Image Credit: WoodForTrees.org
Guest Post By Werner Brozek, Edited By Just The Facts
*At least April data was my intention. However as of June 8, HadCRUT3 for April is still not up! Could it be because as of the end of March, the slope of 0 lasted 16 years and 1 month and they do not want to add another month or two? What do you think? WoodForTrees (WFT) is up to date however, thank you very much Paul!
The graph above shows a few different things for three data sets where there has been no warming for at least 16 years. WFT only allows one to draw straight lines between two points, however climate does not go in straight lines. Often, temperatures vary in a sinusoidal fashion which cannot yet be shown using WFT. However we can do the next best thing and show what is happening over the first half of the 16 years and what is happening over the last half. As shown, the first half shows a small rise and the last half shows a small decline. Note that neither the rise in the first half nor the drop in the last half is statistically significant. However the lines do suggest that we are just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic:
Do you agree? What are your views on the question in the title? Do you think we are presently in a pause or in a decline or neither?
In the sections below, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show the period that there has been no warming for various data sets. The second section will show the period that there has been no “significant” warming on several data sets. The third section will show how 2013 to date compares with 2012 and the warmest years and months on record. The appendix illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different format. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 5 months to 16 years and 6 months.
1. For GISS, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 1 month. (goes to March 31, 2013)
3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (This goes to May. I realize that Hadcrut3 is not up to date, but on the basis of its present slope and the latest numbers that I do have from the other three sets. I am confident that I can make this prediction.)
4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April)
5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat from March 1, 1997 to April 30, 2013, or 16 years, 2 months.
6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
7. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years. This 97% is real!
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above for what can be shown. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly. It goes from 0.1 C to 0.6 C. A change of 0.5 C over 16 years is about 3.0 C over 100 years. And 3.0 C is about the average of what the IPCC says may be the temperature increase by 2100.
So for this to be the case, the slope for all of the data sets would have to be as steep as the CO2 slope. Hopefully the graphs show that this is totally untenable.
The next graph shows the above, but this time, the actual plotted points are shown along with the slope lines and the CO2 is omitted.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming according to their criteria. The numbers below start from January of the year indicated. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the magnitude of the second number is larger than the first number so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out. (To the best of my knowledge, SkS uses the same criteria that Phil Jones uses to determine significance.)
The situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.
The details are below and are based on the SkS site:
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since July 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since October 1994 and
NOAA since May 1994.
Section 3
This section shows data about 2013 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the six data sources along the top and bottom, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and GISS. Down the column, are the following:
1. 12ra: This is the final ranking for 2012 on each data set.
2. 12an: Here I give the average anomaly for 2012.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that two of the data sets have 2010 as the warmest year and four have 1998 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first two letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0.
8. sig: This is the whole number of years for which warming is not significant according to the SkS criteria. The additional months are not added here, however for more details, see Section 2.
9. Jan: This is the January, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
10. Feb: This is the February, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
11. Mar: This is the March, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
12. Apr: This is the April, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
13. May: This is the May, 2013, anomaly for that particular data set.
21. ave: This is the average anomaly of all months to date taken by adding all numbers and dividing by the number of months. However if the data set itself gives that average, I use their number. Sometimes the number in the third decimal place differs by one, presumably due to all months not having the same number of days.
22. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have if the anomaly above were to remain that way for the rest of the year. Of course it won’t, but think of it as an update 20 or 25 minutes into a game. Expect wild swings from month to month at the start of the year. As well, expect huge variations between data sets at the start. Due to different base periods, the rank may be more meaningful than the average anomaly.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst2 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. 12ra | 9th | 11th | 9th | 10th | 8th | 9th |
| 2. 12an | 0.161 | 0.192 | 0.448 | 0.405 | 0.342 | 0.56 |
| 3. year | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 | 1998 | 1998 | 2010 |
| 4. ano | 0.419 | 0.55 | 0.547 | 0.548 | 0.451 | 0.66 |
| 5. mon | Ap98 | Ap98 | Ja07 | Fe98 | Au98 | Ja07 |
| 6. ano | 0.66 | 0.857 | 0.829 | 0.756 | 0.555 | 0.93 |
| 7. y/m | 8/5 | 16/6 | 12/6 | 16/1 | 16/2 | 12/4 |
| 8. sig | 19 | 23 | 18 | 19 | 18 | |
| 9. Jan | 0.504 | 0.441 | 0.450 | 0.390 | 0.283 | 0.61 |
| 10.Feb | 0.175 | 0.194 | 0.479 | 0.424 | 0.308 | 0.52 |
| 11.Mar | 0.183 | 0.204 | 0.411 | 0.387 | 0.278 | 0.58 |
| 12.Apr | 0.103 | 0.219 | 0.425 | 0.353 | 0.50 | |
| 13.May | 0.074 | 0.139 | ||||
| 21.ave | 0.208 | 0.239 | 0.440 | 0.401 | 0.306 | 0.553 |
| 22.rnk | 6th | 8th | 11th | 12th | 11th | 10th |
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Had3 | Sst2 | GISS |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following links, UAH,
For RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2,and GISS.
