Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
![cold[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cold1.png?resize=537%2C543)
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
Josh writes in with a new cartoon.
This is a spoof on the xkcd.com/1321/ cartoon that was doing the Twitter rounds the other day.
First, the XKCD cartoon on global warming:
Now, here’s Josh’s spoof of it:
I love the way history always starts around 1970 whenever we are discussing global warming.
Brilliant.
When I saw XKCD I was so disappointed because he didn’t acknowledge the actual temperature records.
worse, he claimed to have them. But he didn’t.
Still like his take on Correlation though.
What’s the source for the HS “was a mistake” claim?
Mark W, be fair, sometimes it starts in 1979 when Arctic Sea Ice was at all-time satellite era high.
omnologos , that was after the XKCD cartoon came out. It was the House of Commons DECC committee on AR5.
Three leading UK alarmist scientists were asked about errors in AR3 and the answer was “Mistakes were made”.
Check out the videos that are linked on the comments of the live coverage and the article that reports on Guido – both on WUWT,
Chuck L says:
“Mark W, be fair, sometimes it starts in 1979 when Arctic Sea Ice was at all-time satellite era high”
…and scientists were panicking about Global Cooling because the ice was increasing at an “unprecedented rate”
Don’t forget that part
For the spoof to be complete, it should have some interesting mouseover text.
Unfrozen Caveman beat me to it. By habit I went for the mouseover and it wasn’t there.
I’d say his own cartoon made his interlocutor’s point for him: used to be a handful of days below zero every year. Then for a while there weren’t. Now there are again.
So much for global warming.
@Josh:
Much as I love your political cartoons, XKCD is a geek cartoon and one of the greatest ever. Your stuff really falls flat when compared to true wit, such as found in your target. Randall has said so many witty things, maybe he now thinks wit can substitute for research. It is difficult to embarrass such people if they don’t agree to it.
I don’t think anybody here was making the “St. Louis is cold this winter” argument. What I recall are a few comments pointing out that CONUS has had declining temperatures for the past ten years. (Maybe there’s a cartoon in that.)
I expected this from the cartoon. While it is witty, it is very much a quasi-elitest cartoon written by someone who knows (and wears on his arm) how smart he is. Once I knew my boss, who is a good boss but an admitted filthy hippy, started quoting them, my taste for the cartoon soured. After he started using this cartoon in his casual mentions of how a cold day proved global warming, I decided to politely keep my mouth shut, plug-in the headphone, and stick to my work.
JDN says:
February 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm
@Josh:
Much as I love your political cartoons, XKCD is a geek cartoon and one of the greatest ever. Your stuff really falls flat when compared to true wit, such as found in your target. Randall has said so many witty things, maybe he now thinks wit can substitute for research. It is difficult to embarrass such people if they don’t agree to it.
—————
XKCD is witty? That’s news to me. I don’t mind some of their cartoons. But XKCD is wrong so often that I wouldn’t be putting it up on a pedestal. It’s mostly a circle jerk for like minded people.
Someone please tell me if I’m doing a mistake here.
Using the SkepSci temp trend calculator, default settings of 12 month moving average and °C/decade units, and not fussing too fine (1/4 year steps), GISTEMP land+ocean yields 0.106 +/- 0.108 from 1995.75 to 2014, so that’s at least 18.25 years without provable warming, amount is still below uncertainty.
(Note: Elsewhere I posted yesterday it was 0.106 +/- 0.107 from 1996.75 to 2014, 17.25 years, but I just double-checked and now it says as above.)
NOAA land+ocean yields 0.088 +/- 0.095 from 1994.75 to 2014, thus at least 19.25 years.
HADCRUT4 land+ocean yields 0.095 +/- 0.098 from 1994.75 to 2014, thus also at least 19.25 years.
Satellite records, RSS yields 0.118 +/- 0.120 from 1989.5 to 2014, thus over 24.5 years without provable global warming.
UAH yields 0.152 +/- 0.152 from 1993.5 to 2014, so 20.5 years where technically there might have absolutely no warming at all.
So the “17 year plateau” is only close for GISTEMP, on average “The Pause” has been at least 20.35 years, just over two decades with no provable warming.
Is that correct, or is that SkepSci tool not working right? Tell me what you think.
