The Guardian has a new blog called Climate Consensus – The 97%. The two primary authors are to be Dana Nuccitelli, a regular contributor at SkepticalScience, and John Abraham, Associate Professor at the University of St. Thomas.
Dana Nuccitelli’s first post at his new blog at The Guardian is titled “Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming’s acceleration?” His article is subtitled, “‘Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,’ said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it.” Nuccitelli’s first post at The Guardian is reminiscent of his posts at SkepticalScience—that is, it’s misleading and full of misinformation.
Data contradict the points Dana Nuccitelli is trying to make. In this post, we’ll briefly discuss ocean heat content data, how Mother Nature—not manmade greenhouse gases—creates warm water during La Niña events, how she releases that naturally created warm water during El Niño events and redistributes it around the oceans afterwards, and we’ll discuss Dana Nuccitelli’s misleading animation called “The Escalator”. Data explains how and why the vast majority of global warming occurred naturally…when it warmed.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT
Nuccitelli begins his post with a picture from space of the Pacific Ocean with the caption:
Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
Then the first sentence of his post reads:
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second.
Based on Nuccitelli’s opening illustration and statement, we should expect the ocean heat content of the Pacific Ocean to be showing a monumental amount of warming over the past 10 years. But, as shown in Figure 1, the ocean heat content data for the Pacific Ocean from pole to pole (90S-90N, 120E-80W) shows cooling. Right from the get go, data disagrees with Nuccitelli’s representations.
Figure 1
The NODC’s Ocean Heat Content data used in Figure 1 (and in the other ocean heat content graphs in this post) is the only regularly updated dataset of its kind that’s available to the public on a gridded basis through the KNMI Climate Explorer. There, users can select the coordinates of the data they desire. The NODC’s ocean heat content data represents the change in the heat stored in the oceans to depths of 700 meters or about 2300 feet.
The article in The Guardian also fails to describe all of the problems associated with ocean heat content data. Before the ARGO floats were deployed starting in the early 2000s, the temperature observations at depth were so sparse that the data has to be taken with more than a grain of salt, especially when dealing with the data below 700 meters. And the ARGO-era ocean heat content data has been adjusted so many times it’s difficult to keep track of all of them. Many of the problems with ocean heat content data were described in the blog post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be? It’s a long post, I’ll grant you that, but if you’re interested in ocean heat content data, it’s worth a read. Bottom line: even with all of the adjustments to the ARGO-era that added warming to the ocean heat content data, the Pacific data shows cooling over the past 10 years—contrary to what Dana Nuccitelli implied with his opening statement and illustration.
HOW LA NIÑAS CREATE WARM WATER IN THE TROPICAL PACIFIC
Nuccitelli continues:
We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn’t a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – “Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown” – eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor.
During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago.
Dana fails to explain that Mother Nature, not greenhouse gases, creates ocean heat in the tropical Pacific–where El Niño and La Niña events take place. During La Niña events, the trade winds in the tropical Pacific are stronger. The stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which, in turn, allows more sunlight (also known as penetrating solar radiation because it penetrates into the oceans) to warm it. That’s why the long-term warming of the ocean heat content for the tropical Pacific was plainly caused by the 3-year La Niña events of 1954-57, 1973-76 and 1998-01, and during the freakish 1995/96 La Niña. Keep in mind that the 1995/96 La Nina provided the fuel for the 1997/98 El Niño, which was discussed by Nuccitelli. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
To further illustrate the role of La Niñas in the warming of the tropical Pacific, Figure 3, the ocean heat content there would have cooled since the 1950s without the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Niña events.
Figure 3
Back to Nuccitelli’s statement:
During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming.
That discussion is also misleading for other reasons. Sea surface temperatures (not ocean heat content) in the tropical Pacific cool in response to La Niña events because more cool waters than normal are being upwelled from below the surface of the eastern equatorial Pacific. Marine air temperatures and lower troposphere temperatures cool in response because the tropical Pacific is releasing less heat than normal through evaporation as a result of the cooler surface waters. (That cooler upwelled water is then warmed by the La Niña-caused additional sunlight as it travels from east to west across the tropical Pacific, and it collects in an area east of Indonesia called the west Pacific Warm Pool, where it warms the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific.)
Note: The sea surface temperature data presented in this post is NOAA’s best: the Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature data, version 2, also known as Reynolds OI.v2. It’s a combination of observations from satellites, buoys and ship inlets. As noted in the link:
The optimum interpolation (OI) sea surface temperature (SST) analysis is produced weekly on a one-degree grid. The analysis uses in situ and satellite SST’s plus SST’s simulated by sea-ice cover. Before the analysis is computed, the satellite data is adjusted for biases using the method of Reynolds (1988) and Reynolds and Marsico (1993).
EL NIÑO EVENTS
An El Niño event releases that La Niña-created warm water from below the surface of the west Pacific Warm Pool, and an El Niño spreads that warm water eastward across the eastern tropical Pacific. There was so much warm water released by the 1997/98 El Niño that the sea surface temperatures for the entire East Pacific Ocean (from pole to pole or the coordinates of 90S-90N, 180-80W) temporarily warmed 0.5 to 0.6 deg C. See Figure 4. The East Pacific Ocean with those coordinates represents about 33% of the surface of the global oceans, so that was a monumental amount of naturally created warm water that was released by the 1997/98 El Niño. Notice also that the East Pacific sea surface temperature data hasn’t warmed over the 31 years of that dataset, based on the linear trend.
Figure 4
All of that naturally created warm water that’s now on the surface doesn’t simply disappear after a strong El Niño. Ocean currents redistribute that leftover warm water to adjoining ocean basins (which prevents the sea surface temperatures for remote areas, like the North Atlantic, from cooling proportionally during the trailing La Niña). The leftover warm water (and its counteracting effects on the trailing La Niña) is why the sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans warmed in a very obvious upward step of about 0.19 deg C, Figure 5, in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. Note that there was also a strong upward shift in response to the 1986/87/88 El Niño and a smaller step in response to the 2009/10 El Niño.
Figure 5
Without those El Niño events, the sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans would not have warmed since the early 1980s.
Nuccitelli was right with his statement, “During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming.” But he failed to advise his readers:
1. that land surface air temperatures represent only 30% of the global surface temperature record,
2. that sea surface temperature data represent the other 70%,
3. that the satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate sea surface temperatures warmed naturally in response to the naturally created warm water released from below the surface of the tropical Pacific during strong El Niños, and
4. that the warming of land surface air temperatures is primarily a response to the warming of sea surface temperatures.
For more information, including a discussion of the natural warming of ocean heat content data, refer to my illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB]. For even more information, there’s more detail in my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? which was introduced in the blog post here. It’s available in pdf form here for US$8.00.
THE ESCALATOR
Nuccitelli goes on to write:
Reuters didn’t connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these ‘slowdowns’ happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed ‘The Escalator‘.
The escalator is included here as Animation 1.
Animation 1
The caption for “The Escalator” reads:
Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, Apr ’77 – Dec ’86, Sep ’87 – Nov ’96, Jun ’97 – Dec ’02, and Nov ’02 – Nov ’12.
Let’s drop back to what Nuccitelli wrote earlier:
One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago.
When people say ‘no warming in 15 years’, they’re cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year.
“The Escalator” by definition is an exercise in cherry picking. Let’s illustrate, with the same data used by Nuccitelli, how global surface temperatures actually warmed without cherry picking the time periods. We’ll simply highlight 3 naturally occurring events, and use them as start and end years for shorter-term data illustrations.
Figure 6 shows the global land surface air temperature plus sea surface temperature anomalies (average of GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4 and NCDC datasets, like The Escalator) before, during and after the 1997/98 El Niño. The data highlighted in red are for the official El Niño months of the 1997/98 El Niño from NOAA’s Oceanic NINO Index. There was little warming during the years leading up to the 1997/98 El Niño and in the years following it. I’ve included period-average temperatures in blue to help highlight that fact. The dip in 1991 and rebound in 1994 is associated with the explosive volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. That cooling is a response to the decrease in penetrating solar radiation caused by the “shading” effects of aerosols spewed into the stratosphere by the explosive volcano—not from a decrease in manmade greenhouse gases. That aside, the vast majority of the warming during the period of March 1988 to February 2013 was caused by the monumental amount of naturally created warm water released from below the surface of the tropical Pacific by the 1997/98 El Niño and redistributed on the sea surface after it–warm water that was created during the 1995/96 La Niña.
Figure 6
You’re probably wondering why I started the graph in Figure 6 at March 1988. That’s the first month after NOAA’s official months for the 1986/87/88 El Niño. If we look at the global surface temperature anomalies from March 1977 to April 1997 (the month before the 1997/98 El Niño), Figure 7, we can see that the 1986/87/88 El Niño caused a similar upward shift in global surface temperatures. The upward steps in Figures 6 and 7 are blatantly obvious when we break the data down into logical shorter time periods before and after the strong El Niño events. (Note: There was also a very strong El Niño in 1982/83, but the eruption of El Chichon in 1982 counteracted the impact on global surface temperatures of all of the warm water it released.)
Figure 7
Now for the period before the 1986/87/88 El Niño: See Figure 8. I’ve started the graph 10 years before The Escalator to show how “flat” global temperatures were leading up to the upward step in global temperatures in 1976. That step is associated with the Pacific Climate Shift, when the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific ocean suddenly shifted upwards. There are numerous peer-reviewed papers that attempt to explain that natural warming, many with different causes and effects. That shift coincides with the end of the 1973-76 La Niña, which created, as shown Figure 2, the initial warm water used by the trailing El Niño events until the 1995/96 La Niña. Regardless of the cause, there was an obvious upward shift in global surface temperatures in 1976. I’ve highlighted in red the official months of the 1976/77 El Niño as a proxy for the climate shift. The upward step is pretty tough to miss. And again, I’ve used period average temperatures (in blue) before and after the 1976 climate shift to help illustrate its impact on global surface temperatures and to show how “flat” global temperatures were before and after that shift.
Figure 8
Now, if we merge all of the data from Figures 6 through 8, we have a more realistic view on how, when and why global surface temperatures warmed—a more realistic escalator. See Figure 9. There was no cherry picking involved, just a little common sense to highlight the primary causes of global warming since 1960.
Figure 9
CLOSING
Ocean heat content data for the Pacific Ocean contradicts Dana Nuccitelli’s opening statement and illustration. The ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific show that Mother Nature is responsible for the fuel for El Niño events. Ocean Heat Content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data also indicate the oceans warmed naturally, but you have to understand that ENSO works as a recharge-discharge oscillator (with La Niña as the recharge mode and El Niño as the discharge mode) to see Mother Nature’s handiwork. And as illustrated, Dana Nuccitelli’s Escalator is simply another way for global warming enthusiasts to hide how global temperatures actually warmed since 1976. In short, data contradicts Dana Nuccitelli’s first post at The Guardian’s new blog.
Feel free to furnish a link to this post at Dana Nuccitelli’s new home at The Guardian. The more the merrier. Unlike SkepticalScience, I don’t believe The Guardian has a track record of deleting comments that disagree with the hypothesis of human-induced global warming. And if Nuccitelli’s posts at The Guardian are similar to his posts at SkepticalScience, he’ll be presenting “The Escalator” again and again, so you can link this post to his future uses of The Escalator at The Guardian, too. And don’t forget the YouTube video On the SkepticalScience Video “Global Warming over the Last 16 Years” when he links that video from SkepticalScience.
Something tells me the Guardian has made a mistake employing someone who uses the term “denier.”
It would be a good thing if there were a ‘Name’ big enough, or enough of them, to get The Guardian to publish a rebuttal that led the reader to this Post.
Thanks Bob, trust the Grauniad to get it wrong.
“Unlike SkepticalScience, I don’t believe The Guardian has a track record of deleting comments that disagree with the hypothesis of human-induced global warming”
You are joking aren’t you?
The Guardian is world famous for massive censorship on the breadth and scale that would make a communist dictator blush. I mentioned Svensmark and was permanently banned.
The Independent is pro-AGW but doesn’t censor.
Another way to look at the standstill in temperatures since 1997, is to compare current temperatures against the average for 1997-2011.
You get the same result – no warming. In other words, the choice of the start year is not significant.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/no-warming-since-1997a-better-way-to-show-it/
Dana fails to explain that Mother Nature, not greenhouse gases, creates ocean heat in the tropical Pacific–where El Niño and La Niña events take place. During La Niña events, the trade winds in the tropical Pacific are stronger. The stronger trade winds reduce cloud cover, which, in turn, allows more sunlight (also known as penetrating solar radiation because it penetrates into the oceans) to warm it.