To see all points since January 2012 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below:
I wish to make a comment about this graph from WFT. It is right up to date. The only reason that both HadCRUT3 and WTI only go to March is because WTI uses 4 data sets, one of which is HadCRUT3, so if HadCRUT3 is not there for April, WTI cannot be there for April as well.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December 1996 or 16 years and 6 months. (goes to May) RSS is 198/204 or 97% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990.
The RSS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.239. This would rank 8th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.192 and it came in 11th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Both show all plotted points for RSS since 1990. Then two lines are shown on the first graph. The first upward sloping line is the line from where warming is not significant according to the SkS site criteria. The second straight line shows the point from where the slope is flat.
The second graph shows the above, but in addition, there are two extra lines. These show the upper and lower lines using the SkS site criteria. Note that the lower line is almost horizontal but slopes slightly downward. This indicates that there is a slight chance that cooling has occurred since 1990 according to RSS
UAH
The slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 5 months. (goes to May)
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The UAH average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.208. This would rank 6th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.161 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to UAH.
Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 6 months. (goes to April.)
For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The Hadcrut4 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.440. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.547. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.829. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.448 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut4.
Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since March 1 1997 or 16 years, 1 month (goes to March 31, 2013)
For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
The Hadcrut3 average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.401. This would rank 12th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to go back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.405 and it came in 10th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to Hadcrut3.
Hadsst2
For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1, 1997 or 16 years, 2 months. (goes to April 30, 2013).
The Hadsst2 average anomaly for the first four months for 2013 is 0.306. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.342 and it came in 8th.
Sorry! The only graph available for Hadsst2 is the following
this.
GISS
The slope is flat since January 2001 or 12 years, 4 months. (goes to April)
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
The GISS average anomaly so far for 2013 is 0.553. This would rank 10th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.66. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2012 was 0.56 and it came in 9th.
Following are two graphs via WFT. Everything is identical as with RSS except the lines apply to GISS.
Conclusion
Above, various facts have been presented along with sources from where all facts were obtained. Keep in mind that no one is entitled to their own facts. It is only in the interpretation of the facts for which legitimate discussions can take place. After looking at the above facts, do you think that we should spend billions to prevent the claimed catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or do you think we should take a “wait and see” attitude for a few years to be sure that future warming will be as catastrophic as some claim it will be? Keep in mind that even the MET office felt the need to revise its forecasts. Look at the following and keep in mind that the MET office believes that the 1998 mark will be beaten by 2017. Do you agree?
By the way, here is an earlier prediction by the MET office:
“(H)alf of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.”
When this prediction was made, they had Hadcrut3 and so far, the 1998 mark has not been broken on Hadcrut3. 2013 is not starting well if they want a new record in 2013. Here are some relevant facts today: The sun is extremely quiet; ENSO has been between 0 and -0.5 since the start of the year; it takes at least 3 months for ENSO effects to kick in and the Hadcrut3 average anomaly after March was 0.401 which would rank it in 12th place. Granted, it is only 3 months, but you are not going to set any records starting the race in 12th place after three months. So even if a 1998 type El Nino started to set in tomorrow, it would be at least 4 or 5 months for the maximum ENSO reading to be reached. Then it would take at least 3 more months for the high ENSO to be reflected in Earth’s temperature. How hot would November and December then have to be to set a new record? In my opinion, the odds of setting a new record in 2013 are extremely remote.
“However the lines do suggest that we are just continuing a 60 year sine wave that was started in 1880 according to the following graphic”
I assume you mean 1980.
dbstealey says:
June 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm
milodonharlani says:
“This unsupported assertion is patently false.”
I agree. The planet is still recovering from the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene.
————————————
Were Jai Mitchell actually interested in studies, evidence & analysis of recovery from the LIA, he or she could start with this 2010 Natural Science journal article:
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
PDF (Size:1496KB) PP. 1211-1224 DOI: 10.4236/ns.2010.211149
Author(s)
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
ABSTRACT
A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them
Cite this paper
Akasofu, S. (2010) On the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Natural Science, 2, 1211-1224. doi: 10.4236/ns.2010.211149.
References
[1] Lamb, H.H. (1982) Climate, history, and the modern world. Methuen, New York, 387.
[2] Grove, J.M. (1988) The little ice age. Methuen, New York, 498.
[3] Esper, J., Cook, E.R. and Schweingruber, F.H. (2002) Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253.
[4] Frank, D., Esper, J. and Cook, E.R. (2007) Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16709.
[5] National research council of the national academies. (2006), Washington, D.C., 145.
[6] Ito, K. (2003) Global warming (Chikyu Ondanka). Nippon Hyoronsha, 209.
[7] Nunn, P.D. (2007) Climate, Environment and society in the pacific during the last millennium. Elsevier, 302.
