Dana Nuccitelli published an article today in The Guardian Does the global warming “pause” mean what you think it means?…a play off a line by Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride”. Dana has expressed his misunderstanding of one of the most commonly used metrics of global warming—the surface temperature record. And he continues to display his unwillingness to accept that the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead.
Nuccitelli presents Box 3.1 Figure 1 from Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (my Figure 1).
Figure 1
(See the approved Chapter 3 (Observations: Ocean) of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.)
Nuccitelli writes:
The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’.
Nuccitelli is correct that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but he’s incorrect that it applies only to it. The warming of the top 700 meters has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, but more on that later.
The global surface temperature record includes land surface air temperature (measured at 2 meters from the surface) and sea surface temperature measurements. And as a reference, the GISS, NCDC and UKMO global surface temperature products show little (GISS) to no (UKMO & NCDC) warming since January 2001, based on the linear trends. (See Figure 2, which is from the post here.)
Figure 2
Nuccitelli refers his readers to “tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure” (my Figure 1), which is identified by the IPCC as “Atmosphere” in the illustration—not the surface of the oceans.
In their discussion of “Atmosphere” for their Box 3.1, Figure 1, the IPCC explains that the atmospheric component is estimated from lower troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures, based on satellite measurements. The lower troposphere temperature measurements are from the layer that is approximately 3000 meters above sea level.
The IPCC has NOT presented the heat content for the surface of the oceans in their Box 3.1, Figure 1. The ocean surface warming is included in top 700 meters of ocean warming—not in the atmosphere.
# # #
Further to the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1, Dana Nuccitelli forgot to advise his readers that the data in the IPCC’s graph have been smoothed with a 5-year filter, and that the smoothing would hide the slowdown in warming of the oceans at depths of 0 to 700 meters and 700 to 2000 meters. And he has elected not to tell his readers that the quarterly NODC ocean heat content data for the North Atlantic during the ARGO era continues to show very little warming for depths of 0-2000 meters and cooling at depths of 0-700 meters. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 3
He’s overlooked the fact that the ocean heat content data for the North Pacific show cooling at both levels, with the 0-2000 meter data cooling at a lesser rate than the 0-700 meter data. (See Figure 4.)
Figure 4
(Figures 3 and 4 are from the post here. And the data are available here from the NODC website.)
CO2 is supposed to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Obviously, increased CO2 emissions in recent years have had no impact on the ocean heat in the Northern Hemisphere.
# # #
Nuccitelli uses the tired and misleading “atomic bomb” metric:
As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.
The IPCC doesn’t mention Hiroshima atomic bombs anywhere in their Chapter 3; the words “Hiroshima”, “atom”, and “bomb” do not appear in Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s AR5; so don’t think the IPCC is responsible for this nonsensical claim. One would have to assume Nuccitelli is referring to the 0.6 watts/meter^2 imbalance at the surface found in papers like Stephens et al (2013). See Figure 5.
Figure 5
As I wrote in Climate Models Fail:
The total of the downward shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared) radiation is about 534 watts/meter^2, so the estimated imbalance of 0.6 watts/meter^2 is only about 0.1% of the total downward radiation at the surface. Or, in other words, the total amount of downward radiation at the surface is about 890 times more than the difference. Also note the uncertainty in the imbalance. The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. That is, the uncertainties are 28 times greater than the estimated value. Bottom line: the surface imbalance may exist or it may not.
Note: Radiative imbalance is the metric that alarmists like to portray in terms of atomic bombs. What the alarmists fail to tell their readers is that sunlight and natural levels of infrared radiation at the surface are almost 890 times the number of atomic bombs they’re claiming, and that the uncertainties in radiative imbalance are 28 times the radiative imbalance.
# # #
Nuccitelli continues to mislead his readers in that article:
Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.
As I noted in the post Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State, the modelers had to double the rate of the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 31+ years in order to get the modeled land surface air temperatures even close to the observed warming. (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6
So let’s look at the difference between modeled and observed global sea surface temperatures since 1990 to put it into the time period Dana Nuccitelli prefers, Figure 7. “Climate scientists and their models expected” the surface of the global oceans to have warmed at a rate that was almost 3 times faster than observed since 1990.
Figure 7
Three times as fast must mean “as fast as climate scientists and their models expected” in the new climate change doubletalk of global warming enthusiasts.