I think this piece of the post is what should be the take home message and is worth repeating. Without it, most Gruaniad readers will not see any difference as to whether global temps rise steadily, or in fits and starts, and will still attribute it to man’s emissions.
Graham says: “You are joking aren’t you? The Guardian is world famous for massive censorship on the breadth and scale that would make a communist dictator blush. I mentioned Svensmark and was permanently banned.”
I based my statement on the fact there there are a lot of comments from skeptics on the thread at The Guardian that oppose what Dana presented. They wouldn’t have passed moderation at SkepticalScience.
Regards
I’ll have to agree with Bob. SkS is even more highly censored (if one can imagine that) than the Guardian.
Nuccitelli though has now joined the ranks of professional liars with his denial of the OHC data as published at the Guardian.
Bob, the straws Nuccitelli et al are clutching at, is of course that “Recent warming rates of the waters below 700 meters appear to be unprecedented” (Trenberth in the Reuters article Nuccitelli is linking to). If someone comes up with a different and cooler estimate for that deep ocean heat content, I wonder what the next “heat hiding place” will be?
Ok – so I see a lot of upward stairsteps over the years we’ve had sensitive enough equipment to show them, right?
So does temperature ever step down? Or can temperatures be expected to gradually lower until the next surge of energy bumps them back up? It would be years before a downward step would even be noticeable, right?
The Guardian does exercise censorship. Maybe not all the times, but often, yes. I left very harmless (or so I thought) comments that were censored. Once I remember they had an article that blamed the US for scuppering the Kyoto protocol. I was the first to comment, and pointed out that maybe one day we will have to thank the US for this. My comment survived few minutes, then it was removed by the moderators. When I started posting asking why, all my comments (including the comments’ stumps) were totally removed. I used to read the Guardian, I used to think it was an excellent newspaper. I wrong was I?
Dana, like too many AGW hypesters, has developed a good gig. Why would he change anything now?
Presumably in the absence of a warming trend, the sea temperature in the final graph would ramp gently DOWN in the periods between El Nino events. So thanks Bob, a nice demonstration of how the El Nino phenomenon redistributes the excess heat in a series of discrete packets.
So why don’t the oceans as a whole cool down after an El Nino? Could it be that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are slowing down the escape of the LWR emitted by the seas (heat) meaning that the energy gained during a La Nina does not have time to escape the atmosphere before then next El Nino kicks in and bumps temperatures up a notch?
Sorry got my Nina’s and Ninos mixed up! Should be:
“…energy gained during a La Nina does not have time to escape during and after an El Nino before the next La Nina kicks in and starts to recharge the ocean heat content?
Why is anyone bothered with what the Guardian has to say about AGW. There is a pattern to their coverage and you can see this after any significant press or online article which comprehenively trashes the Global Warming myth. Recent examples would include articles in the Daily Mail and Telegraph pointing out that, amongst other things, there has been no warming at all in nearly twenty years in spite of the enormous increase in carbon dioxide generated by China and India.
The predicable response from the Guardian is to put up one or two writers with a scientific-sounding background to attack the offending article, ignoring every point made in it and refusing to answer all the awkward quesitons raised. The article will go on to re-state all the myths we have become so familiar with and end with the usual doom-laden predictions about what will happen if their message is not acted upon. This is followed by the all the usual cif comments which make the same doom-laden points with the added suggestion that if you don’t believe them you are mentally deficient.
Hi Bob
In the UK, lots of people have problems commenting at the Guardain, as many regulars at Bishop Hill will attest to.
However, If you see a commentor in the Guardain – bbcbias – whois very sceptical, well that is me.
The Guardain know who I am now, and they know where I write (ie here) and know if any of my comments disappear, that they might appear, shall we say elsewhere…. we have all learnt the hard way, to screencapture and save any comment we might make.
I had LOTS of problems in the past with my comments disapperaing.
not so much any more as the MODs will be fair If you give no excuses for my comment to be moderated, what usually happens is somebody complains, and very busy mods will just remove it. so no accusations of dishonesty, etc,etc as it will be removed, which is fair enough..
—————-my comment for Dana —————
formating better here:
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/23044359
—————————————————–
Interesting – Dana says:
“This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. ”
this was a actually comment on the following paper
D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox
Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts
Physics Letters A, Volume 376, Issue 14, 5 March 2012, Pages 1226-1229
but Dana doesn’t mention, the critical reply he receives from the original authors…
► The authorsʼ misunderstanding of the climate shift concept is discussed. ► The Commentʼs argument is partly based on incompatible data. ► The authors over-interpreted our comments about carbon dioxide forcing.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037596011201119X
Pielke jnr quotes from the paper, the paper is listed here (DK_reply_PLA_2012.pdf)
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/
D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox, 2012: Reply to “Comment on ‘Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli et al. Physics Letters A
The first and last paragraphs of his [Douglas] Reply summarize with
Nuccitelli, Way, Painting, Church and Cook
[1] comment on our Letter “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts”
[2]. Their criticism is unwarranted on at least three essential grounds. (1) It is based on a misunderstanding of the climate shift concept, which is central to our Letter; (2) in making its claim of incompleteness because of neglect of the deeper ocean heat content, it ignores our statement of possible error and introduces incompatible data; (3) it over-interprets our comments about CO2 forcing. We expand on these points.
In sum, we show that the criticism of our results (change of slope in the implied FTOA at the climate shift of 2001–2002) by Nuccitelli et al. is unwarranted because they used different data of less temporal resolution. A more careful analysis of this data shows, in fact, consistency and not conflict with our results.
so, perhaps a little bit of selective (not Skeptical) science from Dana
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/publication-of-reply-to-comment-on-ocean-heat-content-and-earths-radiation-imbalance-ii-relation-to-climate-shifts-by-nuccitelli-et-al-by-douglass-an/
A true sceptic shows both sides of the story……. so just helping out here.. 😉
Dana of course wheels out the Skeptical Science – ‘escalator’ graph..
My response (bbcbias):
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/23044359
no sceptic would draw that graph.. a construct of Skeptical Science.
The IPCC also has a problem with inappropriate graphs. ie their accelerating temp graph.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-3-1-figure-1.jpeg
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1.html
A mathematician at Nottingham University explains the problems with this..
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus
he also notes a problem with the IPCC process (see link above):
“The IPCC reports are subjected to careful review by scientists. So how did this blatant distortion of the temperature trends get through this rigorous review process? The answer to this question can now be found, because the previous drafts of AR4, and the reviewer comments, can now be seen on-line. (The IPCC was reluctant to release these comments, but was forced to do so after a number of freedom of information requests). The answer is quite astonishing.
The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments.
A sceptic would put ALL the trend lines in of similar duration, not just selecting a few, like the IPCC and Skeptical Science do when showing just one period of short term high rate of warming, a sceptic would show all. ”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/how-did-this-bogus-ipcc-graph-get-past-the-climate-science-experts.html
Sceptic blogs do not think much of Skeptical Science’s little graph that misrepresent how they would draw a graph.
ie.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/3/cherrypicking.html
Dana fails to explain that Mother Nature, not greenhouse gases, creates ocean heat in the tropical Pacific–where El Niño and La Niña events take place.
I’m not sure that saying ‘Mother Nature did it’ is a good way to explain anything. Or at least say ‘Mother nature, not man, did it’ instead of saying ‘not greenhouse gases’ because to me greenhouse gases are Mother Nature (at least once they’re released by man to join the natural gases).
Bob Tisdale:
At April 25, 2013 at 4:29 am you say
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/#comment-1287031
Sorry, but Graham is right. You are ‘setting the bar’ absurdly low.
Richard
Juice: I should have been more specific by stating manmade greenhouse gases.
If you are scrupulous with complying with the Guardians comments policy, you WILL, I think get published.. do not give any ‘pro’ commentators any excuse to report you.
What can happen, is, if you give he readers any excuse to report you, they will, and (very busy) mods will err on the side of caution..
Proof of this, is there were 3 accusations that Watts Up was a ‘d3nier’ blog funded by the Koch nrothers, I reported this, and the moderators have removed them, as they usually do..
BE very politie, civil and factual, and I think your comments will stand, avoid the personal, etc,etc
Just thought I’d plot up a comparison of surface temperatures (Hadcrut4) and what is really happening to “Temperatures” in the 0 to 2000 metre ocean.
http://s9.postimg.org/yypq6f0mn/Surface_and_Ocean_Warming_Feb2013.png
The Y = #.### X is equivalent to the temperature change per year. So Hadcrut4 falling at -0.006C per year while ocean temperatures down to 2000 metres are increasing at 0.002C per year (although down since the first measurements from Argo and the error margins are 8 times bigger than the trend rate so it might be more accurate to call it Zero).
What’s your guess for which way ocean temperatures will head now after viewing that chart.
I think you could argue the escalator represents a natural up and down tilted upwards by AGW or other warming factors just as well. A straight line in a la nina is an upward line without it. So the entire name of the blog, 97% consensus is… what can you say but an embarrassment and the sea warmth business an amazing, high-arcing hop into the confirmation bias hot tub, but I call 50-50 on the escalator point.
That last escalator step looks pretty tiny….getting near the top?
The inaccuracy in the escalator graph is that in the earlier short-term flat periods, the trends were not parallel to the smoothed GMST curve with 21-years moving average. However, in the current short-term flat period it is as shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/15FKX0n
As a result, the escalator graph is incorrect. The current flat period is due to ocean cycles and should last for another decade or two.
Here is what Prof Latif wrote:
Had forecasters extrapolated the mid-century warming into the future, they would have predicted far more warming than actually occurred. Likewise, the subsequent cooling trend, if used as the basis for a long-range forecast could have erroneously supported the idea of a rapidly approaching ice age. The detection of the anthropogenic climate signal thus requires at least the analysis of long records, because we can be easily fooled by the natural fluctuations, and we need to understand their dynamics to better estimate the internal noise level.
IPCC AR4 published only climate projections based on such scenarios with no attempt to take account of the likely evolution of the natural variability.
Source:
http://oceanrep.geomar.de/9199/1/JGE.pdf
In the days of Outhouses” the guardian” would not be consigned to the hook! ( one must be most careful )
Sasha asks “Why is anyone bothered with what the Guardian has to say about AGW. There is a pattern to their coverage and you can see this after any significant press or online article which comprehenively trashes the Global Warming myth.”
Because unfortunately, The Guardian is still the broadsheet of choice of many if not most opinion formers in the UK (and even worldwide). It’s read by other journalists, politicians of the left and centre, policy makers for all but the Tory party and UKIP, by people active in local politics. And above all, it’s the paper of choice for by far the majority of left-leaning teachers at both school and University /College level. This is why The Guardian is so dangerous; it continues to have an influence far above the level its readership % would justify.
Moreover the people who read the Guardian affect to despise The Telegraph and above all the Daily Mail – you can read posts denigrating those papers in every comment thread on The Guardian. Its readers meanwhile are active in the comments threads on every environmental column and on other papers’ websites etc etc – they are eco-warriors of the most rabid kind to a man, and woman.
That Nuccitelli has been given a blog there only serves to underline how averse to the truth their editor, management and readership is. And their moderators ensure the gospel of CAGW is not questioned.
PS to the above: I think letters to the editor calling attention to this post, with a pithy quote, would do more good than posting on the blog comment thread, where comments will quickly be deleted.
Bob: this is what I advise you to do.
TLM says: “So why don’t the oceans as a whole cool down after an El Nino?”
The sea surface temperature anomalies for the East Pacific show cooling if they’re adjusted for volcanic aerosols:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/03-east-pac.png
That graph is from my most recent sea surface temperature update:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/march-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
And the sea surface temperatures for the South Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans also cool between the major El Niño events, so much so that that subset would also show cooling without the strong El Niños:
http://oi47.tinypic.com/24zgfgk.jpg
That leaves the North Atlantic, but it has another mode of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation…
http://i36.tinypic.com/2liy2a0.jpg
…which is why it doesn’t cool between the strong El Niños.
That was explained in the essay linked in the post, which you appear to have overlooked:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge.pdf
TLM says: “Could it be that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are slowing down the escape of the LWR emitted by the seas (heat) meaning that the energy gained during a La Nina does not have time to escape the atmosphere before then next El Nino kicks in and bumps temperatures up a notch?”
As shown in the above linked essay, there is nothing in the ocean heat content data or satellite-era sea surface temperature data to indicate that manmade greenhouse gases have had any impact on the warming of the global oceans. If you’d like to carry your argument further, please provide links to the climate model-based peer-reviewed studies that explain:
1. Why the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific haven’t warmed in 31 years.
2. Why the seas surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans only warmed during the strong El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10.