[8] Oppo, D.W., Rosenthal, Y. and Linsey, B.K. (2009) 2000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool. Nature 460, 1113-1116.
[9] Fagan, B. (2000) The Little Ice Age: How climate made history, 1300-1800. Perseus Book Group, 246.
[10] Keigwin, L.D. (1996) The Little Ice Age and medieval warming period in the Sargasso Sea. Science, 274, 1503-1508.
[11] Tarand, A. and Nordli, P.O. (2001) The Tallinn temperature series reconstructed back half a millennium by use of proxy data. In: Ogilvie, A.E.J. and Jónsson, T. Eds., The Iceberg in the Mist: Northern Research in Pursuit of a “Little Ice Age, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Holland, 189-199.
[12] van Engelen, J., Buisman, J. and Ijnsen, F. (2001) A millennium of weather, winds, and water in the lower countries. History and Climate: Memories of the Future, Kluwer Academic Press, New York, Boston, London, 101-124.
[13] Pollack, H.N. and Smerdon, J.E. (2004) Borehole climate reconstructions; spatial structure and hemispheric averages. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D11106.
[14] Asami, R., Yamada, T., Iryu, Y., Quinn, T.M., Meyer, C.P. and Paulay, G. (2005) Interannual and decadal variability of the western Pacific sea surface condition for the years 1787-2000: Reconstruction based on stable isotope record from a Guam coral. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, CO5018.
[15] Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. (2007) Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617.
[16] Holmes, J.A. Zhang, J., Chenand, F., Qiang, M. (2007) Paleoclimatic implications of an 850-year oxygen isotope record from the northern Tibetan Plateau. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L23403.
[17] Liu, X., Shao, X., Zhao, L., Qin, D., Chen, T. and Ren, J. (2007) Dendroclimatic temperature record derived from tree-ring width and stable carbon isotope chronologies in the Middle Qilian Mountains, China, Arctic. Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 39, 651-657.
[18] Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M. (2007) 1400 yr multi-proxy record of climate variability from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Geology, 35, 423.
[19] Aono, Y. (2006) Climate reconstruction of spring-time temperature using phonological data flowering of cherry tree from old document. Grad. School of Life and Environmental Science, Osaka Prefecture University, 111.
[20] Fritzsche, D., Schutt, R., Meyer, H., Miller, F., Wilhelms, T., Opel, T. and Savatyugin, L.M. (2006) Late Holocene ice core record from Akasemii Nauk Ice Cap, Severnaya Zemlya. Annals of Glaciology, 42, 361-366.
[21] Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Makshtas, A.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A.V. (2002) Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 4.
[22] Isaksson, E., Hermanson, M., Hicks, S., Igarashi, M., Kamiyama, K., Moore, J., Motoyama, H., Muir, D., Pohjola, V., Vaikm?e, R., van de Wal , R.S.W. and Watanabe, O. (2003) Ice cores from Svalbard—useful archives of past climate and pollution history. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 1217-1228.
[23] Alexeev, V.A., Langen, P.L. and Bates, J.R. (2005) Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in “ghost forcing” experiments without sea ice feedbacks. Climate Dynamics, 24, 655-666.
[24] Magnuson, J.J., Robertson, D.M., Benson, B.J., Wynne, R.H., Livingstone, D.M., Arai, T., Assel, R.A., Barry, G. R., Card, V., Kuusisto, E., Granin, N.G., Prowse, T.D., Stewart, K.M. and Vuglinski V.S. (2000) Historical trends in lake and river ice cover in the Northern hemisphere. Science, 289, 1743-1746.
[25] Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C. and Holgate, S. (2006) Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 11.
[26] Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted. A. and Woodworth, P.L. (2008) Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08715.
[27] Vinje, T. (2001) Anomalies and trends of sea-ice extent and atmospheric circulation in the Nordic seas during the period 1864-1998. Journal of Climate, 14, 255-267.
[28] Zhang, X., Lindsay, R., Steele. M. and Schweiger, A. (2008a) What drove the dramatic retreat of arctic sea ice during summer 2007? Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L11505.
[29] Zhang, X., Sorteberg, A., Zhang, J., Gerdes, R. and Comiso, J.C. (2008b) Recent radical shifts of atmospheric circulations and rapid changes in Arctic climate system. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L22701.
[30] Muskett, R. (2008) Personal communication.
[31] Molnia, B. (2008) Glaciers of North America and Alaska. USGS, professional paper 1386K, 525.
[32] ACIA (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, UK, 1042.
[33] Strom, R.G. (2007) Hot House: Global climate change and the human condition. Copernicus Books, 302.
[34] Grove, J.M. (2001) The onset of the Little Ice Age. In: Jones, P.D., Ogilvie, A.E.J., Davies, T.D. and Briffa, K.R. Eds., History and Climate, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publication, 153-185.
[35] von Michael Kuhn, H. (2007) Fluctuations of the ‘Mer de Glace’ AD 1500-2000; an interdisciplinary approach using new historical data and neural network simulations. Zeitschrift für Gletscherkunde und Glazialgeologie, 40, 183.