“You’re from St Louis, right?” There’s a phrase that could be used to death. Here goes:
You’re from St Louis, right? On average, the Thames used to freeze about every year and people would hold so-called Frost Fairs on it. It was an annual tradition. But we haven’t had a year like that since the early 1800s.
You’re from St Louis, right? From the late 60s through the early 70s the alarm of the day was Global Cooling. There are many documented articles on the phenomenon. But we haven’t had a Time Magazine article like it since 1974.
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
At February 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm you ask
Sorry, but that is not correct.
You cannot average the averages: it is meaningless, especially when the different estimates use different methods.
What you can do is state the maximum and minimum estimates to present a range.
So you can say something like
All the estimates of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) indicate there is no trend of warming or cooling which is discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence for at least 17 years, and RSS says 24.5 years.
Richard
Yet another skewer from Josh. Well done.
very funny. however, it can’t beat this! one taxpayer-funded CAGW loony down, thousands to go:
3 Feb: Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: Michael Mazengarb: Why I quit climate’s dark art
If you are a public servant and passionately disagree with government policies, and you believe it no longer respects the “advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence”, then quit.
As the story goes, in the world of Harry Potter, a magical quill records the names of newborn wizards and witches who are destined to study magic.
I’ve occasionally joked that such a quill exists in Canberra, which records the name of every child born and the government department for which they are destined to work when they reach 21.
The fact the acronym of the agency I ended up being employed by – Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator – was pronounced the same way as Harry Potter’s eventual profession (a badass Dark Arts fighting ”Auror”), helped me to perpetuate this idea in my head. I also have a scar on my forehead from a dramatic childhood incident with a postal van. So, I’m basically the lame Australian Public Service version of Harry Potter.
Why am I telling this story of mostly nonsense?…
I enjoyed working in the public service, as it felt like I was making a real difference, and I worked with some amazingly intelligent and passionate people.
However, the party couldn’t last forever and, inevitably, we had a change of government.
The problem for me, and for climate and energy policy, was this change of leadership was only ever going to be catastrophic for the environment. We went from a government that understood and acknowledged the need to limit Australia’s contribution to climate change to one dominated by climate change sceptics***…
You can avoid the need for a self-inflicted Imperius Curse by seeking to instigate the change you want to see, by doing so outside of the public service.
And that’s why I quit.
(Michael Mazengarb is an energy market analyst and until last week worked for a federal government agency responsible for major climate change and renewable energy programs)
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-i-quit-climates-dark-art-20140202-31v2o.html
***if only!
“It IS too cold.”
That is the take away line.
Given the choice, people prefer warmer to colder temperatures.
pat says (February 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm): “one taxpayer-funded CAGW loony down, thousands to go:”
Don’t let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya, Michael! 🙂
@Kadaka and @richard. I believe we should enhance their own arguments and state: “The ensemble mean of GISS/NOAA/HADRUT4/UAH and RSS implies that there has been no global warming for 20.35 years.” Let them blubber about that the ensemble would be incorrect and then make them acknowledge that for the IPCC ensemble mean of models is inappropriate at best and downright fraud from scientists with any math skills.
@ richardscourtney on February 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm:
Thank you, Richard. I’m pretty sure the averaging of averages and mixing of methodologies is occurring during the sausage making at NOAA-NCDC which is then thrown back into the grinder with added spices for GISTEMP, but it’s certainly not a good practice. The advice on the wording is also appreciated.
So over 18 years on the low end without provable global warming, and certain (C)AGW-pushers are saying we shouldn’t discount their projections due to the only 12 year old pause in warming? The dissonance is deafening.
David, UK~ Upon an argument with someone who claimed humans were responsible for the lack of Frost Fairs, I had found two times when the Thames Has frozen over recently- if I recall rightly, 1945(?), and 1963.
“Much as I love your political cartoons, XKCD is a geek cartoon and one of the greatest ever.”
Really? The weather network loves this stuff but I see it more like a less sophisticated version of the kind of material Gary Trudeau draws and writes; about as subtle as a forging hammer.
“First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is”
It would seem the the faux intellectualism at XKCD failed to grasp the delicious irony of what they wrote.
@ Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) on February 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm:
From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524252/How-Londoners-celebrated-River-Thames-freezing-frost-fairs-ice.html, from Museum of London’s curator of archaeological collections Meriel Jeater:
Thus it was a case of obstructed river flow that lead to the Thames freezing, not the temperature/climate.
So technically humans are responsible for the lack of Frost Fairs, by putting up a different bridge.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) and richardscourtney
Its 12 years – and whilst year to year differences have been small, 9 of the warmest 10 years have been since (and including 2002).
Didn’t the engineering done on the Thames to control flooding pretty much guarantee that it can’t freeze over?
Please add a mouseover text “flashback to 1975” with link to spoof cartoon of characters as stick kids during Chicago heat wave. Same dialogue but w temp reversal.
From James Abbott on February 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm:
Now dearie, I have shown my work. You need to show where you got your numbers or teacher will have to rap your knuckles with the ruler for telling unsubstantiated non-truths. Got it?
The cartoon is classic warmists sleight of hand. Their theory is global warming, as measured by the the global mean temperature anomaly. Now we all know it’s on a so-called pause. But what do they talk about? The frequency of cold days in St. Louis. Sorry Warmists, stick to discussing your beloved global mean temperature anomaly.
Oh goody, a cartoon chart. I wonder if it has any basis in reality. Has St. Louis
temperature not dropped below freezing even one day since 1998?
My disappointment with XKCD has to do with the absence of hot days.
“1954, 1963 and 1936 had more days greater than 90F. 1936 topped consecutive days above 90F. And 1936, 1934 and 1954 topped the list of days over 100F. And 1936 was the year with most consecutive days above 100F.
And the red circled years are the Least number of days above 90F and 100F. Notice there are recent years without any 100F days at all.
And while I didn’t highlight it, notice that in 1954 22 days were above 100F. Only 18 were in Jun/Jul/Aug. The other 4 were int the spring or fall. Now thats hot.”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/xkcd-and-global-warming-and-st-louis/
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
NASA GISS 5 year running mean shows plateau starts around 2002.
9 out of 10 warmest years since and including 2002 is on both the NASA GISS and NOAA data sets.
James Abbott:
At February 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm you write
Buy a dictionary and look up the words warm and warming.
They do not mean the same thing.
I am the tallest I have ever been and I have had 50 of the tallest years in the last 50 years. Obviously, according to you, I am growing.
You already have zero credibility here and now you want to gain negative credibility by emulating ‘Trougher’ Yeo!
If you want to obtain some – any – credibility answer my question you have been avoiding for a week. I will ignore – and I commend everyone to ignore – anything and everything you post unless and until you answer the question. I gave that advice yesterday and dbstealey eventually admitted that he had discovered – to his cost – that he had erred by ignoring my advice.
Richard
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
Thankyou for your reply at February 2, 2014 at 3:34 pm to my post at February 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm.
My post – as you may have anticipated from me – provided the technically correct answer.
Your answer concurs with the point from Timothy Sorenson at February 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm. You each say that the averaging may not be technically correct but it does provide an excellent debating point because people who object on terchnical grounds can be given a ‘What’s good for the goose’ answer with respect to model ensemble results.
Clearly, what is ‘right’ here is a value judgement.
If you are involved in a technical discussion then I am right but if you are involved in a debate of so-called ‘climate science’ then you and Timothy Sorenson are right.
Provided what I have said here is understood, then I am willing to withdraw because value judgements are opinions so do not have a unique ‘right’. However, I hope my contribution has been helpful.
Richard
richardscourtney
Maybe the only way I could gain credibility with you is to agree with everything you say ?
You said
“I will ignore – and I commend everyone to ignore – anything and everything you post unless and until you answer the question. I gave that advice yesterday and dbstealey eventually admitted that he had discovered – to his cost – that he had erred by ignoring my advice.”
As to your demands to answer questions – I did answer and you chose to ignore the obvious fact that the model AW was using to demonstrate temperature sensitivity to CO2 had the unfortunate problem of collapsing for past known climates (the ice ages).
If you want to put a different question, or even the same one in a different way, fire away. Unlike you I am happy to discuss – though would prefer you to leave out the throw-away insults (eg egregious troll).