3. Why the warming of the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific is dependent on the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Niña events, and without those La Niñas the ocean heat content for tropical Pacific would cool.
4. Why the warming of the ocean heat content of the North Pacific (north of the tropics) is dependent on a 2-year climate shift (1989-90), and without that climate shift, the ocean heat content for the North Pacific would cool.
I’ll save you some time looking. There are no studies that explain why sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content actually warmed as they did.
You later corrected: “…energy gained during a La Nina does not have time to escape during and after an El Nino before the next La Nina kicks in and starts to recharge the ocean heat content?”
First, the vast majority of the warm water created by a La Niña and that fuels an El Niño is below the surface and the oceans release heat at the surface. Second, the La Niñas in question occur immediately after El Niños and are responses to them. ENSO basics. The 1973-76 La Niña trailed the 1972/73 El Niño. The 1995/96 La Niña trailed the 1994/95 El Niño. And the 1998-01 La Niña trailed the 1997/98 El Niño.
Regards
I doubt that Dana’s blog will have any impact other than giving inhabitants of the Guardian blogosphere a warm glow as they nod agreement. Seeking to influence Government policy in the UK by blogging is a waste of time, and I suspect that this is the case everywhere.
The only chance of having any influence through Newspapers is to get an article or a letter published. The Guardian will not publish anything that challenges their Green/LibDem agenda, and people such as the Campaign Manager for Friends of the Earth and their ilk have free range of the ‘letters’ page.
The Times, however, will publish letters representing a range of opinions. They have for example published a number of my letters in the last year that criticise our current, ‘green’, energy policy (search ‘James Snook’ on the internet edition). I can only hope that these have had a small, but cumulative, effect on our policy makers, because we despartely need to change direction if we are to keep our lights on and our energy costs sensible.
@Barry Woods – thanks for the link. I found the discussion at the Guardian to be very lively, and unusually polite. I gather that is due, to what you pointed out, about their moderation policy.
Bob, the Guardian lets comments appear first and later the moderators play catch up and remove all of the undesired opinions.
As a regular commenter at the Guardian I can assure you that comments can be quite heavily “censored”. However, partly this is because a certain amount of the ability to have posts deleted is delegated to the other commenters. If there is a comment you dislike and it in any way infringes, even if ever so slightly, the “rules”…then you can report it and it will be deleted.
I know this because I have managed (purely as an experiment) to have completely uncontroversial posts deleted because they contained some very mild “personal abuse” or are somewhat “off-topic”.
Of course, as the majority of commenters on any weather/climate/global warming thread at the Grun are unremitting alarmists and militant with it….this very much makes the matter of keeping a post up if you differ pretty darned difficult.
A Climate scare Bob exposed by Climate scientist Bob. Well done Dr. Tisdale!
@Luca – “I used to read the Guardian, I used to think it was an excellent newspaper. I wrong was I?”
It was a good paper in the last century, although even then it was holier than thou. And the scriptwriters of “Yes, Prime Minister” caught that very well in the episode entitled “A Conflict of Interest”:
Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press, I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; the Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and the The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.
First of all I think it is great that these two chaps are publishing in the Guardian. The Guardian is an insane asylum for the ultra left and ultra green ( which is pretty much the same ). Just reading the articles and comments is an education as to how irrational people can be. Imagine a bunch of hipsters that actually have political opinions based on their own concept of how society should be and that’s it.
Secondly Bob Tisdale has totally deconstructed the nonsense these two are trying to peddle. The air was warming because of CO2 , now the sea is warming and the air isn’t! I mean c’mon guys what happened, did somebody tell the ocean it was missing out and so it woke up and stole the heat from the air? What comes next, a retaliatory strike by the newly peeved air?
The only space where this kind of mendacious bullshit could get airtime is the Guardian. 25000 copies get sold each day and the losses are in the $millions every month. The only thing keeping them alive is the BBC feeding them ad revenue and a couple of deep pocketed philanthropists who seem to think the world needs a lefty newspaper that hates America and Britain for some obscure reasons.
Bob, one day we will build a statue of you holding back the tide of oceanic stupidity. Well done.
Olaus Petri says: “Well done Dr. Tisdale!”
Thanks for the kind words and the degree…but I do not have a doctorate.
Thanks, Bob. I always enjoy your observations.
Truth is the only answer to misinformation. Over and over and over, speak the truth.
Cost of PC: USD 500
Cost of being a guest author at Grauniad: strong stomach
Making a fool of itself in the first claim: priceless.
I can’t figure out how the starting point of the red line of the “escalator” was chosen.
The end point seems to be the latest possible data point, but the starting point is not the first data point, January 1970. Neither is it zero.
Anyone?
The ridiculous alarmist meme that the missing heat is in the seas was resurrected a couple months ago. No new data was presented. It is beyond me that The Climateers wish to play that card again.
I once ask an alarmist how the heat managed to make it to the oceans. His answer was thermodynamics. So, I then asked how the heat would get back out of the oceans. He had no response.
That is the problem with those who claim the heat is going into the oceans. If that were really the case then that is where it would stay. Burning every last bit of fossil fuels would only warm the oceans a couple of tenths of a degree. There can be no dangerous warming if the oceans absorb all the excess heat.
I fiddled around to put those 4 Hiroshima bombs into some kind of perspective. Based on the final figures I seem to have done it right.
A Hiroshima bomb (16KT) is 7.8E+13 joules.
10 years worth of Dana’s 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is
10 x 365.25 x 24 x 3600 x 4 = 125,280,000 Hiroshima bombs.
Surface area of ocean is 3.6×10^8km2 which gives us,
1 Hiroshima bomb for each 2.9km2 of ocean surface.
If each Hiroshima bomb (energy contained within) warmed up only the top 10 metres of water…
volume of water = 84,100,000 m3
mass of water = 84,100,000,000,000 grams
1 joule warms up 1g of water by 0.24 C.
We have 0.927 joules per gram (7.8E+13 joules in the Hiroshima Bomb)
= 0.22 C
What about average depth? (if the Hiroshima bomb heated up all the water under it with depth as average for ocean)
Average depth is 3,682 metres (wikipedia).
Repeating calculation above with 3,682m instead of 10m
30,965,620,000,000,000 grams of water
0.0025 joules for each gram
= 0.0006 C warmer
Love to see those error bars Dana!
Did this too…
Wikipedia:
“total solar irradiance of 1.366 kW/m2, the total power of sunlight striking Earth’s atmosphere is estimated at 174 PW”.
TSI is hitting us with 2231 Hiroshima bombs every second. So by Dana’s reckoning 0.18 percent (4/2231) of the TSI has been absorbed into the oceans over the past 10-15 years. As seen above that actually isn’t so much.
I was doing okay commenting for a while but now they’re busy deleting my comments saying I violated their ‘community standards’ or something. I looked up “SkS” in the dictionary and there was a picture of one sided debate!
I don’t see how this post disproves Dana’s point. You are explaining the steps up in temperature as regime shifts, but where is the explanation for the lack of cooling shifts in recent decades? I don’t necessarily think Dana is correct either, but I think this post simply redefines fluctuations, instead of proving why they are purely natural with little or no manmade component.
I agree that the “escalator” is misleading, but showing temperatures with El Ninos or La Ninas removed is just as bad. You’re really just describing what the steps are, without saying much at all about any long-term trend.
Hi
New here so I thought I would repeat what I wrote at Cif on the Graun in response to Nuccitelli’s so called science. Not trying to be a smarty pants but in my view it all boils down to simple science/thermodynamics. If Nuccitelli’s argument cannot be explained in these terms it is just nonsense. Someone tell me if what I have posted on Cif is wide of the mark. I would be grateful for comments. See below:
—————————————————
Pete_L
25 April 2013 5:32pm
This whole argument about the lost heat being found in the ocean depths is pure nonsense to anyone with any grounding in fluids, thermodynamics or especially heat transfer. Co2 causing the atmosphere to warm, fine, but no the real life measurements show otherwise and the excuse is that the heat is to be found in the ocean. A bit like holding a blow torch or a heater in the middle of the room and arguing that the air temp will not increase. Instead the bath tub of water in the corner will show a temperature increase at depth instead. So in essence Nuccitelli is saying that CO2 heats the atmosphere but as no one has measured the expected temperature increase due to this CO2 then the missing heat has magically been transferred to the deep oceans.
Wow just wow. Nuccitelli has discovered a fourth magical means of heat transfer. Up to now we have had
Convection
Conduction
Radiation
What shall we call Nuccitelli’s new magical means? Can someone please enlighten me as to the thermodynamics or applied physics of this new process?
Love
PL
—————————————————
Regards
Pete L.
Well Mr. Tisdale, maybe that explains the clarity. 🙂 The Bagdad Bobs of Climate portentology sure have a special degree of understanding.
The title is a big give away of what it is about. Consensus is always the worst pace to start and the starting paragraph was just nonsense, using what happened in Hiroshima, that is just so wrong. So we are destroying a small city every 4 seconds?
To counter the deceptive SkS ‘escalator’ chart, here is a WFT chart showing global temperatures going over a hump.
Who knows what will happen in future? But one thing is certain: looking at the past 150 years, there isn’t much to worry about.
The global warming scare is over tiny natural fluctuations, which are completely normal, and always present. There is still no testable scientific evidence showing that human activity has any effect outside of specific, concentrated urban locations. No ‘fingerprint’ of AGW exists.
Bob,
I am afraid it is you who misleads and misinforms here by quoting very selectively from Dana’s blog. Why O Why do you use a few select quotes and then try to make your point, but do not -by ignoring many relevant paragraphs- give a fair description of the blog piece that includes references to published research (Nuccitelli et al 2012; Balmaseda et al 2013; Guemas et al 2013). Show us what is wrong with those publications instead and why Dana is wrong that El Nino / La Nina influence relative energy uptake by the oceans and the atmosphere? From your piece it actually appears you agree???
If I understand your theory correctly, it gets warmer after each El Nino. Why is the extra heat not discarded? How many El Ninos does it take to get unbearable warming? Will the polar bears then die? Is global action required to prevent the occurrence of more El Ninos?
Oh wait! The extra energy for the El Ninos is acquired during La Nina phases according to you. Maybe we should outlaw those La Ninas! How is the extra energy accumulated during the La Ninas? I see you mention less clouds. Do you have a reference that explains to me the mechanism for less clouds during La Ninas and the amount of extra energy put into the earth system as a result?
dbstealey says:April 25, 2013 at 11:02 am
To counter the deceptive SkS ‘escalator’ chart, here is a WFT chart showing global temperatures going over a hump.
Who knows what will happen in future? But one thing is certain: looking at the past 150 years, there isn’t much to worry about.
That last graph is deceptively small. If it were presented more appropriately, it might look like this:
http://i35.tinypic.com/j7dy13.jpg
You really need to go in for ‘re-grooving’. And those are probably degrees C! No wonder the earth has a fever! 😉
Reich.Eschhaus,
Wake up. The whole global warming scam is a giant head fake. There are no verifiable, testable mesurements of AGW. None.
AGW probably exists. But it’s effect is so small that it can be completely disregarded. It is certainly too minuscule to measure.
The fact is that global warming has risen at the same rate since the LIA. There has been no acceleration in the trend, despite a ≈40% rise in CO2. How do you explain that??
The trumped-up “carbon” scare has no supporting scientific measurements. Nuccitelli’s side is operating on 100% assertions, and zero percent measurements. Why do you still believe that nonsense? Maybe a better question is: what, exactly, would it take for you to admit that AGW doesn’t matter? How many more years of stagnant global temperatures would it take for you to admit that Nuccitelli is flat wrong?
Give us a number.
@dbstealey
My response didn’t mention AGW at all except indirectly in that Bob Tisdale’s theory seems to imply the earth gets warmer after each El Nino. So where is the relevance to my response? Do you agree with my interpretation of Bob’s theory?
Ergo, Global Warming is caused by Pacific clouds (or lack of). Thus anything that promotes or creates clouds over the Pacific (like cosmic radiation?) will promote Global Cooling.
Correct?
.
Dbstealey, your argument is reversible. One could pose the same questions to you from the opposite point of view:
What exactly would it take for you to admit that AGW does matter? How many more years of rising global termperatures would it take for you to admit that Nuccitelli is right?
To me, these questions do not matter. The issue is so polarized, it has come to ridiculous black-and-white assertions from supporters of both sides. Climate science is a young discipline, and I think we all need to have an open mind about it.
Luca says: April 25, 2013 at 5:03 am
The Guardian does exercise censorship.
____________________________________
Indeed it does. I have been totally banned from the Grauniad site.