[36] Holzhausen, H., Magny, M. and Zumbuühl, H.J. (2005) Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene, 15, 789-801.
[37] Kargel, J. (2008) Earth Observatory newsroom: New images-retreat of Gangotri Glacier USGS, 2008. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16584
[38] Crowley. T.J. and North, G.R. (1991) Paleoclimatology. Oxford University Press, UK, 339.
[39] Holgate, S.J. (2007) On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
[40] Nerem, R., Chambers, D., Choe, J., Mitchum, G. and Ries, J. (2008) Building and understanding a climate data record of sea level change. http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ science/scientific-investigations-2008/nerem.html
[41] Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). http://www.data.kishou.go-jp/climate/cpinfo/temp/ay-wld.html
[42] NOAA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html
[43] Bryant, E. (1997) Climate Process & Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, 209.
[44] Wu, Z., Huang, N.E., Long, S.R. and Peng, C.-H. (2007) On the trend, detrending, and variability of nonlinear and nonstationary time series. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 14889-14894.
[45] Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnson, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. (1998) Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science, 282, 268-271.
[46] Alley, R.B. (2000) The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 213-226.
[47] Burroughs, W.J. (2001) Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, UK, 298.
[48] Lang, K.R. (2000) The Sun from Space. Springer, New York, 357.
[49] Musccheler, R., Joos, F., Beer, J., Vonmoos, M.S. and Snowball, I. (2007) Solar activity during last 1000yr inferred from radionuclide records. Quaternary Science Reviews, 26, 2682-2692.
[50] Lean, J., Beer, J. and Bradley, R.S. (1995) Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implication for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 3195- 3198.
[51] Nozawa, T., Nagashima, T., Shiogama, H. and Crooks, S.A. (2005) Detecting natural influence on surface air temperature change in the early twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L20719.
[52] Scafetta, N. and West, B.J. (2006) Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters 33, Lo5708.
[53] Scafetta, N. and West, B.J. (2006) Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature records. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L17718.
[54] Soon, W. (2005) Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multi-decadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L16712, 5.
[55] Duhau, S. and de Jager, C. (2008) The solar dynamo and Its phase transitions during the last millennium. Solar Phys. 250, 1-15.
[56] Kerr, R.A. (2009) What happened to global warming? Scientists say just wait a bit. Science, 326, 28-29.
[57] University of Washington (2008). http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
[58] Pielke Sr., R.A. (2008) A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 11, 54-55.
[59] Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alexseev, G.V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R.L., Johnson, M.A., Makshtas, A.P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875-2000. Journal of Climate, 16, 2067-2077.
[60] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007). http://www.ipcc.ch
DocBud says:
June 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I assume you mean 1980.
No, I did mean 1880. Note the peaks at 1880, 1940 and 2000, or about every 60 years. If people are inclined to say the last 8 years is just a small wiggle, at one level I would agree with them. However against the backdrop of what has been happening over the last 130 years, and for which there is no apparent tie to CO2, the most recent 8 year “wiggle” takes on a lot of significance in my opinion.
In jai mitchell’s world of the Hockey Schtik with no MWA or LIA, the only way is up. If you’ve only read Mann and his disciples then your ignorance is partially excusable. However, what this layman finds intriguing would like to know more about is the “right now about 98% off (sic) the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans.” Do you have some source of empirical evidence or are you just “on the sauce” ? If you are a ‘teenage scientist’ … you should consider a career in standup comedy.
I originally created the first chart using only RSS because I wanted to see what happened when the PDO went negative. I used 2005 because that was ENSO neutral and I didn’t want to overly influence the result. And, it was half way through the 16.5 years of no warming which was nice. Given we are currently in ENSO neutral conditions as well, it looks pretty clear that a cooling trend had started. Also note that 1996 was ENSO neutral.
Keep in mind that the 10+ years of warming through the late 1980s was considered enough to create the IPCC and have scientists proclaiming future catastrophe. So, 8+ years of cooling with a defined mechanism (PDO) is right in line with that process.
Also note that before the alarmists got their hands on the surface data the graphs showed .5C of cooling from 1945-1975. Now those same graphs show almost no cooling. I suspect the 1930s were as warm as today and we have reached the end of the LIA recovery. All indicators point to future cooling.
J.Seifert says:
June 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Over a short enough period a straight line is a good enough approximation of a sine curve. Or most others.
From my reading of Akasofu, he didn’t look at a long enough period to come up with the period of the sine you’re looking for.
For a WUWT look at Akasofu’s paper and other stuff, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/dr-syun-akasofu-20-points-of-context-on-global-warming-politics-and-the-economy-of-the-world/
The 40 years solar activity trend since the 1964 minima (which in the period 1964-1994 had according to Solanki TSI data the slope of +0.142 W/m^2 per decade and which most probably caused the recent mid70s-2000 warming period wia warming the sea water – as the absolute ocean surface heat budget numbers <a href="show quite convincingly) contrary to the common belief turned to downward heading slope in March 2006 and descended steeply since then. Which quite coincides with the turning point at the first graph of the article.