James Abbott:
re your tripe at February 2, 2014 at 5:00 pm.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Richard
richardscourtney
Is that tied to a chair with a light shining in my face ?
Seems like every time a sceptic loses the argument they blow up.
As the story goes, in the world of Harry Potter, a magical quill records the names of newborn wizards and witches who are destined to study magic.
Not in any of the books I ever read (over a dozen times).
Some muggle must have made a dumb movie or something.
James Abbott:
It seems you have forgotten the question.
I remind you that it is
quoted text
You have raised the “committed warming” on two threads which you have trolled. So
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Richard
This is a repost because formatting destroyed it above
James Abbott:
It seems you have forgotten the question.
I remind you that it is
You have raised the “committed warming” on two threads which you have trolled. So
ANSWER THE QUESTION
Richard
Nobody calls fraud, loudly. Well, a few….
James Abbott says: @ February 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm
… 9 out of 10 warmest years since and including 2002 is on both the NASA GISS and NOAA data sets.
So? Overall the temperature is DECLINING from the Holocene Optimum. We should be grateful the temperature has not oscillated as badly as it has in other interglacials.
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
The overall temperature trend is DOWN not up.
Graph 3
The myopia on the part of warmists I find incredible.
No matter what argument either side uses, the logical position remains that the burden of proof is clearly on the alarmist because the AGwarm-earthers were the ones to 1) propose it and 2) argue that we must do something (very destructive if they are wrong) about it.
No proof has been given. Moreover, it appears that the weight of the evidence is clearly on the other side of the AGW hypothesis. In addition, these are the crooks which have the overwhelming conflicts of economic interest in their corners (Fact: $76B plus given to them to date, by conservative estimates).
“What I recall are a few comments pointing out that CONUS has had declining temperatures for the past ten years.”
Oh. Noted. Now that this evidently misaligned data has been pointed out on here, the climate crew will get it adjusted and have it leveled out at least by 2015. Patience please, getting peer reviewed papers passed through for such algorithmic alterations does take some time to perform properly and refute proof.
From James Abbott on February 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm:
You think a skeptic lost here?
Much like with Barry O’s Iraq policy, you shall find declaring victory and pulling out is not a sustainable strategy. It also lead to endless snickering, and not just behind your back.
Heh. Great job there protecting yourself from the charging rhino by unfurling an umbrella and declaring you’re safe as now its spittle can’t mess up your dress shirt.
richardscourtney,
He is clearly attempting to twist himself into what he thinks is the shortest time frame for the stall. If one were to instead use say RSS, the pause is at 17.5 years. Or even if you just allowed for completely insignificant trend inclusion, GISS would be extended out to roughly 17 years.
Hence pretty much every single agency having admitted the pause/stall is roughly 17 years at this point.
His trying to shrink it down merely shows how desperate he wants it to be short. Might as well just accept it though, nearly everyone else on the planet has (including almost every single high profile alarmist)
…but if one accepts it, then they have to explain how there has been zero warming for nearly 2 decades while CO2 has seen an increase of 10%, or roughly 40% of all the CO2 increase since 1900 over those short 17 years with no warming.
40% of the “dangerous” increase in “poison”, 0% rise. It’s a staggering disconnect that I almost cant blame him for trying to ignore.
Timothy Sorenson says:
February 2, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“Let them blubber about that the ensemble would be incorrect and then make them acknowledge that for the IPCC ensemble mean of models is inappropriate at best and downright fraud from scientists with any math skills.”
Hey, it’s good enough for the world’s finest journalists at the axis of evil NYT-Guardian-Spiegel.
When I first saw this, the condescension got to me. So, I downloaded the stats, just like he did. Going back to 1874, # of years with 2 or less below zero lows, 99. # of years with more than 2 below zero lows, 51. So, the colder days were the anomaly. Which was why everyone was talking about the pending ice age in the 80’s.
I stopped reading xkcd when the author enthusiastically endorsed Obama and he starting making these really political comics.
Shame. It used to actually be good.
Abbott says:
“…a sceptic loses the argument …”
And:
“…9 of the warmest 10 years have been since (and including 2002).”
How does your argument explain this?
