Thanks to Skeptical Science and ScienceFrontier for making this video possible. We can now see the error of our ways.
Consider this a bonus Friday Funny. h/t to Josh.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Priceless. Funny yes, but with a few serious points to be made too.
Felix;
I gotta support you on this one. Taking temperatures from one spot and suggesting they are representative of the entire earth is just silly, ridiculous, and completely over the top stupid. Would you please co-sign a letter from me to the IPCC pointing this and demanding that they remove their use of tree ring studies from a handful of trees in Siberia as evidence of global temperatures? If you’d like, we could include also a whole bunch of proxy studies from all over the planet using a variety of proxies that would be much more informative. Here’s a list of the ones I had in mind:
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
I’m looking forward to working with you on this!
“So the extremely minor changes in Greenland now mean what? BTW, this past summer was the coolest northern latitudes arctic circle Ts recorded in the satellite era.”
We can put the puzzle together now with the rest of the globe available for study and measurement. The Greenland ice-core data stands as a unique record of an extreme climate it is not a proxy for the whole globe. Currently we see changes commensurate with warming locally and we can see that the world is warming globally (taking out natural cycles such as ENSO/PDO which merely redistribute heat and don’t make it). The ice-core data shown on the “joke” runs through a period of large NH solar variation, and if only for that is not comparable with the last 150 years. But likewise also the implication that the rest of the globe has seen similar large variations during that time. ~ –29C to –33C translates to the current ave global temp varying from 13C to 17C does it? (I hope rhetorical) As I said, apples, pears and bananas.
Yes, the Arctic did have a cold summer – it’s what saved the melt there from being another “outlier” ( beyond 2sd’s from the mean ) as it is, it only returned the ice-loss to the falling trend line. And BTW one season is called weather just like last summer the US’s record heat was weather.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png
“…… Here is the long view of global temperatures. Notice where we are today.
The planet is now in a protracted cool period. It could warm up by several degrees, and still not reach average temperatures. Thus, the entire alarmist scare is based on nonsense. “
And
“Would you please co-sign a letter from me to the IPCC pointing this and demanding that they remove their use of tree ring studies from a handful of trees in Siberia as evidence of global temperatures? If you’d like, we could include also a whole bunch of proxy studies from all over the planet using a variety of proxies that would be much more informative. Here’s a list of the ones I had in mind:”
Would that include the tree-ring proxy data that Jones removed in his “trick” and instead replaced with real data? For a graph in a magazine and not a peer-reviewed paper.
You know the “Climategate” thing.
Err, are you (both) really suggesting that because the Earth’s climate has varied enormously over geological time – then that is a proxy for it doing so now? When we know that orbital eccentricity rules and CO2 follows (normally – carbon cycle) and that albedo from ice/snow (either way) and CO2 (warming – via slowing of outgoing LW) will be major feedbacks. Not to mention continental drift and a weaker sun millions of years ago. Look, we know the (recent) behaviour of the sun to within fractions of a percent and we can measure incoming SW and outgoing LW such that we see an imbalance. That’s the basic problem. Energy in exceeds energy out. All the internal chaos in the world will not make that equation different. The oceans store >90 of the climate heat and that isn’t cooling – it’s warming. Deep sea temps have increased by 0.065C globally (see Lubis Motl) which equates to 65C if (instantaneously) transferred to the atmosphere. If there were a hidden cycle (of stored heat) driving industrial warming then the deep ocean would have cooled as that heat passed to air (unless you invoke heat from the seabed). Look at a graph of ENSO’s – you can see that whatever the colour (Nino or Nina) the trend line is upwards. So THE major climatic cycle (as has operated since around 2005 to slow GW ) lies ON TOP of the major warming driver.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf
Much “we know” ‘We know”.
Well TB if you “know so much about weather cycles, why are the modelled projections of future climate, so far off reality?
Is it possible, we do not know, what we think we know?
TB;
If you want to be an effective communicator you need to state who you are attributing each quote to, and from which comment. Very difficult to sift through your responses to see who you are replying to and in which context.
I answer your question to me by suggesting you read the comment again. The answer is in the comment.
As for this comment:
TB
December 7, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Deep sea temps have increased by 0.065C globally (see Lubis Motl) which equates to 65C if (instantaneously) transferred to the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aside from the measurement being a guestimate based on a variety of suspect measurements and worse, suspect extrapolations from those suspect measurement, this statement is actually meaningless. There is no physical process by which energy from the ocean can instantaneously be transferred to the atmosphere. In fact, if 90% of the warming is in fact going into the oceans, then we’ve got thousands of years before we have to worry about any significant temperature increase of land and atmosphere.
very clever…..well done
“davidmhoffer says:
December 7, 2013 at 12:47 pm
TB;
If you want to be an effective communicator you need to state who you are attributing each quote to, and from which comment. Very difficult to sift through your responses to see who you are replying to and in which context.”