Even the fact we are now in the solar cycle maxima period nothing much changes on the relatively steep downward slopes.
The current solar cycle is so weak that even the TSI trend from the 1996 solar minima to current maxima is relatively steeply descencing at pace of 0.56 W/m^2 per decade according to SORCE-TIM level normalised ACRIM TSI composite And as you can see on this graph.it would be no better for other TSI datasets neither.
And as I wrote we are currently at the solar cycle maxima activity period, so it will only descend and so we surely can’t expect the solar activity trends turn back to upward slope at least in the next 15 years, even if the solar cycle 25 will be the strongest solar cycle ever on record. And if the next solar cycle 25 will be simmilarly weak as the current solar cycle 24 – as some now predict – then we can’t expect solar activity trends to have an upward slope at very least quarter of century.
Therefore my bet is we are at the beginning of a relatively long ride down. It will be of course nothing catastrophic and the surface temperature anomaly will descend just couple of tenths of centigrade*.
But if my prediction, based on a study of the available data and the solar influence on the sea surface temperature anomaly, then it would be absolutely killing roller-coaster crash trip for all the CAGW hype the mankind paid so dearly for so far.
—————-
*Which is nothing if we would compare it with the due to axial precession inevitable shift of the Earths perihelion (now at the beginning of January) to summer months in about ~12000 years, which most probably will somewhere on the way start the ice age due to catastrophicaly low insolation of the ocean – which is mainly at the southern hemisphere (62.8%) and therefore the now more or less maximaly insolated oceans during the Earth’s perihelion (when the real TSI at the real Earth distance from the Sun reaches ~1408+ W per square meter while in aphelion it is 1306- W per square meter), will become considerably less insolated, causing then according to my calculations considerable net global average decline of the solar radiation extinction in the ocean (a process producing ~90% of the heat on this planets suface layer) leading to negative forcing of ~ -5-6 W per square meter averaged globally (- alone leading to several degrees decline of the average suface temperature, not speaking about the positive feedback due to the glaciation and rising albedo, which would cause further temperatures decline). So it is btw impossible the CO2 atmospheric content ever can cause a catastrophic global warming even if the estimations of it’s forcing would be true.
IMO, the Modern Warm Period still has some more cycles of cooler & warmer phases to go, but agree cooler should be next. The Minoan Warm Period has been variously dated, but let’s say 1450–1300 BC; the Roman WP by one accounting lasted from ~250 BC to 0 (or until AD 400), & the Medieval from perhaps AD 950 to 1250 (possibly starting around 800). So if the Modern WP be 150 years old, it could in fact be coming to an end, but another 100 to 150 years in duration is perhaps more likely. The length of the warm cycles (if such they actually be) doesn’t seem to be shortening or lengthening with the aging Holocene interglacial.
Other Minoan dates include 1500-1200 & 1450-1250 BC. So call it roughly 300 year intervals at about the controversial Bond cycle peak to peak of 1100 to 1500 years.
It’s possible however that the following cold period could be the next Big Ice Age instead of another slightly less little one.
Thanks, JustTheFacts.
Good work.
The best global thermometers, satellites, say we are not warming now.
See http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Even the HadCRUT4 and NCDC say the same.
See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html and http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
I’ll say the same; We not getting any warmer, maybe a little bit cooler.
You like all rabid magic mirror believers sound intoxicated every time you speak.
jai mitchell says:
June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
When you show the previous increase of temperatures–the one that we are supposedly no longer experiencing–you attribute it to “little ice age recovery” when the overwhelming number of scientific studies, evidences and historical temperature analyses show that this warming had nothing to do with “recovery” of the little ice age.
that being said. I find it a little disturbing that you seem to think that the surface of the earth is the only warming that matters. What I mean to say is that, under certain variable conditions, like the negative PDO we have been experiencing, there is greater mixing of water in the oceans which causes more of the heat energy to be moved to the deeper ocean. When this happens (surface mixing) the upwelling currents cause the sea surface temperature to cool.
right now about 98% off the warming that is occurring is happening in the oceans. Only 2% of the heat is actually going into the air and land surface. Even with 98% of the heat going into the oceans, 9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade.
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/01/16/nasa-2012-was-9th-warmest-year-on-record-the-9-warmest-years-have-all-occurred-since-1998/
how you can say that this indicates a “cooling” or a “stagnation” is beyond me.
I look at northern hemisphere land surface temperatures only. I disregard south latitude sea temperatures. Because the majority of our food and population is grown on the land in the northern hemisphere.
jai mitchell says:
June 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm
9 out of the 10 hottest years in recorded history globally have occurred in the last decade.
