately measuring the water-temperature, you were (subjectively) measuring the contrast between the water temperature and the air temperature. And that’s an entirely different thing.
What that would show is that the air temperature rises faster and more than the water temperature, not that increased air temperature does not raise adjacent water temperature.
jorgekafkazar says:
April 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm
I read what he wrote as positive anomalies given that there’s a space between the en dash and the number…
-Scott
Really enjoyed the video!
Villege [sic] Idiot says: “Interesting modulation in the voice over (maybe you should ditch him on your next effort).’
Rude, Villege, just plain rude. But then I guess that’s what we should expect from “villege idiots.”
Bob: One added fact I’d suggest stressing is that man-made greenhouse gases are a very small fraction of total atmospheric greenhouse gas.
eric1skeptic says:
April 7, 2013 at 5:01 am
The 2015 skepsci video (based on Foster et al 2014) will be even funnier (“Sssssssoh. Is there ANY evidence for a slowdown in warming after we remove the Chinese aerosol cooling? Nnnnnnnnnno!). By that time the surface temperature will show even more of a lull (0.1 or less above the 81-10 average). The skepsci commenters will say (besides “awesome!”) that the Desperadoes were only using the satellite record because they want to deny the new GISS enhanced antarctic warming (now headed by Gleick who took over from Hansen).
==================================================
When did we exchange one liar for a thief and an extortionist at GISS? Glieick?? Really??
Thanks, Bob.
These videos are excellent!
You have done a great service to natural science.
Bill H, my post was only hypothetical (satire).
A.D. Everard,
My take was that Dr. Tisdale was alleging that the Skeptical Science folks were advocating human induced global warming. I took this to mean that Dr.Tisdale was writing that they favored (supported) global warming caused by humans.
Obviously it cannot be that. They clearly are advocating the THEORY that global warming is human induced, but that is not the same as advocating the warming itself.
Don’t you hate it when people you mostly agree with screw up their statements? I know I do.
eric1skeptic says:
April 7, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Bill H, my post was only hypothetical (satire).
=====================================
PHEW!
Thought I slept through something important… again! 🙂
When fiction strikes you as possible… Given the Obama Administrations track record of giving screw ups, liars, and thieves promotions…. this would not come as unexpected.
Has anyone consider subterranean (under the ocean) volcanoes. Heaps of them. Krakatoa or baby K, is very noisy right now, and there are some in the Adriatic, Aegean and Mediterranean. You are not telling me, they don’t heat the water near them. Plus all the gases they spew out. But if the coalition is elected cum Sept or earlier, Tim Flannery is on the agenda, and not too soon either. I love the disclaimers they add to their papers. The government and the climate change committee can’t be held responsible for incorrect information and data. And there is our hon.PM
talking to the Chinese about climate change, when they the Chinese criticized Australia for their apparent land care use and overall bush fire carbon polution input. They are one of the biggest polluters out, with the surface fires from poor coal mining techniques. Same as India and Indonesia. We have a smoking mountain near where I live, it’s being going for centuries. They can’t put it out, nor want to as it is a tourist attraction.
At cHRITOPHER, DoLLiS, sor,ry I. left, the sElling ap OfF 🙂