Fair point (I was being lazy – it’s not my usual method) and I will/have rectified…
“… this statement is actually meaningless. There is no physical process by which energy from the ocean can instantaneously be transferred to the atmosphere. In fact, if 90% of the warming is in fact going into the oceans, then we’ve got thousands of years before we have to worry about any significant temperature increase of land and atmosphere.”
No, it’s not meaningless (though it is impossible as I meant in the OP) – it is a measure of the energy stored in the oceans which have a mass 1000x that of the atmosphere. You need to look at Joules and it’s 2.6×10^22 increase in 45 years (Motl).
Put that into the atmosphere and you would get 65C rise.
I didn’t say it was meaningful, as obviously an instantaneous transfer is IMPOSSIBLE. It’s merely a conceptional comparison.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
Why, he’s a skeptic isn’t he ? and he believes the measurements.
Also you said …
“In fact, if 90% of the warming is in fact going into the oceans, then we’ve got thousands of years before we have to worry about any significant temperature increase of land and atmosphere.”
The whole system should be in balance. That’s the point. The heat in oceans and air should be static given a balance between SW in and LW out, bar a small exchange between that the SST’s redistribute to the air. The 90% oceans 10% air is just the equilibrium differential of heat stored. It doesn’t flow out at the exclusion of the balance point. It should remain that way due the physical properties of the mass of water in the oceans and the mass of air in the atmosphere.
“john robertson says:
December 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
Much “we know” ‘We know”.
Well TB if you “know so much about weather cycles, why are the modeled projections of future climate, so far off reality?
Is it possible, we do not know, what we think we know?”
Is it possible we know what we know correctly? Given the wealth of science behind – on the balance of probability, yes, overwhelmingly so. I’d rather go with that than the minority and lesser probability.
They are not far off reality…
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article
GCM’s do not capture internal chaos (just as a in boiling pan of water it matters not how the H2O molecules move around we can know exactly when the water will reach boiling and how much energy is needed ( given known starting conditions)). An ensemble technique is used in GCM’s which due to addition/meaning smoothes out any major variations. Individual members show “pauses” but are meaningless due the unknown lengths of cycles such as ENSO/PDO. And no, that is not a fail as the cycle will play out warm-cold-warm (yet still the overlying warming continues).
In other words the chaos oft quoted in climate is largely internal (as analogy) and we come back to the fundamental >> Energy in vs Energy out. It’s not balanced.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf
Felix says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928
Alarmists still cite marcott – Demonstrates how little the alarmists respect or understand science – it further demonstrates how easily fooled they are.
Barry sez
Speaking of changing the subject, since you put that in quotes, I would think you are quoting someone on this thread.
Who?
Alarmists still cite marcott – Demonstrates how little the alarmists respect or understand science – it further demonstrates how easily fooled they are.
–Scientists still cite marcott — Demonstrating how skeptics have not yet produced real and effective criticism within the peer reviewed documentation of marcott’s paper, showing how easily fooled they are.
TB;
Why, he’s a skeptic isn’t he ? and he believes the measurements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being a skeptic doesn’t make your information right anymore than being a warmist makes your information wrong. Bob Tisdale has written several articles regarding the manner in which the heat content is calculated. Sorry, no links at hand, but once you read through them you’ll see what I mean about the values being suspect. If we suppose however that the values are correct, the bottom line is that heat capacity being about 1200 times that of the atmosphere, the atmosphere cannot heat any faster than the ocean. So, a teeny tiny change in temp in the ocean can only drive a teeny tiny change in temp in the atmosphere. It matters not in the least how many joules of energy are involved. If you hook up two fully charged car batteries in parallel, +ve to +ve and -ve to -ve, nothing happens. Make one of them a millionth of a volt higher than the other and then something happens. But not much. It doesn’t matter if the battery with the higher voltage is as big as a house, the energy flux is defined by the voltage, and at 1 millionth of a volt difference, diddly squat happens.
“davidmhoffer says:
December 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm
TB;
Why, he’s a skeptic isn’t he ? and he believes the measurements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being a skeptic doesn’t make your information right anymore than being a warmist makes your information wrong. Bob Tisdale has written several articles regarding the manner in which the heat content is calculated. Sorry, no links at hand, but once you read through them you’ll see what I mean about the values being suspect. If we suppose however that the values are correct, the bottom line is that heat capacity being about 1200 times that of the atmosphere, the atmosphere cannot heat any faster than the ocean. So, a teeny tiny change in temp in the ocean can only drive a teeny tiny change in temp in the atmosphere. It matters not in the least how many joules of energy are involved. If you hook up two fully charged car batteries in parallel, +ve to +ve and -ve to -ve, nothing happens. Make one of them a millionth of a volt higher than the other and then something happens. But not much. It doesn’t matter if the battery with the higher voltage is as big as a house, the energy flux is defined by the voltage, and at 1 millionth of a volt difference, diddly squat happens.”