===================
God you’re a tool………
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
I wonder if jai is just another one of those out-of-work comedians. They like to try out their humor. It is working….
geran says:
June 9, 2013 at 6:28 pm
===========
..he’s paid by the Koch brothers
The observational data of the first plot appears to be very inaccurate. Consider the following: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:50/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-315/scale:0.008/offset:-0.2/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:50/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:50 where the slope of the observational on average continues to bend upward. If CO2 is added, offset and scaled, it appears to fit the observational data.
jai mitchell:
Some are treating you like a troll, which seems justified. However, you’ve asked a few questions and been given answers. What I’d like to know is, are you actually listening? I’d like to believe that you are a real person who is wanting to find out things, rather than someone just trying to stir up the forum (there have been many of those in the past, which is why people are making the assumption).
So here’s the thing. Nothing you have told us is new to WUWT regulars. We are all more than aware of the things you’ve discussed, including “unprecedented warming”, warmest decade on record, ocean acidification, deep sea warming, etc. We’ve also discussed the inaccuracy of past records, uncertainty of proxies, the fact (not belief, fact) that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, not science.
We are also aware that most “climate scientists” hold a certain opinion, but are you aware than “climate scientist” is a new discipline, and in order to get any sort of certification you would need to be of the same mind? Other scientists in other disciplines have clearly pointed out the shortcomings, errors, and outright failures in “climate science”. In fact, many regular commenters at WUWT are scientists.
Facts: the observed temperatures are NOT matching the predictions. There is no credible or observed mechanism for “heat” to flow into the deep oceans, bypassing the atmosphere. The surface temperature record over the last 100 years has been altered, and is not credible in its current, “adjusted” form, while most of the original data is “lost”. The Argo bouys which were deployed to measure ocean temperatures are free floating, which means they tend to follow currents, which are nature’s way of moving HEAT, therefore they will probably always show heating where there is none.
Typically, the majority of WUWT regulars used to believe as you. Asking just a few questions and seeking the answers have made most of us realize that the story we’ve been told is just that: a story. There are far more questions than answers, and the people who were tasked with finding the answers have pretty much made them up to push their own beliefs.
I think if you can stop echoing the AGW line and actually look at what’s being discussed here, you might realize that you, too, are a “skeptic”.
Jai, is
“Because the majority of our food and population is grown on the land in the northern hemisphere.”
supposed to explain
“I look at northern hemisphere land surface temperatures only. I disregard south latitude sea temperatures”?
If so, either they should be a single sentence, or you should start the explanation with “This is because”.
It seems that Global Warming is destroying good writing.
CodeTech
yes, I am a real person. The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties. I would estimate that if properly polled, 95% of posters here would agree with the following statement, “socialized government programs intrude on the effectiveness of the free-market system of capitalism and impedes the well being of the population.”
The reason I am saying this is that, without a doubt, the very conservative think tanks and propagandists have been paid very well by those interested in maintaining the status quo. They have found a captive audience in the conservative political camp and most if not all of these are captured ideologically.
———–
when you say there is no “credible” method for heat to flow into the deep oceans, you are denying the fact that we have already measured warming in the oceans. That the amount of warming that has been required to produce the measured warming would raise land surface temperatures by over 10 degrees C.
Even posts on this website speak to the fact that surface winds produce cool sea surface temperatures. What they don’t say is that this is simply due to mixing with colder water below.
What they also don’t say is that it is the temperature differential that drives heat exchanges so a cooler surface temperature MUST absorb more heat energy than a warmer one.
The fact is that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the coal and oil lobby to prevent responses to climate change is the dominant player. And there are people out there who are paid to lie. Like Bill Happer (Marshall Institute) who recently went on the CNBC (financial news) and stated that we would be “fine” if CO2 went to 4000 ppm since our early ancestors survived “ok” then.
what he didn’t say is that our early ancestors at that time were the size of cats and ate fruit and bugs that they caught with their own hands. That the sea level was 150 feet higher then and that the average temperature was 12C warmer (PETM Maximum)
So basically he is advocating a world where none of our populations centers near water survive, that our fruits and grains fail to germinate and we have a massive depopulation due to heat stress, and water/food resource depletion.
the Marshall institute was revealed during the lawsuits against the tobacco industry as being paid to thwart science and cloud the discussion around second hand smoke by the tobacco industry. They just moved on over to climate change and there are millions of dollars spent over the last 5 years to keep it up in the face of collapsing arctic sea ice loss, record heat waves and droughts, the driest January-February in California state history, and all of the other weather extremes that are going to be coming more and more rapidly now that the arctic has reached a tipping point.
I do wish that there was more discussion that wasn’t based on falsified arguments and conspiracy theory on this site. That is why I stopped by.
So basically he is advocating a world where none of our populations centers near water survive, that our fruits and grains fail to germinate and we have a massive depopulation due to heat stress, and water/food resource depletion.
During the Holocene optimum temperatures were several degrees higher than today. The Sahara desert was a well watered plain and the Levant and the Arabian peninsula were part of the fertile crescent. On the negative side the American midwest was a desert as far east as Iowa.