# # #
Nuccitelli and the global warming enthusiasts from the IPCC like to present global warming in terms that are meaningless to most people, in Joules with lots of zeroes after it. The units in the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1 (my Figure 1) are in Zettajoules or Joules*10^21. But as we’ve illustrated and discussed recently, the warming of the oceans takes on a whole new perspective when we present it in terms familiar to people: deg C. (See Figure 8, which is from the blog post here.) Surface temperatures stopped warming, the warming of the top 700 meters of the oceans has slowed to a crawl, so if there is continued warming at depths of 700 to 2000 meters, it is so miniscule that it’s not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.
Figure 8
# # #
After a long discussion of multidecadal variations in surface temperatures, Nuccitelli’s final paragraph begins:
In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything. It just means that at the moment, more global warming is being absorbed by the oceans, but the next time ocean cycles shift, we’ll experience accelerated surface warming just like we did in the 1990s.
But Nuccitelli misses the obvious. We discussed this in the post Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?:
Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure [9].
Figure 9
FURTHER READING
In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate model failings, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models—and I “translated” those research findings for persons without scientific or technical backgrounds. And as noted earlier, there is also a discussion of the natural warming of the global oceans. The free preview of Climate Models Fail is available here. It includes the Introduction, Table of Contents and the Closing. Climate Models Fail is available in pdf and Kindle formats. Refer to my blog post New Book: “Climate Models Fail” for further information, the synopsis from the Kindle webpage and purchase/download links.
Ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed via natural ocean processes, not from manmade greenhouse gases. This has been addressed in dozens of blog posts here and with cross posts at WattsUpWithThat for almost 5 years. I further discussed this in minute detail in my book Who Turned on the Heat? It is only available in .pdf form. A preview is here. Who Turned on the Heat? is described further in, and is available for sale through, my blog post “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña”.
CLOSING
The hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead. Global warming enthusiasts like Dana Nuccitelli and the IPCC just haven’t come to terms with their losses. They should be burying it with dignity, and moving on to greener pastures, but they’re not. They’ve chosen to parade around a failure of science like a pull toy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Henry P:
1) Are you aware that both of your screen names link to “Hour of Power-SA”?
2) Are you aware that the actual Book of the Bible is titled “Revelation”, not “RevelationS”?
They are looking in the ocean’s as the expected warming in the Troposphere has never materialised. Getting desperate….what is more the less than expected heat from CO2 is merely the real world backing up the principle that CO2’s ability to create heat iis logarithmic and is having less of an effect than previous…they just can’t admit it. There is no pause and if the solar physicists are correct it is going to get an awful lot colder in the coming decades but don’t hold your breat that the AGW will admit anything.
Of course the oceans are cooling – that’s where the extra heat is coming from that stops the atmospheric cooling that should be happening now – just a ‘pause’, when we should be having ‘statistically significant rapid cooling’
HenryP,
The text in Revelation (singular) (c. 60AD) states that the coming world leader will cause all, both small and great, to receive a mark in the right hand or the forehead, and that without it, no one will be able to buy or sell.
Obamacare contains provisions for an implantable data chip, the RFID. The RFID will allow instantaneous access to the Obamacare Data Hub. The Obamacare Data Hub contains files on every American from the following state and federal agencies: “It links the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with seven other federal agencies: the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense, and even the Peace Corps. It will contain such personal information as Social Security numbers, income, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, and health coverage status. And it will be connected to some state agencies.”
Access to these personal files of the Obamacare data hub is granted to “navigators.” These are not neutral groups. ““The rules allow navigators to come from the ranks of unions, health providers and community action groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood,” reported the Examiner. ”
Obamacare is enforceable through the IRS, and is compulsory. Some states have passed resolutions protecting their citizens from being forced to receive any implantable devices. It was a travesty and a miscarriage of justice that Chief Justice John Roberts ruled Obamacare to be constitutional.
Nuccitelli: ”In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything.
Bullcr@p! It did back before they needed an excuse for still being alarmed without surface warming:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf
“ One major uncertainty affecting possible climate change that has not received enough attention is the uncertainty in heat uptake by the deep ocean.”