David ..
Yes, indeed I do appreciate that “diddly squat will happen”.
I merely make the point that energy in the oceans is increasing and given the specific heat of water and comparative mass differentials – then it is significant and a measure that the heat added to the atmosphere does not come from the oceans ( as it would cool in transfer ). I agree it will not effectively “flow out” but it’s been PUT IN. So where is GW coming from? If not from the measured Solar in vs LW out imbalance.
From: http://uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/purkeyjohnson_2010.pdf
“The upper 3000m of the global ocean has been estimated to warm at a rate equivalent to a heat flux of 0.20 W m^2 applied over the entire surface of the earth between 1955 and 1998 with most of that warming contained in the upper 700 m of the water column (Levitus et al. 2005). From 1993 to 2008 the warming of the upper 700m of the global ocean has been reported as equivalent to a heat flux of 0.64 (+/-0.11) W m^2 applied over the earth’s surface area (Lyman et al. 2010). Here, we showed the heat uptake by AABW contributes about another 0.10 W m^2 to the global heat budget. Thus, including the global abyssal ocean and deep Southern Ocean in the global heat budget could increase the estimated ocean heat uptake over the last decade or so by roughly 16%.”
And
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
Shades of South Park! Thanks so much Paul Clark for the great laugh (and more importantly the implicit debunking of some “warmist” memes)!! I’ve passed it along to friends.
TB;
If not from the measured Solar in vs LW out imbalance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, I regret that I do not have a convenient link to provide you, but the best estimates from the IPCC themselves are an imbalance of 0.6w/m2….+/- 17.0 w/m2 which is short hand for “we haven’t a clue”. Plus, the measurements to which you refer are suspect as the majority of the time period was well before the Argo buoy era. Coverage by the Argo buoys is poor, but usable. Coverage prior to that is a joke.
John,
My initial post was a joke inspired by the video. But you can see a proponent of the view I described upthread here.
That gave me some inspiration, too.
The sarc in the video is basically the old “climate has changed before!” talking point. It’s an empty argument, but taken seriously, as can seen by the some of the acclaim on this thread. As if this information is a devastating point that is overlooked by the “warmistas.”
But rather than talk about that I thought I’d try to make a joke out of it, in keeping with the tone of the vid.
“0.6w/m2….+/- 17.0 w/m2 which is short hand for ‘we haven’t a clue.” (David Hoffer at 5:01pm today). Precisely! And well said, lol.
****************************************
Dear Barry,
Apparently (from your post this evening at 5:53pm) you are unfamiliar with the “arguments” that the AGW crowd regularly assert in their attempt to perpetuate their Cult of Climastrology alarmism.
AGWer: This warming is “unprecedented!!” This warming is “greater than ever before,” it’s going to “kill the planet”!!!!!
Realist: The climate has changed before. In fact, it was much warmer during many eras in the past. Your alarm is unfounded.
We just meet them where we find them. And, given the high calibre of many of the WUWT scientists (for instance, David Hoffer, above) who bother to address the AGWer’s inanity, our side is truly stooping to conquer.
If your little boy, on his first trip to the seashore, cried: Daddy! The water has come up over the whole beach! It’s going to flood our cabin!!
Would you answer with an encyclopaedia article’s worth of information about the moon and the ocean and tidal physics? The scientists on this site (and in a video such as was posted) could do just that (v. a v. the issues presented). In fact, they often do try, but the S!si!s and the Ja! M!tche!!s and the P!ppens and Poppens NEVER indicate that they understand what they are being with such exquisite accuracy, care, and patience, taught. Hence, the use of basic, VERY basic, refutation.
Like this: It’s okay, son. The water does that regularly. It has been up this high many times before.
I think you give far to much credit to the AGWers for rational thought.
Further, ridicule can be a very effective technique to prevent those readers who are considering joining the Cult from falling for their silly conjecture.
Also, remember that there is another, very good, purpose for videos such as that one: boosting the morale of the fighters for truth in science.