The point is that when you make predictions about climate, you only make those that suit your own political biases.
The second point is that if we wanted to get off of hydrocarbons we could do so rapidly with the massive implementation of nuclear power. Yet the only solution that the climate science community (that has ZERO competence in this arena) can side with is solar panels and wind turbines, a solution that is in itself completely unsustainable yet the word sustainable has been attached to it.
I will start to take climate scientists more seriously when they keep their noses out of the field of systems engineering that they have zero competence in but just happen to coincide with the leftist philosophy of the failed 1970’s.
I’m fond of saying, albedo rules the climate.
Antarctic sea is increasing at a record rate and a new maximum record looks a certainty. Winter has just begun and there is already sea ice north of the Antarctic Circle.
It’s not widely appreciated that around and below the Antarctic Circle, at the SH summer solstice, gets more daily solar irradiance than any place on Earth. Come the spring there will be a large increase in solar energy that gets reflected back into space.
This a very powerful positive (cooling) feedback, and I believe we will see year after year of increasing SH sea ice.
milodonharani asked jai mitchell:
“Please point me to these studies & analyses & state the evidences to the effect you claim. Thanks.”
Response: nothing relevant. Instead, JM says:
“The problem with you folk here is that you are taking an ideological stance that is aligned along political parties.”
If that is not pure psychological projection, I’ll eat my hat. The alarmist crowd is constantly making this debate political, while skeptics post verifiable facts. jai mitchell is incapable of engaging in a real debate, because he lacks the empirical facts needed to support his AGW/CO2 belief system.
Several of us have now posted facts that deconstruct the demonizing of “carbon”, but the only response we get is jai mitchell’s political screeds. That is not science, that is global warming propaganda.
If mitchell can support his beliefs with real world facts, he needs to post those facts here. Otherwise, he joins the long list of climate alarmists who make baseless assertions, and expect everyone else to accept their beliefs.
The Scientific Method doesn’t work like that. The alarmist crowd makes the conjecture that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. But they cannot support their conjecture with testable facts. No wonder they are losing the scientific debate.
Frank Mlinar says:
June 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm
The observational data of the first plot appears to be very inaccurate.
I had just plotted the last 16 years and not since 1850. However if you do plot from 1850, the only time in 130 years that both CO2 and temperature went up at the same time is during the 27 years from 1975 to 2002. Is it possible that the sun or ocean cycles or CFCs were responsible for this simultaneous rise rather than CO2? See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise
Thanks, Werner, for mentioning the work of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. His papers are one of my most used sources. Good article!
cool sea surface temperatures, according to this site, are caused by increased winds pushing warm water across the sea, leaving the cold water (deeper water) behind. This is called mixing.
Pushed across the sea where? This isn’t mixing at all. Mixing involves moving warmed surface water down into cold water at depth. The problem with this is that warmed surface water literally floats on top of colder water underneath. It is as difficult to push down into the cold water as it is to push a beach ball down underwater (at the appropriate scale). You might want to take a look at the temperature profile of ocean water:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
Note well that the time required for any significant mixing in depth to occur is very, very long. Note also that (as Bob Tisdale has made very clear in repeated studies of sea surface temperatures published in articles on this site) with the exception of ENSO–related events, sea surface temperatures have been nearly perfectly flat over extended periods of time. Since the ocean covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and we are supposedly talking about GLOBAL warming, the fact that ocean temperatures are not rapidly increasing (on the contrary, they are warming at most very, very slowly) is a good thing, is it not?
Finally, it is a bit early to conclude that we know where the “missing heat” is going in spite of claims to the contrary. There are serious problems still with the ARGO data, although there is also hope than in time it will become as reliable as the satellite data. In the meantime, the satellite data is by far the most reliable metric for global temperature out there — it is truly global, for one thing, it isn’t corrupted by sampling bias, “adjustments”, and the UHI effect, and it directly measures the warming of the troposphere, that is, the part of the atmosphere below the stratosphere where we actually live. The satellite data (as indicated above) shows more or less no warming at all for somewhere between twelve and sixteen years. This is strongly confirmed by radiosonde data — soundings — collected by balloons. The warming observed is remarkably less than that predicted by any of the general circulation models — this has to be counted as a significant failure of the physics and/or parameters used in those models.
It is really quite difficult to imagine how all of the heat that should be appearing in the troposphere is instead going into the deep ocean without appearing as surface warming first. Things warm from the inside out, and as I noted above, thermal expansion and Archimedes principle work against downward mixing, which is why almost all of the ocean is at a temperature of 4 C! (See the graph linked above). This is the temperature where water attains its maximum density. To give you an idea of how much “warming” is being claimed for a (comparatively small fraction) of the thermocline — if all of that supposed warming (0.1 C over fifty years, although the article here is not terribly specific about where that warming occurred as it certainly didn’t happen in the deep ocean below the thermocline) were subtracted from the curve on the linked article and plotted on the same graph, you could not possibly distinguish them.