“According to our results, when climate sensitivity is high, even a small change in the rate of heat uptake causes a significant difference in the predicted surface temperature increase. In the simulation with DTeq = 4.5 C and K = 0 cm2s-1 the surface temperature increase for years 91 to 100 of the integration, DT91-100, is 6.2 C. For heat diffusion with K = 0.5 cm2s-1, DT91-100 is 4.6 C. “
(DTeq = equilibrium sensitivity; K = diffusion coefficient)
The faster heat moves into the deep ocean the longer it takes to reach “equilibrium sensitivity”. The longer it takes to reach equilibrium sensitivity the longer ecosystems/civilizations have to adapt. Even if the equilibrium sensitivity is high (cough, cough) the “effective sensitivity” is reduced by deep ocean heat uptake, taking much of the wind out of the alarmists sails.
What does such deep ocean heat uptake do to effective sensitivity if the equilibrium sensitivity (assuming there is such a value) is low to midline of the official IPCC range?
Bottom line: thanks in part to the massive heat capacity of the deep ocean, climate change may cause us some inconveniences but it’s nothing that should keep you awake at night.
@geran
1) yes, perhaps I hope that people will watch the Hour of Power? (should be possible anywhere in the world)
2) sorry about that, my home language is not English
The heat energy is coming FROM the atmosphere. It goes into the land, the oceans, the ice FROM the atmosphere. If the atmosphere does not heat up first, it cannot be responsible for heating the rest of the planet.
This is not true IF you look at a phase change situation vis-a-vis ice melting or sublimating. However, you still need an energy differential between the two. The air has to STAY warm to melt ice it is above, and if the air temperature is stable above, say, Greenland’s ice, then there is no evidence that CO2 (or anything else) is actually changing anything: you would have to argue that WITHOUT CO2 the air would now be colder.
The final argument for the IPCC narrative will be that the Earth is in a natural cooling state, and without the terrible CO2 effect, we would be roasting. So we just have a little repreive, time to get off fossil fuel. But since we are such quarter-to-quarter thinkers (otherwise the stock market would fundamentally judge corporations on shorter or longer periods of time), CAGW will truly die if they try that final approach.
We need a cold winter and summer of 2014.
Regarding eugenics, population control, and the violation of religious freedom and conscience, Obamacare is so far losing court battles:
“This week, yet another district court halted the Obama Administration from forcing its anti-conscience mandate to provide coverage for abortifacients and contraceptives on unwilling employers. Many employers—religious, secular, nonprofit, and for-profit—believe it violates the free exercise of their faith to comply with this mandate.
This decision brings the scorecard of for-profit cases to 29–5, strongly favoring the free exercise of religion.
The plaintiff in this case is Cherry Creek Mortgage, a family-run home loan provider with 730 employees operated by evangelical Christians according to their faith. Cherry Creek sued the government in March 2013, arguing that the anti-conscience mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.”
Hobby Lobby has also been fighting an expensive court battle to be exempt from Obamacare mandates for morning after pills, etc. Public funding for abortions is also possible under Obamacare. Even if you are not religious, it should alarm you that the law now puts all of the tools of eugenics/population control into the hands of a vast oversized government.
Why do you only present ocean data from the Northern hemisphere/
Brian says (twice): Also, Bob largely ignores the ocean from 700-2000m, which is where Dana says heat is increasing most.
Mark Buehn says: I’m still waiting for somebody to explain to me how heat is supposed to be getting into the deep ocean (where conveniently we have few thermometers) without passing through the shallower layers that we do monitor closely.
There is a simple, logical answer to that, not that that makes it correct: the extra heat from 700-2000m has come from _below_. That way it didn’t have to sneak past the 0-700m layer without being noticed. And then of course it couldn’t be due to atmospheric CO2!
Prove my hypothesis wrong!
Rich.
There is only one significant driver of the average global temperature trend since 1610. It is disclosed at http://conenssti.blogspot.com/
After about 1895, accurate temperature measurements were made world wide and revealed the natural oscillations above and below the sunspot-number-time-integral-trajectory. The oscillations are caused by the net effect of ocean cycles (which are dominated by the PDO). The resulting graph and physics-based equation that accurately (R2=0.9) calculates the measured anomaly trend are shown at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
If, somehow, ocean temperatures were increasing, the atmosphere above it should also rise. After all, we see exactly that with El Ninos.