Unfortunately, it is not just the Grauniad that indulges in censorship, so do all the media outlets – especially the BBC. The BBC, for instance, never mentioned all the cold weather in the Ukraine and the US and China. They had to mention the UK’s cold winter, but BBC viewers may have thought the UK was the only nation effected.
More curious, however, is the self censorship of right-wing newspapers. There was a terrorist event a while ago, where Daily Mail readers were bound to be outraged (the DM is slightly left of Ghengis Khan). But instead of real reader comments, the entire article was then filled with hopelessly obvious DM employee comments saying “Oh, how sad” etc: etc:
We are not allowed to even be outraged nowadays, on newspaper blogs that are dominated by the ‘outraged’ in our society.
.
Bob –
Do we have cloud data (bright sunshine would suffice) for the Pacific area to demonstrate that cloud cover reductions during the La Nina events caused the Pacific heating?
A percentage change in cloud cover can be used to calculate the additional clear air absorption and water absorption, and thus the W/m2 warming that induced the specific near-surface energy increase and near-surface atmospheric temperature rise.
Brian; sorry, but the warmists are saying that the earth is warming unnaturally as a result of man made CO2 – it is up to the warmists to prove it.
Brian:
Your post at April 25, 2013 at 12:09 pm is silly. You write
It is NOT the responsibility of D B Stealey or anybody else to disprove an assertion which has no supporting evidence.
It is the responsibility of those making the assertions to demonstrate there is some reason for concern. And there is no evidence for discernible AGW; none, zilch, nada. Three decades of research conducted world-wide and costing more than $5 billion per year has failed to find any evidence for AGW.
You may as well have asked,
What exactly would it take for you to admit there is a dangerous goblin under the bed?
As for your asking about “How many more years of rising global temperatures”,
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?
Here on Earth there has been NO discernible rise in global temperature for at least 16 years.
And you follow that with this disingenuous twaddle:
Of course those questions “do not matter” because they are bloody stupid!
Forget the polarised views of Nuccitelli and other SkS cranks.
And do NOT “keep an open mind” about the “young discipline” of so-called “climate science”. That “discipline” is in its infancy, and only a fool would change the economy of the entire world on the basis of an infant’s tantrums.
Richard
DirkH says: April 25, 2013 at 7:06 am “Bob, the Guardian lets comments appear first and later the moderators play catch up and remove all of the undesired opinions.”
True. But that is justifiable.
The debate is uncensored. Posts are not deleted while the conversation goes on.
The Wayback machine records for posterity.
And the Guardian can’t be sued for hosting (potentially) subversive data. This is prudent considering the press laws in flux here in the UK.
By being polite I have never been snipped on the Guardian website.
Of course, I have been snipped but, on reflection, the few times it’s happened, I have been accusing someone of dangerous paranoia – which does destroy debate.
Rhonda, you’re right, but that doesn’t give skeptics an excuse to make ridiculous claims in the opposite direction (like bdstealey’s claim of zero percent measurements). Most reasonable AGW supporters acknowledge that there is much to learn about climate. I wish some here would do the same, rather than act like they know for a fact that the earth is about to cool.
batheswithwhales says: “I can’t figure out how the starting point of the red line of the “escalator” was chosen.
“The end point seems to be the latest possible data point, but the starting point is not the first data point, January 1970. Neither is it zero.”
The red line in the SkepticalScience Escalator is the linear trend. It does not necessarily align with end points, but is calculated based on all of the data in the graph. It’s apparent alignment with the end point is just a coincidence in that graph. Global surface temperatures have since dropped so at present they do not coincide with the trend line at either end.
Brian asks:
”What exactly would it take for you to admit that AGW does matter?”
Any of the following would do it for me:
1) A change in the fundamental laws of physics pertaining to the relationship between radiation, temperature, and greenhouse gases. (No, I’m not one of the “GHE is bogus” crowd; I understand heat transfer fairly decently.)
2) A stroke that leaves me without any sense of scale or perspective with respect to geologic time, logarithmic effects, or chemistry.
3) Actual evidence of strongly positive feedback mechanisms & some reason to accept a warmer world isn’t a net better world.
4) An AGW hypothesis that is falsifiable, tested repeatedly, and found to stand up to the test of time and intense scrutiny instead of a religious like jumped to dogmatic conclusion that is defended zealously by any means necessary and (again) some reason to accept a warmer world isn’t a net better world.
5) Two more up steps in global average temperature that are verifiable and not from some adjustment, UHI (or similar effect), or data manipulation; considering the signs for natural temperature drivers are pointing DOWN and (again again) some reason to accept a warmer world isn’t a net better world.
GW: It’s not the end of the world, it’s just a slight change in plans.
Brian:
At April 25, 2013 at 12:50 pm you provide a post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/#comment-1287521
which attempts – and fails – to excuse your earlier stupidity.
Please read my post at April 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/#comment-1287516
which quotes all of your stupid post and refutes each of its statements.
Richard
Richard, your sarcastic hypothetical question about goblins is exactly my point. It’s a meaningless question to ask. Regardless of what has happened in the past 16 years, the question was “How many more years of rising global temperatures would it take for you to admit that Nuccitelli is right?” So from this point forward, how many years of warming would be required for you to acknowledge AGW? But the answer to that question does not matter. It does nothing to advance anyone’s understanding of climate. It’s just an emotionally charged rhetorical device, which the rest of your rant to me is full of.
Brian says: “I don’t see how this post disproves Dana’s point. You are explaining the steps up in temperature as regime shifts, but where is the explanation for the lack of cooling shifts in recent decades?”
For four years, I’ve been presenting how the sea surface temperature data indicates the oceans warmed naturally. In this post, in response to the SkepticalScience animation called the Escalator, I’ve simply extended that explanation to global land+plus sea surface temperature data.
I hate to answer a question with a question, but through what mechanism other than volcanos would cooling shifts occur? The problems: I’d have to see one before I tried to explain it, and I haven’t seen one.
John West’s response is very realistic, and I think you would find reasonable AGW supporters would list similarly grounded reasons of what it would take for them to realize that the past half-century has been pure natural variation.
My main point with all this is to point out flawed rhetoric and confirmation bias, and to support open mindedness and two-way dialogue. Some of you who are so sure of your points of view should be debating warmists, not preaching to the choir here.
Brian:
re your post at April 25, 2013 at 1:03 pm.
Stop trolling.
You posed a stupid question and I responded with an identically stupid question.
That was NOT sarcasm: it was explanation by way of illustration.
And no rise in temperature for at least 16 years is NOT rising temperatures except in your delusions.
You have incredible gall to accuse me of “rehetorical device”!
I would accept an apology for your trolling and I will refuse to feed the troll if you make any reply to this post except an apology for your trolling.
Richard
Brian says:
“…bdstealey’s claim of zero percent measurements…”
Brian, show us where we can find testable, empirical measurements of AGW. I’m all ears. Because I have been searching for such measurements for years.
The fact is that there are no such measurements. There are plenty of assertions of AGW, and as I stated, AGW may exist [but if so, it is simply too minuscule to measure].
Rather than say that I made a ‘ridiculous claim’, post your AGW measurements right here. You will be the first. Because there are plenty of measurements like this showing that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆temperature. But there are no comparable charts showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None [prove me wrong, if you think you can, by posting a comparable chart showing that CO2 causes ∆T. Overlays don’t count.].
Science is all about empirical measurements and observations. When a conjecture such as CO2=AGW has no supporting measurements, it is hardly scientific, is it? The science starts and ends at the “conjecture” stage. AGW is not a hypothesis, since it is not testable. It is only a conjecture.
Thousands of scientists have been searching for decades for empirical, verifiable measurements attributable to AGW [and which cannot be attributed to other factors, such as UHI]. They have all failed. There are no such measurements.
If there were verifiable AGW measurements, then the question of the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be decisively answered. But those guesstimates currently range from negative CO2 forcing, to zero effect for 2xCO2, to the UN/IPCC’s preposterous 3º – 6ºC.
Without quantifiable, verifiable and testable measurements of AGW, the question of the climate sensitivity number will remain unanswerd. That fact proves that there are no verifiable measurements of AGW: QED.
By now, the sensitivity number should have been agreed to by everyone. But the fact is that no one knows for sure. And the reason is that there are no verifiable, testable AGW measurements.
@Brian
@richard
@John
@Rhoda
It is always good to take a look at how the theory came to be in considering where the weight of evidence needs to be in demanding who has to put a number of things and why. I was reminded of a description of the history of the theory of AGW by Richard saying it was a young science. Luckily I found the link (interesting read, bit lengthy though):
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And Richard, with:
“And do NOT “keep an open mind” about the “young discipline” of so-called “climate science”. That “discipline” is in its infancy, and only a fool would change the economy of the entire world on the basis of an infant’s tantrums.”
you are conflating science with policy. It is perfectly possible to accept that the theory of AGW is correct (including possible disastrous consequences in the future) and at the same time being opposed to measures to curb the human caused emissions of CO2.
Bob, I appreciate the reply, and all of the work you do in this discipline. I think you’ve done a great job at explaining ENSO, and how it affects climate. You clearly demonstrate that the oceans warmed naturally, but I will again state that such a demonstration doesn’t show that there is no anthropogenic component as well. There may not be one, but I believe it is too early to tell for sure. I certainly do not know of a cooling mechanism, but I am also curious to learn about one in the future, and how it fits in with any long-term trend.
dbstealey, the qoute I was responding to was “Nuccitelli’s side is operating on 100% assertions, and zero percent measurements.” I don’t believe that any measurements have conclusively proven AGW, but the research certainly uses measurements. You may not agree with them or the methods they use, but they are still measurements. I think ARGO is probably the most relevant to this particular post. So I agree that “there are no verifiable, testable AGW measurements”, but I would also say that there are also no verifiable measurements that disprove AGW. You may be pointing out that AGW is a non-falsifiable theory, but that’s much different than saying the theory doesn’t use measurements.
Pete_L
It’s called Heat Transport (like in Star Trek).
Seriously though, considering our lack of measurement continuity it is conceivable (if not entirely believable) that energy from the sun that heated a surface that then emitted IR that would have been radiated to space but instead was absorbed because of the slight increase in bandwidth coverage that a few extra CO2 molecules have provided and then emitted to Earth has been transferred through the sea surface unnoticed (cough, cough) and warmed subsurface layers. (I almost got through that with a straight face.)
Reich.Eschhaus:
re your failed attempt to support Brian’s trolling which you provide at April 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm.
You conclude it by saying to me.
Yes, on that point you are right: I fell into the trap made by the troll and I should not have done that. Sorry.
However, until there is some – any – evidence that AGW exists and that it is potentially harmful then assertions of need for costly methods to curb it are plain daft.
Richard
@richardcourtney
“re your failed attempt to support Brian’s trolling which you provide at April 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm.”
I was trying to bring some perspective to the history of the (badly named) greenhouse gas effect. Did I fail in that? The science is not young, most scientists didn’t take it serious at first or thought effects of greenhouse gases are minimally (see the link I posted). After decades of research most scientist have been won over to the idea that greenhouse gases are very important.
“Yes, on that point you are right: I fell into the trap made by the troll and I should not have done that. Sorry.”
Good for you to admit that, I salute you! However, I didn’t see a trap in the comment by Brian.
Reich.Eschhaus,
It is hard to take anyone seriously who asserts that AGW is a “theory”.
A theory makes accurate predictions. But the promoters of the AGW scare have all made wrong predictions, claiming that global warming would continue. But despite the 40% rise in CO2, that has not happened. Every alarmist prediction has been wrong. Every one of them.
Anyone interested in the scientific method would have stepped back by now, and admitted that there is a major problem with their CO2/AGW conjecture. Only dishonest parties cling to the false belief of catastrophic AGW. It is not happening, and global warming has stopped for at least the past decade and a half.
The planet itself is proving your AGW conjecture flat wrong. You are dealing with that fact by becoming thoroughly unscientific, mis-labeling AGW a “theory”.
There is no probity within the climate alarmist cult. Most of us prefer to listen to what the planet is telling us, rather than accept what self-serving propagandists like Nuccitelli are falsely claiming.
@dbstealy
“It is hard to take anyone seriously who asserts that AGW is a “theory”. ”
Of course it is. See link on the history I posted above and here again:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
(I am sure there are other histories around if you search for them)
“A theory makes accurate predictions.”
Depends on the theory. E.g., quantum mechanics can make stochastic predictions
“But the promoters of the AGW scare have all made wrong predictions, claiming that global warming would continue. But despite the 40% rise in CO2, that has not happened. Every alarmist prediction has been wrong. Every one of them.”