Hoping you understand me and glad you are here,
Janice
Janice Moore;
And, given the high calibre of many of the WUWT scientists (for instance, David Hoffer, above)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heh. Believe it or don’t, but I am not a scientist. In fact, I’m a salesman. Yep, I am the incarnation of dirt. I am so low I have to reach up to scratch the belly of a snake. Sure, I sell some really complicated stuff to people who do really complicated things and I have to understand a lot of science to have a meaningful conversation with them, but I’m not a scientist. For the record, I prefer davidmhoffer.
As for Barry, well, in addition to Janice’s points above, I’d observe that 10+ years ago, skeptics were ridiculed for claiming that the warming of the 1990’s was within natural variability. Now you come along and claim that this is something that the alarmists in fact didn’t overlook at all. In fact, some warmists are claiming that the current “pause” is due to the natural variability they previously ridiculed skeptics for pointing to. LOL. Not only do you want to have your cake and eat it too, you also want it to instantly be a pie instead of a cake as the mood suits you.
davidmhoffer,
Thank you for correcting my misimpression about your formal education. I hope that you will come to see my mistake as a compliment all the same (even more so, really). In your place, I would have been very pleased to have been mistaken for one of the Science Giants (Bart is one, for sure!) of WUWT.
Please forgive me for taking liberties with your name.
Janice
Janice,
as I said to Jim – that the climate has changed in the past (and been warmer) is a surprise to no one, but it is used as a talking point for some, as if that scotches the notion of AGW.
To keep the tone light, I’ll make another joke to make the point.
Arson? I’m sorry, there were forest fires before humans came along, so humans cannot be the cause of any current forest fires.
Here’s another one.
When the planet was being formed it was 1000C hotter than now. Yet humanity is flourishing!
I think the video is funny, but it becomes less so when people take it seriously. It’s a non sequitir, not an argument, but it seems it is being mistaken for one.
And back to our regular programming….
How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
Nah, different Paul Clark. It’s all too common a name unfortunately. I’ll have to call myself “Paul Clark — not the Wood For Trees guy”.
Oh, and Janice,
Where I’ve seen “unprecedented” used to describe current climate condiditons, it almost always refers to the pace of some factor, not the degree, or it is qualified within a certain time frame, like the holocene, or the quaternary period. I’ve never seen anyone assert that AGW will “kill the planet”, but I’m sure some nutter somewhere has said it.
The issue highlighted for me in the comments here is that there is a big disconnect between what is said in popular science blogs and what critics say is said in those blogs. Eg, the clearest example on this thread….
And this kind of misinterpretation pervades more subtley in other comments.
BTW, I am not alarmed. I have no emotional attachment to the issue or the future. Many commentators on both sides seem ‘alarmist’ to me – whether foretelling economic destitution under carbon pricing or warning of climate catastrophe.
Barry says there are alarmists on both sides….
Carbon taxes don’t alarm you?
Useless windmills killing 600,000 bats (cbs news) doesn’t
Alarm you?
Co2 carbon capture fantasies don’t alarm you?
Propaganda by gore et al doesn’t alarm you?
Billions of dollars in the U.S. and Europe wasted on a problem
That does not exist doesn’t alarm you?
Climategate.Mann’s hockey stick,
It alarms me and it pisses me off.
……,…………..
Barry says….howw many scientists does it take to change
A lightbulb? None, if it’s not broken.
Barry says….how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
If they are CAGW alarmists, none – they won’t change it, arguing that if it cannot be switched on it won’t consume electricity so the generating station will not emit carbon.
If they are CAGW sceptics or deniers, one. He just uses common sense.
barry;
I’ve never seen anyone assert that AGW will “kill the planet”, but I’m sure some nutter somewhere has said it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seriously? For years, that is ALL we heard. For years, it wasn’t called AGW it was called CAGW with the C standing for Catastrophic. The story line was constant and continuous. We had to cut back CO2 emissions enormously, even though doing so would cast billions into poverty and starvation because the alternative was even worse. You are either very new to the debate and hence startlingly misinformed, or you are just a troll doing what trolls do.
barry
As it happens BTW, James Hansen, former head of NASA/GISS, has an opinion piece running on CNN right now. So dire are the results of CAGW that he is arguing that the courts should compel the government to reduce emissions or the result will be catastrophic.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/opinion/hansen-climate-last-chance/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
This is the drivel we have heard over and over again for decades. Not just from Hansen when he was head of NASA/GISS, but from his counterparts the world over. The ClimateGate emails even reveal discussions among the leading climiate researchers world wide regarding how much exaggeration to employ with the public. The head of the IPCC admitted that claims of Himalayan glacier melt were known to be false when they were included in AR4, but were included anyway to deliberately scare people.
An entire industry has emerged driven by alarmism that cannot be substantiated, and you are here now claiming that this was only something a nutter or two said. Talk about re-writing history!