But RSS numbers tell the opposite story.They show a small, but falling trend for the Lower Troposphere over oceans.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/mummy-the-oceans-eaten-my-heat/
I left the following comment on the Guardian blog. Dana responded that his analysis was correct, but wouldn’t address the actual question, even after he was challenged again. After a few volleys with him and a couple of supporters, comments were suddenly closed, and this comment and all responses disappeared without a trace. Now we all know the ocean heat content data is very suspect, but if the data is correct, then the IPCC has gone a long way toward disproving AGW, and proving Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory. What they are suggesting is the equivalent of saying that you can fry an egg without the pan heating up. It is nonsensical. Dana specifically stated that enough heat has gone into the oceans to heat the atmosphere 60 degrees F. Yet, he would have you believe it has passed through the atmosphere without leaving a trace. This is impossible.
The comment on Dana’s blog post:
There are several obvious problem’s with Dana’s analysis. First, warming due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 has no mechanism to warm the oceans directly without first warming the atmosphere, which then in turn heats the oceans. There is simply no way for all the heat that is alleged to be accumulating in the oceans to simply pass through the atmosphere without warming it. This theory has no credibility whatsoever without an explanation of how and why this is happening.
If on the other hand, the oceans are warming but the atmosphere is not, then we have a very good explanation for it that does not involve AGW. Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of global warming, recently confirmed experimentally again, postulates just that: warming of the oceans without warming of the atmosphere.
http://www.dtu.dk/english/News/Nyhed?id={ABB2F1B4-F5F7-4452-BB39-9818EA7CB8F9}
Brian says:
October 18, 2013 at 9:30 am
…
I believe you are stringing together a bunch of red herring arguments that are true on their own, but don’t directly tackle Nuccitelli’s article.
SO if your concerns were merely a matter of faith, why didn’t you say so? Bob was talking data.
Brian says, “Bob, your reply to me doesn’t really address the points I was making.”
Actually my reply to you addresses all of the points you tried (and failed) to make. The fact that you can’t grasp them all is telling.
Brian, no one here can hope to find your comments credible when they contain such obvious falsehoods. You wrote in your second comment on this thread, “Your discussions of figures 3-4 revolved around decreases in 0-700m and near-flat trends in 0-2000m, and only the Atlantic.”
That’s as far as anyone needs to read, Brian. You refer to my Figures 3 and 4 in your comment. Figure 3 presents OHC (0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters) for the North Atlantic and Figure 4 presents OHC for the North Pacific, same depths. And then you state that my presentation is for “only the Atlantic”. Your falsehoods are so obvious they’re laughable.
You’re wasting your time here, Brian, and mine. If this is your first attempt at being a troll, you need to find something else to do. You make a terrible troll.
Adios.
Nuttifruiticelli is well, nutty. Science is not his venue, hype fear and twisted propaganda is.
Dingo and a few others;
Why? Is nuttifruiticelli peer reviewed? Which peer reviewed article did the atomic blast statement come from?
Can you say ‘cherry picked’ and ‘slanted’?
Get a life!
Good article and good catch of the fruitnut salad waste of time.
Bob gave me a link to all the oceanic currents at the surface and below that transport “rivers of water” from one area of the globe to another. These currents sometimes are at the surface only to dive again somewhere else.
Thinking out loud: Given the interwoven complexity of currents at and below sea level, it stands to reason that a warmed pool of water could show up in a particular area of the ocean from the side instead of from above, giving the impression that the below sea level area has warmed where it sits somewhat magically, especially when a time series clearly shows that warmth did not descend from above.
It stands to reason then to question warming at any depth. Did it warm through direct SWIR? LWIR? Wave induced surface mixing? Or did it ride there on a below sea level river? And which one of these sources of below sea level warming is a direct result of LWIR heating due to anthropogenic CO2 in the air above sea level?
Oops, I forgot your closing.
Brian says: “I believe you are stringing together a bunch of red herring arguments that are true on their own, but don’t directly tackle Nuccitelli’s article.”
I quoted Nuccitelli’s article 4 times. The quotes were not taken out of context. There were no distractions or misdirection on my part. My arguments addressed each of those quotes. Therefore, they are not red herrings as you describe.
Curiously, you’re doing what you’re accusing me of doing. And it’s blatantly obvious to everyone reading this thread. It’s a nice debate strategy…until someone (like me) calls it to everyone’s attention.
Have a nice day.