Promoters of scare! Ha! Let’s do without the hyperbole. But the whole point of Dana’s blog post was that global warming had continued (but not being visible in surface temperature records lately). My first post here was complaining about Bob not representing Dana’s post fairly, but picking out a few quotes where he could hang his own pet theory on…
“Only dishonest parties cling to the false belief of catastrophic AGW. It is not happening, and global warming has stopped for at least the past decade and a half.”
According to Bob, you have to wait for the next El Nino, and then the world will be warmer again 😉
Friends:
At April 25, 2013 at 1:27 pm Brian says
Please note that he does not say how anybody could provide measurements that disprove the existence of anything.
Or to put that another way (because he does not like his trolling being exposed by equivalent questions):
I would also say that there are also no verifiable measurements that disprove the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy.
Richard
Richard, I don’t understand why you think I’m a troll. I’m simply filling a void of commenters who acknowledge that AGW has even a possibility of being somewhat true. There is a difference bwtween a dissenting opinion and a troll. I think Bob Tisdale would agree, since he responded to my questions.
Richard, you should have included the very next sentence after your quotation: “You may be pointing out that AGW is a non-falsifiable theory, but that’s much different than saying the theory doesn’t use measurements.” I acknowledged the idea of a non-falsifiable theory. You quoted me out of context, then proceeded to call me a troll.
Brian says:
Regardless of what has happened in the past 16 years, the question was ‘How many more years of rising global temperatures would it take for you to admit that Nuccitelli is right?’ So from this point forward, how many years of warming would be required for you to acknowledge AGW?
First off, why “regardless”? The planet is clearly falsifying the catastrophic AGW conjecture. But to be fair, I’ll play your game:
I would admit that Nuccitelli is right when/if verifiable measurements of AGW are produced, tested, and found to be attributable specifically to human activity. So far, no such measurements exist.
The scientific method is how science works. But instead, the alarmist crowd demands that we all must accept their measurement-free conjecture. I’m sure witch doctors had the same attitude toward the scientific method, which is based on testable measurements and observations.
I don’t understand your reluctance to accept the scientific method. The onus is upon those making the AGW assertion, not on skeptics questioning it. The ball is in your court regarding AGW. So far, there is no proof that it even exists.
I happen to think AGW exists, but that it is such a minuscule effect that it should be completely disregarded when making policy. I also think that a warmer world is a better world, and that the rise in CO2 is entirely beneficial.
Here is my testable hypothesis for you to try and falsify. I have posted it for years, but no one has made the attempt. Rather, their response is a series of excuses. But as stated, it is a simple, testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
Have at it.
Brian:
OK. I will feed the troll this once because failure to answer your goading could mislead onlookers.
Your post at April 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm says in its entirety
A rational poster makes points which add information, accepts when s/he has made a mistake or has been shown to be wrong, and takes note of comments of others.
A troll promotes an agenda, posts anything which promotes the agenda (be it true or not), never admits being wrong, and deliberately distorts the words of others.
Clearly, your posts in this thread provide a textbook demonstration of trolling. I could fill the page with examples but that would be as big a waste of space on the thread as your posts because anybody reading the thread can see it for themselves.
Of course AGW “has even a possibility of being somewhat true”. Your implication that I would say otherwise is trolling because I have often said that on WUWT and in many other places. Indeed, this very day I have made two posts on WUWT which explain how and why AGW IS “somewhat true” but cannot possibly be discernibly true. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/some-sense-about-sensitivity/#comment-1286120
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/24/some-sense-about-sensitivity/#comment-1287007
I enjoy debating with dissenting opinions: I learn from it.
I revile trolls because they try to supplant the possibility of learning with their agendas.
And Bob Tisdale is the Guest Contributor of this thread and your “questions” cast doubt upon his thesis so he was obligated to answer them.
At present your contributions are trolling. Your future posts need not be.
Richard
Reich.Eschhaus says: “I am afraid it is you who misleads and misinforms here by quoting very selectively from Dana’s blog. Why O Why do you use a few select quotes and then try to make your point, but do not -by ignoring many relevant paragraphs- give a fair description of the blog piece that includes references to published research (Nuccitelli et al 2012; Balmaseda et al 2013; Guemas et al 2013). Show us what is wrong with those publications instead…”
You must be new to WUWT. My apologies for not including the links to past posts, but my posts are too long if I attempt to anticipate and address every question newcomers might have. I discussed Balmaseda et al 2013 here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/trenberth-still-searching-for-missing-heat/
And here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/
I discussed Guemas et al 2013 here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/on-guemas-et-al-2013-retrospective-prediction-of-the-global-warming-slowdown-in-the-past-decade/
If memory serves, Nuccitelli et al 2012 relied on the NODC’s pentadal ocean heat content data which were discussed here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
and here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/nodcs-pentadal-ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000m-creates-warming-that-doesnt-exist-in-the-annual-data-a-lot-of-warming/
Reich.Eschhaus says: “…and why Dana is wrong that El Nino / La Nina influence relative energy uptake by the oceans and the atmosphere?”
I believe I provided a reasonable explanation of why his portrayal of ENSO was misleading.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “From your piece it actually appears you agree???”
I believe you should read my post again.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “If I understand your theory correctly, it gets warmer after each El Nino.”
I don’t present a theory. I present data. And you missed a point; the satellite-era sea surface temperature record indicates the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific sea surface temperatures warm after specific strong El Niño events, not all El Niños.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Do you have a reference that explains to me the mechanism for less clouds during La Ninas and the amount of extra energy put into the earth system as a result?”
ENSO must be new to you. You should find it to be a very interesting process. For the interaction between convection/cloud cover/precipitation, trade wind strength, sea surface temperature, etc., I would suggest you take a look at the very basic ENSO discussions from NOAA. Example:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/enso_patterns.htm
Bill Kessler’s FAQ webpage is also a good place to start:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
For the amount of energy, are you looking for a data-based estimate? There are none as far as I know. Do you recall Trenberth’s travesty email? In a follow-up email, Trenberth wrote: “Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it?”
In other words, there is no system in place capable of measuring it–the travesty.
If you’re looking for climate model-based studies, there are none as far as I know, because climate modelers haven’t figured out how to model ENSO yet—even after decades of modeling efforts. Refer to Guilyardi et al (2009):
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/guilyardi_al_bams09.pdf
My favorite quote from that paper is:
“Because ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, the lack of consistency in the model predictions of the response of ENSO to global warming currently limits our confidence in using these predictions to address adaptive societal concerns, such as regional impacts or extremes (Joseph and Nigam 2006; Power et al. 2006).”
Regards
@Bob Tisdale
Thanks for the long reply.
“You must be new to WUWT.”
relatively.
Then you give a bunch a links, thanks, I’ll take a look. Still doesn’t explain my main complaint that you didn’t give a fair representation of Dana’s post (about Reuters conflicting reporting), but instead used only a few of the paragraphs to hang your on theory on and to pretend that anything else was rubbish.
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “…and why Dana is wrong that El Nino / La Nina influence relative energy uptake by the oceans and the atmosphere?”
I believe I provided a reasonable explanation of why his portrayal of ENSO was misleading.”
No, I don’t think so. What’s misleading about that? As I said you seem to agree. After an El Nino surface temperatures rise.
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “If I understand your theory correctly, it gets warmer after each El Nino.”
I don’t present a theory. I present data. And you missed a point; the satellite-era sea surface temperature record indicates the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific sea surface temperatures warm after specific strong El Niño events, not all El Niños. ”
Except for the “specific” (what does that mean?) that is exactly what I just said, you agree surface temperatures rise after (some?) El Ninos. There is a question here though, how soon after an El Nino are “Atlantic, Indian and Pacific sea surface temperatures” affected and can this all be explained by ocean conveyors in the right time frame (not saying it can’t).
“ENSO must be new to you. You should find it to be a very interesting process. For the interaction between convection/cloud cover/precipitation, trade wind strength, sea surface temperature, etc., I would suggest you take a look at the very basic ENSO discussions from NOAA. Example:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/enso_patterns.htm”
No, not new. The link doesn’t say anything about wetter patterns allowing additional energy take-up by the oceans than usual.
“Bill Kessler’s FAQ webpage is also a good place to start:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html”
Too much to read for now, will take a look. Not convinced yet 🙂
“For the amount of energy, are you looking for a data-based estimate? There are none as far as I know.”
So, it is only conjecture. Glad we cleared that!
“If you’re looking for climate model-based studies, there are none as far as I know, because climate modelers haven’t figured out how to model ENSO yet”
Yes, everybody agrees on that! That’s why you cannot compare modeled sea surface temperatures with actual sea surface temperatures at a time that a specific La Nina / El Nino is taking place.
Greetings
dbstealey, the scientific method is exactly what I’m trying to promote, I’m trying to discourage the use of rhetoric. No ball is in my court, as I am neither a scientist or a politician.
I think your opinions and your hypothesis are fair and valid. And I think scientists should continue to try and understand climate, just as Bob Tisdale is doing.
I don’t think the planet is falsifying or proving anything over a 15 year period. It falsified projections, but not the AGW hypothesis (I agree that hypothesis is a more accurate term than theory). Arctic ice melt also falsified projections of many sceptics, but likewise that doesn’t prove that AGW is responsible.
Bob Tisdale, I think you hit at the heart of the issue with this sentence in response to ReichEschhaus:
“In other words, there is no system in place capable of measuring it–the travesty.”
The warmist crowd assumes it is there, and many on this site assume it is not there. But the truth is that we just down know, right?
Doug Proctor says: “Do we have cloud data (bright sunshine would suffice) for the Pacific area to demonstrate that cloud cover reductions during the La Nina events caused the Pacific heating?”
Pavlakis et al (2008) used the ISCCP cloud amount data:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
There are problems with the raw ISCCP data (volcanic aerosols, missing data over the Indian Ocean, etc.). The ISCCP Cloud Amount data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer. Unfortunately it ends in 2006:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
A surface downward shortwave radiation reanalysis is part of the NCEP-DOE R2 reanalysis, if you’re interested in a reanalysis. It’s available through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_mf_r2.sh?ctlfile=flx.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&ptype=ts&dir=
It’s the 4th selection in the “Field” drop-down menu.
Regards
Reich.Eschhaus,
Your source is wrong. AGW is not a “theory”. That word is often mis-used. In science, ‘theory’ has a specific meaning. See here.
Next, you say, “Promoters of scare! Ha! Let’s do without the hyperbole.”
Tell me, would you consider this to be hyperbole? It is the basis of the CAGW false alarm.
No need to answer that, as the journal Nature has issued a rare Correction. Mann’s original chart has been so thoroughly debunked that not even the IPCC still uses it.
Finally, you say, “According to Bob, you have to wait for the next El Nino, and then the world will be warmer again ;)”
Since the LIA the planet has warmed by ≈0.35º/century. Naturally. That warming has not accelerated — in fact, it has recently stopped. Explain that inconvenient fact, if you can.
• • •
Brian says:
“The warmist crowd assumes it [AGW] is there, and many on this site assume it is not there.”
Like Bob, I accept what the data tell me. If there is no data, why would you automatically presume that something exists, and that it will lead to catastrophic warming? It’s like assuming there is a black cat under your bed. You’re certain of it; you can almost hear it breathing.
But when you turn on the light and look under your bed — there is no cat.
That’s how I see AGW. It may exist, but it is insignificant at current and projected concentrations.
@dbstealy
“Your source is wrong. AGW is not a “theory”. That word is often mis-used. In science, ‘theory’ has a specific meaning. See here.”
I am very well aware! Thank you very much! You didn’t ask me if I used the term scientifically or in a way that ordinary people do (I referred to Bob’s ideas as theory too!).
However… AGW is by many considered to be a theory in the scientific sense (see my link to the history which proves it is long standing). Here, many will disagree of course.
“Next, you say, “Promoters of scare! Ha! Let’s do without the hyperbole.”
Tell me, would you consider this to be hyperbole? It is the basis of the CAGW false alarm. ”
Irrelevant. You came at me with claims of hyperbole, I was referring to the discussion here.
“Finally, you say, “According to Bob, you have to wait for the next El Nino, and then the world will be warmer again ;)”
Since the LIA the planet has warmed by ≈0.35º/century. Naturally. That warming has not accelerated — in fact, it has recently stopped. Explain that inconvenient fact, if you can.”
The whole bloody point of my first comment was to say that Dana’s post tries to explain just that and that Bob’s reaction to Dana is being very selective! Read both and see what I mean. Now you need to explain to me why there was a LIA and it stopped, and warmed naturally (by which mechanism?) and then it stopped again. A lot of scientists are actually trying to find out why such things happen without trying to score cheap points. (Note I didn’t try to explain it for you! That’s on purpose, do your own research.)