Rather than claim skeptics have ‘lost’ the argument, sit back and look at this hockey stick. Looks to me like it is the hockey stick crowd that has lost the debate, no?
So, James, how do you explain this? Or this? Or this?
That last Phil Jones chart shows that in the past [when CO2 was low], the planet warmed in steps — at the same rate that it warmed recently. How do you explain the lack of recent accelerated warming? How do you explain the identical warming steps? How do you explain the fact that the promoters of the “carbon” scare lack any testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that X human emissions = Y degrees of warming? Doesn’t it bother you even a little bit that you have no evidence, but only baseless assertions to support your failed conjecture?
Finally, isn’t the most reasonable explanation that the entire “carbon” scare is simply a false alarm, since it was based on a repeatedly falsified conjecture? Or, do you discuss science by asserting that skeptics lost the debate — when it is clear to everyone that you may actually be someone who simply cannot admit that he is flat wrong? Just wondering which it is…
So if you have any scientific evidence proving that human-emitted CO2 is the measurable cause of X degrees of global warming, now would certainly be a good time to post it. Your credibility is at stake, so take your best shot, James.
@ bubbagyro says:
February 2, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Of course the CO2 obsessed, if they were practicing science, would seek to falsify their theory. But they are not after science. They are pursuing a holy grail.
Hey, XKCD, show all the data. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=cli_archive
See in particular the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1950s. Numbers a lot like the 2000s-present.The 1970s and early 80s were unusual, and not representative of “the past”.
Number of days per year min temp less than 0 °F.
Days/yr YEAR
1 1874
10 1875
1 1876
1 1877
1 1878
6 1879
4 1880
2 1881
2 1882
5 1883
6 1884
9 1885
10 1886
8 1887
6 1888
1 1889
0 1890
0 1891
2 1892
3 1893
2 1894
6 1895
0 1896
2 1897
0 1898
9 1899
0 1900
5 1901
2 1902
2 1903
2 1904
10 1905
0 1906
0 1907
0 1908
4 1909
1 1910
1 1911
11 1912
0 1913
0 1914
1 1915
3 1916
5 1917
3 1918
2 1919
0 1920
0 1921
0 1922
0 1923
5 1924
1 1925
0 1926
3 1927
3 1928
0 1929
6 1930
0 1931
1 1932
3 1933
2 1934
1 1935
18 1936
0 1937
0 1938
1 1939
11 1940
0 1941
4 1942
5 1943
1 1944
1 1945
0 1946
1 1947
4 1948
1 1949
1 1950
4 1951
0 1952
0 1953
0 1954
2 1955
0 1956
1 1957
2 1958
2 1959
2 1960
4 1961
4 1962
13 1963
1 1964
3 1965
3 1966
1 1967
3 1968
0 1969
5 1970
0 1971
4 1972
2 1973
2 1974
1 1975
4 1976
13 1977
7 1978
8 1979
2 1980
4 1981
10 1982
9 1983
4 1984
3 1985
1 1986
0 1987
1 1988
5 1989
2 1990
0 1991
0 1992
1 1993
4 1994
0 1995
4 1996
6 1997
0 1998
2 1999
0 2000
1 2001
0 2002
0 2003
0 2004
0 2005
0 2006
0 2007
0 2008
2 2009
1 2010
1 2011
0 2012
0 2013
The reason your cartoon falls flat is because it’s based entirely on the Big Lie that warming has stopped. Few dare deny that ENSO is THE source (along with occasional large volcanic eruptions on the down side) of annual/decadal variations in surface temperature. Few dare deny the principle of conservation of energy, either, so you must concede that when surface temperatures are falling, deep ocean waters are warming and vise versa. It is also undeniable that a cooling phase of ENSO has been with us for several years. Science has failed to identify (anti-science attempts notwithstanding) any other forcing remotely capable of accounting for an actual end to warming. In fact, the leading anti-science candidate has often been working in the wrong direction.
The conclusion was clear long before the science rolled in with data on deep ocean heating. The logic is inescapable – the pause in surface temperatures (2.3% of climactic heat content) is very, very likely caused primarily by a slight increase in warming of the oceans (93.4% of climactic heat content) by means of a known mechanism!