Brian, if you’re using the comments on the SkepticalScience cross post of Nuccitelli article as the source for your comments…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html#commenthead
…and it appears you might be, you need to find a better source.
Gareth Phillips says: “Dana N. sets out his rationale on Skeptical Science, http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html I’ll also link Bobs response on that site. I’d be very interested to see Dana’s response to Bobs analysis of the situation.”
Gareth, Dana’s “rationale”, as you put it, was simply a cross post of the article from the Guardian. But you did get a reply out of him:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html#99013
Dana wrote, “As usual Tisdsale is still focusing on surface temperatures and ignoring ocean temperatures.”
Hmm. Dana overlooked Figures 3, 4 and 8 just like Brian did on thus thread,
Dana wrote, “He does have a valid point that 0-700m ocean warming has slowed a bit, but only because 700-2000m ocean warming has accelerated.”
And as I showed in my Figure 8, ocean heat content at depths of 700-2000 meters is a useless metric. If the oceans below 700 meters are continuing to warm (big if), the rise in temperature is so small it’s meaningless.
Dana wrote, “He’s guilty of the same type of cherry picking I discussed above, just regarding surface ocean temps in addition to surface air temps.”
There was no cherry picking on my part in my presentations of satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data versus models. The Reynolds OI.v2 dataset starts in November 1981 and so does my graph in Figure 6. The start year of 1990 in my Figure 7 was chosen by Nuccitelli, not me.
Bottom line, Gareth: Dana has to rely on untruths, falsehoods, fabrications, misrepresentations, however you’d like to characterize his statement. That’s not unusual coming from global warming enthusiasts.
Regards
“Bob Tisdale says:
October 18, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Brian, if you’re using the comments on the SkepticalScience cross post of Nuccitelli article as the source for your comments…you need to find a better source.”
I would say anyone using SkS As a source needs to find a better source, unless they are using it as a source of “ShonKy Science”.
🙂
Nuccitelli is a propagandist. He does not understand the topic beyond what can be used for screams.
Here’s the problem with Nutter-telli’s explanation:
The argument goes 17 years of no warming is too small a time frame to identify a trend (first it was 5 years, then 10, then 15 etc . . .), and the warming did actually occur, but has been hidden in the ocean.
The problem with this argument is that ARGO has only been around since 2000, and before that ocean temp data was spotty at best. Therefore only 13 years of reliable data are available, which is of course to short of a time frame to detect a trend.
So, if you are claiming the 17 year “pause” is not long enough, than 13 years is certainly not. And by logic, you can not say the oceans are warming, or cooling, or staying the same.
Joe says: “Why do you only present ocean data from the Northern hemisphere”
I assume you’re referring to Figures 3 and 4, Joe. First a note: The start year of that graph is dictated by the NODC. They only present the annual ocean heat content data from the depths of 0-2000 meters starting in 2005, which is when the ARGO floats had complete coverage of the global oceans. See the NODC data webpage here:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly/h22-w0-2000m.dat
During the ARGO era, the North Atlantic and North Pacific show little to no warming at depths of 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters. That indicates any warming of the global oceans at those depths must be happening in the Southern Hemisphere oceans. The global warming enthusiasts can’t claim the warming in the Southern Hemisphere oceans is caused by manmade greenhouse gases without explaining why those same manmade greenhouse gases aren’t warming the Northern Hemisphere oceans.
That’s been one of my primary messages at my blog and here at WUWT. Global data is a lousy metric to use to portray global warming, because when the data is broken down into logical subsets, it reveals things that aren’t apparent in the global data.
Bob, I’m not sure you know what a red herring is. You seem to think you rebutted an article by picking out 4 quotes but dodging the main points. And once again you picked out incorrect statements in my complaints (yes, I should have said northern hemisphere and not Atlantic) without addressing the main point. It’s hard to find a better example of a red herring.
Your response to Joe does more to address Nuccitelli than your entire blog post, since it directly deals with heat content of the deep global oceans. The fact remains that you do not discuss that topic in your post. And no, saying that people do not understand joules is not a discussion.
I do not read skeptical science. I read the article you linked to at the Guardian. Nor am I a troll, just someone who uses logic. Do you think anyone who raises complaints is a troll? I’m simply pointing out logical fallacies. I don’t disagree with your arguments in a vacuum, but to claim that they make AGW dead is a bit extreme, and to say that they discredit Nuccitelli is even more so.