Best wishes
Brian says: “Bob, I appreciate the reply, and all of the work you do in this discipline. I think you’ve done a great job at explaining ENSO, and how it affects climate. You clearly demonstrate that the oceans warmed naturally, but I will again state that such a demonstration doesn’t show that there is no anthropogenic component as well.”
Brian, thanks for the reply. Let me give you the “But” answer: The IPCC made the point in AR4 and they’re making it again in AR5 (if memory serves with their Figure 10.1) that climate models can only simulate the recent warming if they’re forced with manmade greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings. While that has always suggested model failings to me, the IPCC believes it means that only greenhouse gases can explain the warming. In other words, they’re suggesting all of the recent warming was human induced. They’re beliefs are hard to justify when the sea surface temperature data for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific would show no warming without the strong El Niño events…
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/atl-ind-west-pac-w-n-w-o-el-ninos.png
…and when the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific haven’t warmed in 31 years:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/04-east-pac-w-1997-98-el-nino-highlight.png
I have little doubt that a manmade greenhouse gas global warming signal exists, likely a part of the additional warming of land surface temperatures above the warming that’s a response to the natural warming of the global oceans, but I can find no evidence of any influence of manmade greenhouse gases on the warming of sea surface temperature and ocean heat content data.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “According to Bob, you have to wait for the next El Nino, and then the world will be warmer again ;)”
With luck, I’ll have a few more years on this planet, but at my age it’s a subject I don’t dwell on. I’m content to wait for the next strong El Nino and watch what happens. With luck that strong El Nino will arrive before the AMO decides to reverse course…but that interaction would also be interesting.
Hi Bob,
“With luck, I’ll have a few more years on this planet, but at my age it’s a subject I don’t dwell on. I’m content to wait for the next strong El Nino and watch what happens. With luck that strong El Nino will arrive before the AMO decides to reverse course…but that interaction would also be interesting.”
While I was writing my comment you made that one. I hope you don’t mind making a bit of fun of your theory (sorry dbstealy: hypothesis) that you see in the data, which has a consequence that we have to make sure (by planetary governance no doubt) no new El Nino occurs in our life times!
Brian says: “The warmist crowd assumes it is there, and many on this site assume it is not there. But the truth is that we just down know, right?”
And the sea surface temperature and ocean heat content data do not support the existence of a human-induced global warming signal.
Bob, I agree that IPCC projections have been too high, and that the models have holes in them. Your ENSO work certainly illustrate some of the reason why.
I wish you would incorporate more of the language in the last paragraph of your reply to me into your posts. It seems that much of the audience here feasts on the idea that ENSO flat-out disproves AGW. It’s obvious that you think a vast majority of recent warming is natural, but still consider the possibility of an anthropogenic signal. I would like to see more posts here at least consider the opposing viewpoint.
I do believe that removing El Nino from the temperature charts is misleading, unless you can show that the strength and number of recent El Ninos is an anomaly within natural variation.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
“…sorry dbstealy: hypothesis…”
I see you haven’t read my “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law” link yet. But at least you’re heading in the right direction now.☺
Brian says:
“It’s obvious that you think a vast majority of recent warming is natural, but still consider the possibility of an anthropogenic signal.”
That is exactly my point of view, too.
If/when an AGW signal is shown to exist [per the scientific method; testable and falsifiable measurements, directly attributable to human CO2 emissions], I will be a happy camper. It is the knowledge that is important to me, not the policy-driven agenda.
If we do confirm verifiable AGW measurements, then the climate sensitivity number will be known and accepted by both sides. That is essential information for making correct policy decisions.
I suspect, however, that if and when AGW measurements are established, that one side of the debate will be very, very unhappy about it.
It is scientific skeptics who will be happy. Because we will have learned something important.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
“Now you need to explain to me why there was a LIA and it stopped, and warmed naturally (by which mechanism?) and then it stopped again…. do your own research.”
===========================================
I do plenty of my own research. The problem is that no one knows the exact cause(s) of the various swings in global temperature. There are many suggestions, but I suspect that the cause is not the same in each case.
The cause of the LIA is unknown. But the subsequent recovery is probably due to the planet reverting to it’s mean temperature. The LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. Since then, global warming has been about 0.35ºC per century, with no recent acceleration. That fact alone deconstructs the conjecture that CO2 causes any meaningful warming.
Looking at the long term, we see that we have been living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but ju-u-ust right. The 0.7º fluctuations in global temperature have been unusually flat. That is the reason I question all the wild-eyed arm waving over a few tenths of a degree change, over a century and a half. People have been led to believe there is a crisis, but the facts say otherwise. This is as close to a climate non-crisis as we will get.
@dbstealy
“I do plenty of my own research.”
2 graphs no research make
” The problem is that no one knows the exact cause(s) of the various swings in global temperature”
Correct, paleoclimatic research gives you the most probable answer
“There are many suggestions, but I suspect that the cause is not the same in each case.”
No it isn’t in each case, who says that?
“The cause of the LIA is unknown.”
Yes! It is also unknown what period constituted the LIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
“But the subsequent recovery is probably due to the planet reverting to it’s mean temperature. The LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire Holocene. Since then, global warming has been about 0.35ºC per century, with no recent acceleration. That fact alone deconstructs the conjecture that CO2 causes any meaningful warming.”
OK, given uncertainty about the causes of the LIA I can accept, given the causes have disappeared, the planet returns to previous equilibrium (btw, can you ask Bob Tisdale why it gets warmer after each El Nino and temperature doesn’t get back to a equilibrium?). It also appears to be the case that the 19th century was particularly cold (do you trust the science saying that it was very cold back then?). Still this doesn’t prove anything unless you can give a mechanism.
The point is that there is a physical mechanism (let’s call it “global warming theory’) for why the world should get warmer upon addition of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have increased CO2 and it did warm. It’s explainable.
“Looking at the long term, we see that we have been living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but ju-u-ust right. The 0.7º fluctuations in global temperature have been unusually flat. That is the reason I question all the wild-eyed arm waving over a few tenths of a degree change, over a century and a half. People have been led to believe there is a crisis, but the facts say otherwise. This is as close to a climate non-crisis as we will get.”
Again, you fail to see the point I made. The post by Dana was explaining why it still was warming despite surface temperatures not going up. I was taking issue with Bob’s reaction. You can make an argument against Dana’s explanation. Can you please just do so, explain where he is wrong?
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Still doesn’t explain my main complaint that you didn’t give a fair representation of Dana’s post (about Reuters conflicting reporting), but instead used only a few of the paragraphs to hang your on theory on and to pretend that anything else was rubbish.”
You admitted earlier in your reply that you haven’t yet read my posts about the papers discussed in Nuccitelli’s post so why are you belaboring this point? I’ve already admitted that my blog post cannot address every point that he tried to make or linked paper he presented. My post was too long as it was. Additionally, my primary goals were to discuss ENSO and “The Escalator” animation. I’m not concerned that my goals for this post and your expectations of it don’t agree, but on the other hand you seem to feel your expectations are important. Maybe you should write a post about Dana’s post and submit it to WUWT so that it will meet your expectations.
And again, I have not presented a theory; I presented data.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “No, I don’t think so. What’s misleading about that? As I said you seem to agree. After an El Nino surface temperatures rise.”
You missed the part in Nuccitelli’s explanation where he suggests or infers that La Niña events counteract or opposed El Niño events. The sea surface temperature records for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans clearly indicate that this is not the case.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Except for the ‘specific’ (what does that mean?) that is exactly what I just said, you agree surface temperatures rise after (some?) El Ninos.”
That means, while the ENSO record indicates that many more lesser El Niño events took place between November 1981 and present, the data indicate the sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific warmed in steps in response to the warm water that was left over from the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Ninos, and they did not cool proportionally in response to the trailing La Niñas due to that leftover warm water.
BTW, that was not your point with your nonsensical questions, “How many El Ninos does it take to get unbearable warming? Will the polar bears then die? Is global action required to prevent the occurrence of more El Ninos?”
Reich.Eschhaus says: “There is a question here though, how soon after an El Nino are ‘Atlantic, Indian and Pacific sea surface temperatures’ affected and can this all be explained by ocean conveyors in the right time frame (not saying it can’t).”
Thanks for the quote, because you picked up a typo in my last reply. It should read “Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific”. With your okay, I’ll correct the typo in my reply to you.
With that correction in mind, the warming of the sea surface temperatures for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific lag the warming of the NINO3.4 region by about 6 months. Coincidentally, after a strong East Pacific El Niño, it takes a slow moving Rossby wave about 6 months to return leftover warm water from the eastern to the western tropical Pacific. And we can look at the North Atlantic in isolation, because it is remote to the tropical Pacific. The North Atlantic warms in a few months in response to an El Niño, through changes in atmospheric circulation (slower trade winds in the tropical North Atlantic, for example). Would you like a link to a paper that discusses that impact on the tropical North Atlantic? Refer to Wang 2005:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Wang_Hadley_Camera.pdf
Reich.Eschhaus says: “No, not new. The link doesn’t say anything about wetter patterns allowing additional energy take-up by the oceans than usual.”
But the link does state that during La Niñas, “The prevailing rain pattern also shifts farther west than normal.” If the prevailing rain pattern shifts farther to the west, that means the convection, cloud cover and precipitation all shift farther to the west. Therefore, with less cloud cover in the central and western tropical Pacific, there is logically more sunlight reaching and penetrating the central and western tropical Pacific Ocean.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “So, it is only conjecture. Glad we cleared that!”
Actually, it’s not conjecture. Cloud amount data, sea surface temperature data, ocean heat content data, trade wind strength and direction data, ocean current data, thermocline depth data, etc., all confirm the processes of ENSO. And the sea surface temperature data for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans also confirm that La Niña events do not counteract El Niño events. But like everything else in climate science there’s no way to directly measure the energy involved due to the weaknesses of the measuring systems.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Yes, everybody agrees on that! That’s why you cannot compare modeled sea surface temperatures with actual sea surface temperatures at a time that a specific La Nina / El Nino is taking place.”
It also indicates the models fail to include the largest natural process that periodically creates ocean heat content in the tropical Pacific and also periodically releases that heat from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and redistributes that warm water within the oceans. If ENSO releases more heat than normal from the tropical Pacific over a multidecadal period, surface temperatures have to warm over that multidecadal period. If ENSO creates more heat than normal and stores it in the west Pacific Warm Pool, then the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific has to warm. And those processes are not simulated by climate models.
Regards
@ Bob Tisdale
“You admitted earlier in your reply that you haven’t yet read my posts about the papers discussed in Nuccitelli’s post so why are you belaboring this point? I’ve already admitted that my blog post cannot address every point that he tried to make or linked paper he presented. My post was too long as it was.”
So? Learn to write better! (Brevity is the soul of wit 😉 )
“Additionally, my primary goals were to discuss ENSO and “The Escalator” animation. I’m not concerned that my goals for this post and your expectations of it don’t agree, but on the other hand you seem to feel your expectations are important. Maybe you should write a post about Dana’s post and submit it to WUWT so that it will meet your expectations. ”
There you say it! You wanted to discuss your pet theory and plug your book! Not at all ashamed to distort someone else’s post in your interpretation and above that telling your reader’s to go there and make fuzz….
“And again, I have not presented a theory; I presented data.”
Bullshit! You presented the theory that during an La Nina the ocean water is warming by additional sunshine (because of a lack clouds caused by trade winds) and that this energy is released to the atmosphere (and also to other oceans) during an El Nino. Is that a theory? An hypothesis? A gut feeling? dbstealy wants to know! 😉
“You missed the part in Nuccitelli’s explanation where he suggests or infers that La Niña events counteract or opposed El Niño events. The sea surface temperature records for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific oceans clearly indicate that this is not the case. ”
Huh? El Nino and La Nina are defined by opposite patterns. What is wrong with that?
Clearly you write too much, I can’t allow myself to write an whole article in the comments section.
Only few points therefore:
“But the link does state that during La Niñas, “The prevailing rain pattern also shifts farther west than normal.” If the prevailing rain pattern shifts farther to the west, that means the convection, cloud cover and precipitation all shift farther to the west. Therefore, with less cloud cover in the central and western tropical Pacific, there is logically more sunlight reaching and penetrating the central and western tropical Pacific Ocean.”
Should you not be asking the question if there are less clouds in total instead of asking if a weather pattern has moved geographically to the west? Inquiring minds want to know! Let me put this in clear terms, if you theory is to be consistent it has to show that there is enough surplus energy getting to earth. You don’t show that by wetter moving westwards.