Warming of the surface has not occurred in the 21st century. The trend is negative over that time. That is historical fact, not a big lie. To say it’s “stopped” implies a prediction in some contexts but doesn’t invalidate the historical record. Using the term “pause” does not support your assertion of a “big lie” either.
Assuming it’s the PDO to blame, to what extent did the PDO account for the Late 20th Century Warm Period? Wasn’t it rather dishonest to extrapolate the PDO warming period, fit a curve to half a cycle, regress climate sensitivity to CO2 and derive a false non-causal correlation? Wasn’t it dishonest to hide these facts, brutalise and censor “skeptics”?
You simply ignored the content of my comment while repeating what my comment refuted. Surface warming is 2.3%. The oceans are 93.4%. The chief cause of variability in the 2.3% is known to be cyclic ocean phenomena that varies the 93.4% up and down a skosh. Those phenomena are known to be causing surface cooling for several years. The obsession over the 2.3% is nonsensical – unless you are using motivated reasoning.
“Assuming it’s the PDO to blame, . . . ”
It is.
“. . . to what extent did the PDO account for the Late 20th Century Warm Period?”
To the approximate extent that science has determined that it did.
“Wasn’t it rather dishonest to extrapolate the PDO warming period, fit a curve to half a cycle, regress climate sensitivity to CO2 and derive a false non-causal correlation? Wasn’t it dishonest to hide these facts, brutalise and censor “skeptics”?”
Oh, yes; all of that would be dishonest and horrible but none of it is true. It’s simply counterfactual to anyone familiar with the science.
10 years ago when the Warmists were running around screaming that “the science is settled”, ENSO was nowhere to be found in the explanation. Only after the pause did ENSO enter the discussion. I guess now the science is settlered.
Unless more energy is radiated out into space. Small changes in cloudiness are all that is required to explain the variability that we have seen over the past 150 years.
From Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 7:41 pm:
Except the Earth is not a closed system, energy is continuously flowing in and out. If surface temperatures are falling, it can easily be due to an increase in cloud cover reducing the radiative flux available for absorption. When extra clouds are preventing more energy from entering the Earth system, that energy will not be available to mysteriously warm only the deep oceans.
And the deep oceans aren’t warming up anyway. Here, enjoy this Bob Tisdale science-based piece, hopefully you’ll learn something.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Is that correct, or is that SkepSci tool not working right? Tell me what you think.
I used to use SkS with my monthly reports, but then I was introduced to the one by Nick Stokes at: http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html?Xxdat=%5B0,1,4,48,92%5D.
It is slightly different and gives times that are a bit shorter, however based on what I read at Lubos Motl’s site as well as Judith Curry’s site, I now believe that Nick’s site is more accurate. Here are the latest values for 5 data sets.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 21 years.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since January 1996: CI from -0.008 to 2.437
For RSS: Since November 1992: CI from -0.018 to 1.936
For Hadcrut4: Since October 1996: CI from -0.034 to 1.239
For Hadsst3: Since June 1993: CI from -0.009 to 1.793
For GISS: Since June 1997: CI from -0.004 to 1.276
It’s 17F in St Louis right now. Someone must have let the flame below the thermometer go out.
Having grown up in St Louis and having spent most of my spring, summer and autumn days outside in the ’50s and ’60s – conveniently just before their 1970s start of global warming – I can truthfully say that their cartoon pretty much did nail it – a handful of days each year at or sightly below 0°F. We also had a sh**load of days at or above 100°F. At least several of those were in May and September, though not close to every year.
I also lived in Chicago in the period 1976-1984, and those years were GODAWFUL Siberian years. Since the unbelievably bitter cold of those years abated in 1985 I have thanked my lucky STARS for global warming, no matter what the cause. Fortunately, this year with the return of the bitter cold in Chicago, I have been in central MEXICO!
All I have to say is this: VIVA freaking MEXICO!
No, actually, I do have more to say. If anyone wants the kind of weather before the global warming, they are total a**hole idiots. SCREW ‘EM! This year’s winter weather in the Midwest should convince tens of millions of people that global warming is FAR BETTER than global cooling or what they think is global normal.
The climate crisis is when it gets COLD, not warmer.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm
“And the deep oceans aren’t warming up anyway.”
But it used to be so cold way down there!