Note well the absurdity of the claim, BTW. The ocean covers 70% of the planet. It is far from homogeneous in temperature anywhere BUT below the thermocline. Even now, there are the merest handful of ARGO buoys compared to the vast, vast area, let alone depth, of the ocean, and ARGO has been semi-complete and taking data on a global basis for at most a handful of years, nothing even close to 50. Any sane estimate of probable error in the temperature estimates obtainable under the best possible circumstances from the best possible instrumentation would surely be many times 0.1 C — remember, they have to measure the temperature profile at depth more or less everywhere in the ocean to get a reliable estimate. So one should probably read this supposed increase as 0.1 C plus or minus 0.3 C or even 0.5 C. Note well that we can measure temperatures on the land far more easily and even there the published estimated errors (when you can find them) are order 0.1 C or more. Yet another reason to trust the satellite data over both the land data and (so far) the sea data.
In the 33 years or so of reliable satellite observations of global troposphere temperatures — which includes the bulk of the so called “hockey stick” — global temperatures have increased at an average, linearized rate of a bit over 0.1 C/decade. Currently they are only 0.17 C or thereabouts over the 30 year mean, and falling. And as noted above, they have been more or less stable ever since the 1997-1998 “Super El Nino” that is almost certainly the proximate cause of the last and only significant warming spell the planet experienced over the entire satellite record, where global temperatures jumped 0.3 C or so in just one year, then fell back, then stabilized around the current flat to slightly decreasing level.
The really funny thing is that there has been no discernible warming from the time that the IPCC succeeded, by dint of Al Gore’s book and movie and an “unprecedented” public relations campaign, in convincing the public that we were certain to warm at a uniform, catastrophic rate for the rest of the century. That prediction, at least, is categorically and manifestly untrue. Perhaps we will one day resume warming. Perhaps not. But we certainly didn’t keep warming as all of the GCMs claimed that we should, which is precisely why everybody is now scrabbling around looking for the missing heat. It is “missing” because it was supposed to warm, and didn’t. The seas were supposed to rise dramatically, and they haven’t, and aren’t. The world’s icepack was all supposed to be dramatically melting, but global ice is almost perfectly normal, with the deficit in the arctic balanced by a substantial (all time record) surplus in the antarctic.
This leaves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in a difficult position. In law it might be called habeus corpus — the need to produce a body before you go around trying somebody for murder.
Is it really so very unreasonable to require nature to produce some actual, definitively athropogenic, global warming before spending trillions of dollars preventing what may be a phantom, and condemning millions of people to a life of misery and poverty and disease and death as a consequence? Because every dollar you spend on inflated energy prices and measures intended to combat global warming condemns somebody in the third world to wait a little bit longer living in an energy impoverished state that you literally cannot imagine living in. You worry about a 0.1 C rise in the ocean temperature, a substantial fraction of which could not possibly have been caused by carbon dioxide. They worry about how to light their huts at night with a small smoky fire, where to find dried cow dung to burn for light and cooking, where to find water that isn’t infected with horrific parasites, how to get medical care for their children and food for their table, all without affordable energy.
If you asked them to vote — take a chance on an additional 1.6 C temperature increase by the end of the century or remain in abjectly miserable energy poverty for the rest of their lives, a human sacrifice to your certain vision of doom and disaster (while you, of course, continue to live with electric lights and clean water throughout) — how do you think they would vote? All 3 or 4 billion of them?
rgb
@rgbatduke
when you said, Pushed across the sea where?
from: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/
What has happened is that when the Pacific gets to a certain threshold warmth (other conditions being equal), the rising air from the heated surface waters of the El Nino reinforces and strengthens the eastern trade winds. And these strengthened winds simply blow the warm surface water mass to the west, where it divides and goes towards both poles. This exposes the atmosphere to the cooler waters from below
when you said,
It is really quite difficult to imagine how all of the heat that should be appearing in the troposphere is instead going into the deep ocean without appearing as surface warming first.
you are again not understanding basic hydrology and surface mixing due to wind and wave action.
what do you suppose causes the thermoclines in the first place???
mixing and pooling in the subsurface layers
when you said,
that is almost certainly the proximate cause of the last and only significant warming spell the planet experienced over the entire satellite record
you are neglecting the fact that the globally warmest years have all been since 2000.
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2012/07/temperaturerankings.jpg
. . .
you have so many misunderstandings about the basics it makes me wonder if you are actually doing this to purposefully lie.
especially when you say,
take a chance on an additional 1.6 C temperature increase by the end of the century or remain in abjectly miserable energy poverty for the rest of their lives
you are assuming 1. that it will only be 1.6C when the real range is going to be from 4-6’C with a final ESS of 8-10C
and
2. That fixing it will lead to poverty.
I ask you only 1 question: regarding number 2 above,
What was the event that caused the U.S. to get out of the great depression and develop a globally defining economic engine?
And, bonus question IF you get that one right.
what was the U.S. response to the event that was the catalyst for the economic growth???