“Actually, it’s not conjecture. Cloud amount data, sea surface temperature data, ocean heat content data, trade wind strength and direction data, ocean current data, thermocline depth data, etc., all confirm the processes of ENSO. And the sea surface temperature data for the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans also confirm that La Niña events do not counteract El Niño events. But like everything else in climate science there’s no way to directly measure the energy involved due to the weaknesses of the measuring systems.”
Still waiting for the mechanism putting extra energy in the earth system….
See you tomorrow maybe, will be off soon.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
“2 graphs no research make”
You are such a noob here that I’m probably wasting my time. Your incessant questions divert from answering anything substantive. They amount to constantly moving the goal posts, a typical alarmist tactic.
If you want to give debate a real try, then try explaining the inconvenient fact that while CO2 has been rising fast over the past century, global warming since the LIA has been right on the same long-term trend line, with no acceleration. Explain why the putative GHG effect doesn’t show up in the temperature record.
You are trying your best to defend a scientific illiterate and propagandist. Dana Nuccitelli has posted here many times, and he has always had his hat handed to him. Every time, he’s left when faced with proof of his misinformation. Check out the WUWT archives, you will see how truly lame Nuccitelli is. He hides out from real debates with serious skeptics, because like all alarmist debaters, he loses. All he is doing is emitting catastrophic AGW propaganda; he cannot hold his own here, so he finds noobies like you to carry his water for him.
The long term trend line for the past several hundred years has been the same, but you continue to ignore that central fact. If CO2 had the claimed effect, global warming would be accelerating fast. The fact that it is not accelerating at all is a dagger in the heart of the fake “carbon” scare.
Run along now back to SkS or wherever you get your talking points from. You need some new ones because the ones you’re using are old and busted. We’ve disposed of them here, long before you ever showed up.
@dbstealy
“You are such a noob here that I’m probably wasting my time. Your incessant questions divert from answering anything substantive. They amount to constantly moving the goal posts, a typical alarmist tactic.”
Bullshit! My first post was about misrepresentation, you said nothing about it (wanting me to change subject, now you accuse me of changing goal posts! 😀 😀 laughable! And I’m a noob! Thanks for that! 😛 ).
“If you want to give debate a real try, then try explaining the inconvenient fact that while CO2 has been rising fast over the past century, global warming since the LIA has been right on the same long-term trend line, with no acceleration. Explain why the putative GHG effect doesn’t show up in the temperature record.”
You really really really do seem to want discuss things that I was not discussing here.
“You are trying your best to defend a scientific illiterate and propagandist. Dana Nuccitelli has posted here many times, and he has always had his hat handed to him. Every time, he’s left when faced with proof of his misinformation. Check out the WUWT archives, you will see how truly lame Nuccitelli is. He hides out from real debates with serious skeptics, because like all alarmist debaters, he loses. All he is doing is emitting catastrophic AGW propaganda; he cannot hold his own here, so he finds noobies like you to carry his water for him.”
Yawn…
“The long term trend line for the past several hundred years has been the same, but you continue to ignore that central fact. If CO2 had the claimed effect, global warming would be accelerating fast. The fact that it is not accelerating at all is a dagger in the heart of the fake “carbon” scare.”
Are you here close to taking up the points I raised in my first comment or are you still refusing to be to the point. It’s up to you!
Run along now back to SkS or wherever you get your talking points from. You need some new ones because the ones you’re using are old and busted. We’ve disposed of them here, long before you ever showed up.
Blah blah (boring)
[snip]
After what you and the other haters have written about me in your Sks forum, don’t try to play nice here and ask me to engage you. And please, feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
Every chart that Nuccitelli produces is a complete distortion of the facts and the data. He is, in fact, the worst distortionist that I have come across in my many wanderings around the climate debate over many years. Being the worst is really saying something because we have a Mann and a Hansen to compare to (and many, many others).
The fact that he is popular right now in his AGW-believing group just means they like to see a line going up. None question him on how come his charts/data don’t match the actual facts, they just like to see a line going up.
We obviously have a Reich.Eschhaus here who has bought Nuccitelli’s distortions hook, line and sinker but these people will just not accept anything other than a line going up (not matter how fake it is). No point trying to tell him the line is actually going down. This is similar to the parable of the King has no clothes and there is a reason this became a common parable – because humans are actually quite succeptible to this.
I wonder why the global ocean heat content under 700m is increasing when the pacific (as per Bob’s figure 1) is decreasing.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
It’s worth pointing out that the heat content 0-2000m shows the ocean heating is not slowed.
Looks like a reading comprehension issue. The Pacific was only mentioned as pictured here because that was the picture, which could equally have been the Atlantic. The article doesn’t mention the Pacific, so the criticism looks to have been misguided. When they say global ocean heat content has risen, that was the focus, and it wasn’t talking about regions. Read the article again with a global perspective.
Reich.Eschhaus says:
“You really really really do seem to want discuss things that I was not discussing here.”
That dissembling comment was in response to my repeatedly ignored question: Why has global warming not accelerated following the ≈40% rise in CO2? Reich really really really cannot answer that question.
But that is the central question in the entire debate. Because the endless alarmist predictions claimed that rising CO2 would result in runaway global warming. That has not happened. In fact, global warming has stopped. How does the alarmist crowd explain that inconvenient fact? Answer: they don’t, because they can’t. That incovenient fact causes them immense consternation: the real world is falsifying their religious belief system.
So Mr Reich tucks tail and runs from answering the central question in the global warming/”carbon” debate. Why?
The answer is because AGW propagandists like Nuccitelli have made numerous global warming predictions, which have all turned out to be total failures. Their predictions were flat wrong. But rather than honestly admitting they were wrong, they mislead and misinform. Reich is merely Nuccitelli’s water boy. He only showed up here very recently, trying to do some damage control. But that doesn’t work, unless the alarmist side can censor comments.
If I am wrong, then Reich needs to step up and answer the question: why has the very large rise in CO2 not triggered an acceleration in global warming? By not answering, Reich shows that he’s being a good water boy. But he’s certainly not a scientist.
• • •
Seth,
The ARGO buoys don’t show what you think they show.
Bob Tisdale says:
April 25, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Brilliant work throughout your article, Mr. Tisdale. The post whose signature is above both falsifies the claim that AGW explains changes in ocean temperature and offers an alternative explanation based on the natural regularities known as La Nina and El Nino. Of course, your explanation sticks to the data and does not offer a theory.
Alarmists will have some trouble with your work because there is not one of them who understands what a natural regularity is. Your paragraph from a separate reply to “reich” is also very important:
“It also indicates the models fail to include the largest natural process that periodically creates ocean heat content in the tropical Pacific and also periodically releases that heat from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and redistributes that warm water within the oceans. If ENSO releases more heat than normal from the tropical Pacific over a multidecadal period, surface temperatures have to warm over that multidecadal period. If ENSO creates more heat than normal and stores it in the west Pacific Warm Pool, then the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific has to warm. And those processes are not simulated by climate models.”
Another fine post Bob Tisdale, you must be getting under some of the true believers skins, as flack is increasing.I love the way your presentation of what the ocean sensing equipment shows, send the faithful into a tizzy.
And yes your posts are long, but you have little choice given the wealth of data you are presenting.
Query… What is time lag from El Nino to entrance of warm water into Arctic Ocean?
Any guess as to duration of this warm water in arctic ocean?
@ Bob Tisdale and dbstealey
It is OBVIOUS (to this non-scientist) that R. E. is either NOT a scientist or is doing an excellent job of pretending to not be a scientist. Unless R.E. is the victim of a personality disorder (distorting his judgment), then R.E. is almost certainly not his real name, for he has made an UTTER FOOL of himself. His argumentation is weak to the point of absurdity. Because I had read Nucc.’s article (reviewed by Tisdale), I could tell that R.E.’s “arguments” were specious. As I read steadily along above, the childishness of R.E.’s responses when juxtaposed with your cool, rational, reasoning was pitiful.
Until R.E. does his homework and reads the assigned reading, the professors should refuse to join R.E. in his personal B.S. session. His smirking, sophomoric, verbal gymnastics sound just like a 16-year-old boy trying to B.S. his way through an answer in 10 grade physics class because he didn’t do the reading the night before (all the while completely oblivious to what a fool he is making of himself). He does not deserve nor can he (due to his NOT WANTING TO LEARN) benefit from the patient, thorough, well-informed, personal tutoring so GENEROUSLY given by two expert scientists.
The rest of the class learned, though. And this kid, sitting in the back row, says, “Thanks Mr. Tisdale! Thanks Mr. Stealey!”
@R.E. — You are a clever person. Apply all that intelligence to sincere LEARNING. Until then, you are wasting yours and everyone else’s time. Life is short. Spend it wisely. Yeah, I’m talking to you like you are my teenaged son. That is because: 1) I care (and I can tell the above scientists whose time you wasted do, too) about you as a human being; and 2) you are acting like a teenager. YOU CAN BE BETTER THAN THIS, R. E.! You have been given the gift of intelligence — don’t waste it!
If you were my son, I would end by telling you that I love you. Since you are a complete stranger, I’ll just end by saying: YOU ARE LOVED, for God loves you. Always.
@ Janice
You’ve lost me completely!
@dbstealey: “Reich needs to step up and answer the question: why has the very large rise in CO2 not triggered an acceleration in global warming?”
This is the central question, well posited.
@Mike Jowsey
“@dbstealey: “Reich needs to step up and answer the question: why has the very large rise in CO2 not triggered an acceleration in global warming?”
This is the central question, well posited.”
In case you didn’t notice, that was the question that was addressed in Dana’s post! Hilarious discussions here!
The cartoonists lap dog turns out to have no bite and little bark , is anyone surprised .
If it was not for heavy moderation, and dam ‘scared facts ‘, he been taken to bits below the line even more than he was.
The Guardian has fully singed up to ‘the cause ‘ in the most extreme form and it will take the replacement of the whole of its environmental staff , with hopefully some that actual know about science, to change that.
Lost me as soon as I saw the title of the blog, was laughing too much.
Why do people assume there is “extra energy” in the system? Can anyone claim to know the baseline? No, the last 30 or 100 years are NOT a baseline. Where is the stable temperature given atmospheric pressure, gas composition, the area and salinity of the oceans, the orientation of the continents and how that affects ocean circulation, the current activity level of the sun, etc. etc. etc. WHAT IS IT? Nobody knows. If you think you know, then you’re wrong.
Seems to me the assumption of “extra energy” and some sort of mysterious “warming” is a sign of faulty logic. I’d estimate based on observation that the baseline is still slightly – perhaps less than 1K – warmer than current. I’d say it’s a good bet that the ENSO cycle and the rising steps we’re seeing are the mechanism for the planet to move toward the baseline, as has been happening for 150 years. That’s a hypothesis, and it’s mine. I can’t prove it. Can you disprove it? First you’d have to come up with a CREDIBLE cause for the LIA. Got one?
In the same way, reduced Arctic ice coverage is NOT a tragedy, or even a sign of warming. It’s part of the planet’s thermostat. Arctic ice melt scares have happened before, historically.
But overall, it really doesn’t matter. Because once the cooling comes back the prevailing “theory” will be that humans are the cause, and there will be panic and cries to “do something”. Oh… that’s not a hypothesis, that’s a theory. Or might even be a Law now. What the heck, we’re not even in “Science” territory anymore, it’s all sociology.
Anybody believing the ARGO transition is correct?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_0-360E_-23.4-23.4N_na.png
Dana has been and continues to be in way over his head. He has the academic credentials but falls short in the common sense department. Another example of our educational system whereby students learn how to successfully take exams but are lacking when it comes to practical application.
Dana can easily be made a fool of. He just spouts blinkered rubbish for the consumption of the ever-dwindling labotomised AGW flock. The guardian is a rubbish newspaper, but , having said that there is not a good newspaper left in the UK. They are all full of nonsense. If anything the Guardian is worse than SKS because they pretend to moderate moderately…. which of course they do not. Dana bestest hissy fit with me was when I pointed out the % of the world’s glaciers that has been monitored in sufficient detail to make reasonably accurate extrapolations…. He of course was quickly in a muddle and deleted the debate as soon as I referenced a world renowned expert and peer reviewed material etc etc. Dana is scared of science, which is why he is constant denial of real science. You will get more tight science from Dana Scully……
Jim D says: “Looks like a reading comprehension issue. The Pacific was only mentioned as pictured here because that was the picture, which could equally have been the Atlantic.”
Apparently you only looked at the picture, Jim D, and did not read the accompanying caption, which was very specific with it’s intent, especially when coupled with the opening sentence of the post. That’s why I quoted both.