Ah Ha! “Around 1970.” Well, that was Richard M. Nixons’s part II administration and in 1970 October 3 … NOAA! Ah Ha was established to settle all the “environmentalism pollutionization claims” and to be (see Wikipedia):
1) A Supplier of Environmental Information Products.
Ah Weather forecasts that are rubbish after 3 hours per day! and Climate projection that are wrong on the very minute, What a record!
2) A Provider of Environmental Stewardship Services.
Ah! Providing the best, i.e. highest cost and highest pay per employee for rudimentary reports that plagiarize published research, even wrong research so long as it fits the “NOAA Way” and satisfies the President’s at the time bloated ego.
3) A Leader in Applied Scientific Research.
Well Well. Leader. Research. Scientific. Big words. NOAA translators need more money and fewer hours to get it right of course since 95% of NOAA employees are not USA citizens! да.
до свидания товарищ
🙂
Thanks, Hoser. This was a fallacious selection bias. Show a range that proves your point and hope no one shows the larger range (or ignore them).
People blah blah blah a whole lot, but almost all the time it’s “my tribe against your tribe,” rather depressingly.
mpaul – “10 years ago when the Warmists were running around screaming that “the science is settled”, ENSO was nowhere to be found in the explanation. Only after the pause did ENSO enter the discussion.”
Another Big Lie. No one familiar with the science – and honest – would make this assertion.
kadaka – “If surface temperatures are falling, it can easily be due to an increase in cloud cover reducing the radiative flux available for absorption.”
Yes, it easily could but according to satellite and other measurements of cloud cover and direct satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, including the short wave broken down by frequency to quantify the absorption bands of GHG’s, and other proxy measures as well, there has been no such increase in cloud cover. In fact, a recent Australian study finds that, similar to the CLOUD study at CERN, that the warming is causing a reduction in cloudiness that points to a higher, rather than lower sensitivity.
“When extra clouds are preventing more energy from entering the Earth system, that energy will not be available to mysteriously warm only the deep oceans.”
Yes, when extra clouds are doing that, it would, but they’re not. As for the heating of the deep oceans, it is trivially simple. You refer to it as mysterious only as an attempt to discredit the science.
I refer to President Obama’s State of the Union address – Can someone please explain why the most powerful leader in the world, who is determined to halt ‘climate change’, demonstrated his total ignorance of the 17 year pause in global warming (leave alone the fact that there is no evidence IPCC predicted catastrophic man-made global warming)?
From Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm:
You really have no idea what you’re regurgitating, do you? Go read the press release of the Steve Sherwood (University of New South Wales) paper:
Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4°C by 2100
The climate models are not matching reality. Sherwood identified those with the lowest climate sensitivity were not modeling clouds properly. After adjustment, in those climate models the warming caused a reduction in cloudiness and showed a higher sensitivity.
NOWHERE does it say the warming IS CAUSING a reduction in cloudiness IN REALITY. This is all in the models.
As Dr. Roy Spencer has previously shown, the real temperature trends 1979-2012 for both HADCRUT4 and UAH LT are running lower than 87 of the 90 CMIP5 climate models.
90 climate model projections versus reality
Since 97% of the climate models are running hotter than reality, and Sherwood’s “corrections” make the low performers run hotter, what Sherwood’s work does is take the climate models even further from reality.
Now then, since you’re speaking with such great authority and projecting great understanding of your source material, can you point me to where I can find those “…satellite and other measurements of cloud cover and direct satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, including the short wave broken down by frequency to quantify the absorption bands of GHG’s, and other proxy measures as well…” that you are speaking of, so I can check if they really do say what you said about cloud cover?
@ Mervyn on February 3, 2014 at 12:05 am:
We common Americans are suspecting the heavy use of medical marijuana, which he stated was no more harmful than alcohol, which is evidenced when we common Americans are listening to him say even more bizarre flabbergasting things that lead us to frequently exclaim “Is he drunk?”
Kyle:
You have turned up shortly after the exceptionally egregious troll posting as James Abbott crawled back to his bedroom with no supper. If you can understand what I am writing to tell you then you may avoid the contempt which James Abbott so completely earned.