But, if you’d prefer to see a graph of the ocean heat content for the Atlantic, it’s cooling too–about twice as fast as the Pacific:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/ehs3p.jpg
Seth says: “I wonder why the global ocean heat content under 700m is increasing when the pacific (as per Bob’s figure 1) is decreasing.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/”
Because the graphs you linked started in 1955 and are for the global oceans, while the topic at hand is the Pacific over the last 10 years.
Seth says: “It’s worth pointing out that the heat content 0-2000m shows the ocean heating is not slowed.”
Apparently, the topic of ocean heat content is new to you, Seth. That’s why I provided links to some of my earlier posts on this this topic in the text of my post. Here’s one again, Seth:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/
The raw ARGO data for 0-2000 meters shows a flattening during the ARGO era for the depths of 0-2000 meters.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-models-to-750m.png
Then it’s corrected, but it still shows a flattening with the annual data:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/figure-1.png
So the NODC disappears their 0-2000m data on an annual basis, breaks out their magic wand, and creates “pentadal” data, which not only reduces the flattening but also increases the overall long-term trend by 36%.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/figure-2.png
That was discussed in this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/nodcs-pentadal-ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000m-creates-warming-that-doesnt-exist-in-the-annual-data-a-lot-of-warming/
The NODC Ocean heat content for the depths of 0-2000 meters is not a credible dataset, and because it’s now only available in pentadal form, it’s useless for research.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “So? Learn to write better! (Brevity is the soul of wit 😉 )”
My posts are intended to be educational, not witty. And because they’re for persons without technical backgrounds, I write as clearly as possible.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “There you say it! You wanted to discuss your pet theory and plug your book! Not at all ashamed to distort someone else’s post in your interpretation and above that telling your reader’s to go there and make fuzz….”
Again, this is not a pet theory. Maybe you can’t read and interpret time-series graphs. Also, if I wanted to sell more books, I would not have written and provided a link to the free essay that’s linked earlier in the same paragraph. And your continued insistence on stating that I have somehow distorted Dana Nuccitelli’s post clearly indicates you have no understanding of the subject matter.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Bullshit! You presented the theory that during an La Nina the ocean water is warming by additional sunshine (because of a lack clouds caused by trade winds) and that this energy is released to the atmosphere (and also to other oceans) during an El Nino. Is that a theory? An hypothesis? A gut feeling? dbstealy wants to know! ;)”
It’s not a theory; it’s basic ENSO dynamics. I’ve been presenting these ENSO basic processes here at WUWT for years. The fact that you can’t grasp it or haven’t investigated it doesn’t make it a theory. McPhaden 1999 addresses the energy source of the 1997/98 El Niño:
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geo622/paper_enso_McPhaden1999.pdf
McPhaden writes:
“For at least a year before the onset of the 1997–98 El Niño, there was a buildup of heat content in the western equatorial Pacific due to stronger than normal trade winds associated with a weak La Niña in 1995–96.”
Now, here’s Figure 4 from Pavlakis et al (2008) that shows downward shortwave radiation over the central equatorial Pacific varying inversely with NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure-42.png
Link to Pavlakis et al:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/6697/2008/acpd-8-6697-2008-print.pdf
And here’s a graph of total cloud amount data for the two regions illustrated in Figure 4 from Pavlakis et al:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/figure-52.png
I’ve been presenting that very basic relationship in blog posts for years. A recent example is here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/untruths-falsehoods-fabrications-misrepresentations/
Would you also like a graph of trade wind strength and direction?
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Huh? El Nino and La Nina are defined by opposite patterns. What is wrong with that?”
They’re not opposites. That’s the problem. Did you read this post? Clearly you didn’t understand it. The instrument temperature record shows they have different impacts on the ocean heat content and sea surface temperatures.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Should you not be asking the question if there are less clouds in total instead of asking if a weather pattern has moved geographically to the west?”
I’ve already addressed this in my reply. Addressed it years ago.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Still waiting for the mechanism putting extra energy in the earth system….”
It’s already been presented to you numerous times on this thread.
Let me make a couple of suggestions, Reich.Eschhaus. You should ask for additional information, instead of attempting to be confrontational. I, personally, find your trolling efforts here tiresome. You may also want to study the subject matter for a couple of years as we’ve been doing here at WUWT. The questions you’re raising are not original. They were asked and answered years ago. Then, after you’re fluent on ENSO, come back to discuss it.
As I wrote in a reply to TLM above, if you’d like to carry your arguments further, please provide links to the climate model-based peer-reviewed studies that explain:
1. Why the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific haven’t warmed in 31 years.
2. Why the seas surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans only warmed during the strong El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10.
3. Why the warming of the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific is dependent on the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Niña events, and without those La Niñas the ocean heat content for tropical Pacific would cool.
4. Why the warming of the ocean heat content of the North Pacific (north of the tropics) is dependent on a 2-year climate shift (1989-90), and without that climate shift, the ocean heat content for the North Pacific would cool.
I’ll save you some time looking. There are no studies that explain why sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content actually warmed as they did.
@ Bob Tisdale
Sorry for the delay (busy week)
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “There you say it! You wanted to discuss your pet theory and plug your book! Not at all ashamed to distort someone else’s post in your interpretation and above that telling your reader’s to go there and make fuzz….”
Again, this is not a pet theory. Maybe you can’t read and interpret time-series graphs. Also, if I wanted to sell more books, I would not have written and provided a link to the free essay that’s linked earlier in the same paragraph. And your continued insistence on stating that I have somehow distorted Dana Nuccitelli’s post clearly indicates you have no understanding of the subject matter. ”
Yes, it is and you are! You pick a few convenient quotes from the blog post and then promote your own view.
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “Bullshit! You presented the theory that during an La Nina the ocean water is warming by additional sunshine (because of a lack clouds caused by trade winds) and that this energy is released to the atmosphere (and also to other oceans) during an El Nino. Is that a theory? An hypothesis? A gut feeling? dbstealy wants to know! ;)”
It’s not a theory; it’s basic ENSO dynamics.”
Ah? Is that not a theory? Or a hypothesis? Or whatever you want to call it? You connect data (ocean temperature patterns) with a proposed mechanism (amount of clouds), therefore “And again, I have not presented a theory; I presented data.” doesn’t wash.
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “Huh? El Nino and La Nina are defined by opposite patterns. What is wrong with that?”
They’re not opposites. That’s the problem. Did you read this post? Clearly you didn’t understand it. The instrument temperature record shows they have different impacts on the ocean heat content and sea surface temperatures.”
Heh? They are defined in opposition to one another! What else? Of course they have different impacts as a consequence.
“Reich.Eschhaus says: “Should you not be asking the question if there are less clouds in total instead of asking if a weather pattern has moved geographically to the west?”
I’ve already addressed this in my reply. Addressed it years ago.
Reich.Eschhaus says: “Still waiting for the mechanism putting extra energy in the earth system….”
It’s already been presented to you numerous times on this thread.”
No, you need to show that absence of clouds in (some, apparently) La Ninas would translate into a big enough increase in ocean heat content to cause the uptick in surface temperatures during an El Nino that follows. Numbers please. Additionally, you need to show why the energy that has been accumulated thus is staying in the system, so that each following El Nino rises surface temperatures further. You have not done this.
Once you have done that, you need to explain why this El Nino warming is happening in modern times and has not been happening before, because we would be frying by now if it had been (That was the point I tried to make with ‘How many El Ninos does it take to get unbearable warming? Will the polar bears then die? Is global action required to prevent the occurrence of more El Ninos’).
Regards
Brian says
I don’t think the planet is falsifying or proving anything over a 15 year period. It falsified projections, but not the AGW hypothesis
Henry says
if you had understand of how the GH effect is supposed to work, namely that it causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect, then it follows that if more CO2 or more H2O or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minima rising faster, pushing up the means. That has not happened. If you look at my tables here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
you will notice that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period, we find a ratio of maxima : means: minima of 0.036:0.014:0.006. That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around.
Dana & his friends have wiped all my comments from their (Guardian) slate.
They are crooks. I say let fools stay fools if they want to be.
It is a pity though that humanity could fall in the pit of global cooling not having done enough to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
‘The climate consensus 97%’
Wow so these two account for 97% of warmist scientists now, we’re doing better than even I thought! I wonder who/what the other 3% is? The little toe of Jones maybe?
Carrie, I believe “Climate Consensus – 97%” has to do with an upcoming paper by the crew from SkepticalScience. They just held a fund raiser to cover publication fees:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Be-part-of-landmark-citizen-science-paper-on-consensus.html
Oddly, while the rest of the climate science community and the public is coming to terms with the fact that “consensus” is symptom of a political agenda, not a scientific endeavor, and that consensus making has been detrimental to research in climate science, SkepticalScience is promoting it. Go figure.
Bob Tisdale says:
April 25, 2013 at 8:13 am
Olaus Petri says: “Well done Dr. Tisdale!”
Thanks for the kind words and the degree…but I do not have a doctorate.
================================================
Bob,
I would disagree. You have the heart of a teacher. One who teaches at the level of those who need the instruction. WE THE PEOPLE are very appreciative that you share your knowledge and the level at which you do it. You, IMHO are much more than a person with a doctorate, You are someone who cares enough about the truth that you are willing to share it openly. I wish some of those I work with had the respect and knowledge you exude.
You are proof that one does not need a doctorate or any other degree to know what is going on and how to share it with others. You frighten those with degrees who are lieing. Keep the light burning to expose the truth.
Dr Bob… has a nice ring to it.. 🙂
Thanks for all you do!
Bill
In all climactic progressions there is a cyclical pattern. A sign wave. When we look at overall heating or cooling in the oceans we see multiple cyclical patterns. The short ones like the ENSO, ADO, PDO, etc are periods of just 10-40 years on average and their ranges are constant. Short periods of rise (about 3 years) followed by 24 years of status quo..
When we look for the climactic long term sign wave, only about 10% is above the interglacial temperature threshold. That wave is approximately 112,000 years long. If I place that pattern into today’s pattern we should be below that 10% temp threshold by 5-10 years or so.
Yet the upward progression of overall temperature trend continues in short term cycles. We are still within statistical lag time however to begin cooling. I was wondering on the grander scale how the oscillations work when we finally enter the rapid cooling phase? And as an aside how the weakening of the earth magnetic field is affecting those flows?
are the 1-3 degree temp increases inverted? nonexistent? or do the status quo times begin to trend down?
Bob Tisdale says:
April 26, 2013 at 3:12 pm
4. Why the warming of the ocean heat content of the North Pacific (north of the tropics) is dependent on a 2-year climate shift (1989-90), and without that climate shift, the ocean heat content for the North Pacific would cool.
========================================
I wonder if this has much to do with our weakening magnetic field and the fact that as it weakens there is less push and pull on earths oceans. thus less water movement. if the system is slowed cooling is the only thing we can do…
Bill says
I was wondering on the grander scale how the oscillations work when we finally enter the rapid cooling phase? And as an aside how the weakening of the earth magnetic field is affecting those flows?
henry@Bill
Bill, I looked at the energy coming through the atmosphere (maximum temperatures)
Here are some interesting clues
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Bill H says: “I wonder if this has much to do with our weakening magnetic field and the fact that as it weakens there is less push and pull on earths oceans.”
It’s attributable to a shift in the wind patterns in the North Pacific. There are numerous papers about the shift in sea level pressure and it’s impacts on sea surface temperature on the North Pacific, but I’ve never seen a paper about its impacts on OHC there. I’ve also never seen a paper (haven’t looked for one, truth be told) about the relationship between the magnetic field and sea level pressure.
Bob Tisdale says
It’s attributable to a shift in the wind patterns in the North Pacific. There are numerous papers about the shift in sea level pressure and it’s impacts on sea surface temperature on the North Pacific,
Henry@Bob
That shift probably starts by the reduction of warmth (UV) from the top, getting into the oceans,
SH, mostly.
Anyway, can I ask you a big favor? Could you please have a look at this log:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
I want to use this as a communication to all (specifically) religious (Christian/Judaism) media
(which is why I added some biblical references – never mind those, that is just as an aside)
but I would prefer to hear your and WUWT opinions about it.
It would be much appreciated if I could have your (honest) opinion about it.
Reich.Eschhaus: I have no need to reply to your continued arguments because you’re simply repeating the points you attempted to make, and to which I have already responded. Have a nice day.
Henry@Reich.Eschhaus
Dana wiped my comment on his Guarded site where I put this to him:
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:
HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.
This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.
The oceans are heated by the UV <0.5 um from the sun, not by the carbon dioxide. If you study the absorbency of water, you might figure out why.
I am awaiting your comments on my article here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/