It is possible to recover from your very bad start on WUWT, and I write to help you by informing you of how you have made yourself a laughing stock and how you can recover from that.
Please stop making the repeated and untrue assertion of a “Big Lie”. It reveals your immaturity and lack of experience. If you want to come here and play with grownups then you need to try to act as a grownup and not as you would in your school playground.
This is a science site.
People like evidence, logic and rational argument. It interests them, it engages them, and it convinces them.
This is a science site.
People do NOT like logical fallacies especially argument by assertion. People laugh at you when, as at February 2, 2014 at 9:49 pm, you assert
Your answer is “It is”? How do you know? Did you swim down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench with a thermometer?
And people don’t like to be insulted by some arrogant twerp who cannot even put a name to what he/she/they writes. For example, in that same post you write
Who ignored what? You don’t say.
Several people answered you, and your comment could be to any of them. They gave you the courtesy of addressing you by the name you used. But you don’t address your respondent by name. That is not nice, Kyle, and your teacher will explain why it is not nice when you are old enough to go to the big school.
So I checked back on the phrase “Assuming it’s the PDO to blame” and found it was Andrew who at February 2, 2014 at 7:59 pm wrote to you
So, Andrew did NOT “ignore the content of [your] comment”. That is a lie, Kyle, and people don’t like being lied to, it insults them.
In reality, your “comment” was an unfounded assertion which Andrew accepted as an “assumption” then asked you to consider its implications. And your response to that request says
But that is YOU ignoring what was put to you and trying to justify it with a blatant lie because anyone who is “familiar with the science” (hint and a warning: I am) knows you are wrong. Importantly, YOU made the untrue assertion which leads to the outcomes Andrew points out, so YOU need to justify it. Again, when you go to the big school your teacher will explain why the burden of providing evidence for YOUR assertion is with YOU. Everybody else only has a duty to question it.
So, I repeat that if you want to come here and play with grownups you need to try to act as a grownup and not as you would in your school playground.
I hope that helps you to make interesting and effective posts in future. At present you have destroyed all your credibility with your first few posts. However, if you heed my advice you have a chance of repairing some of that damage.
Richard
Well the pause is here – or so says Nate Drake PhD!
“Filter on NON-detrended GISS LOTI data: …
I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on
15year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.” Nate Drake
http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab357/NarwhaleNate/GISS_LOTI_S-G_Filternot-detrended_zps4a8d8e39.jpg
Notice how nicely flat the line is today. No better proof that the warming has stopped, and by such a fervent supporter of CAGW to boot 🙂
For a more visible version (enhanced points and line)
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/NateAnimated_zps8efd1ce1.gif
P.S. Two questions.
1. Where DID he get that GISS data set from? It does not match any of the sources I can find.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISSCompressLowPass_zps370917ca.png
2. Does anyone have R skills necessary to provide source code to reproduce the “5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 ear data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method”?
DS:
Please forgive my missing your post to me last night, but I have seen it now so this is my reply.
At February 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm you begin by saying to me
Yes, James Abbott was trying to do that. But, importantly, that was part of his trying to do something worse. This is the third thread he has tried to destroy. I explain the matter by copying a post I made on Saturday.
Richard
============
richardscourtney says:
February 1, 2014 at 4:32 pm
dbstealey:
Thankyou for your post at February 1, 2014 at 4:13 pm but all of that and much more was explained to James Abbot by several people a week ago.
In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, James Abbot made his first post in that thread here.
As anybody can see, a long series of exchanges with several people then ensued before everyone agreed he was merely trying to be a troll. He was an especially effective troll because – unusually – I was far from the first to recognise that he was trolling.
It ended with my question to him (repeated by me above in this thread) concerning where he thinks the “committed warming” has gone. He was pressed on the matter so went away until he appeared in this thread and raised the same issue!
Hence, my request that he be ignored because he has already started his tricks in this thread as he did in the thread I have linked in this post. Clearly, his intention is to disrupt this thread as he did the previous thread and he has nothing – n.b. nothing – to contribute.
Richard
James Abbott says:
February 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm
“Seems like every time a sceptic loses the argument they blow up.”
Seems like even when ‘Warmists’ prove the trend has stopped, they then ignore their own graphs!
See Nate Drake PhD ‘s graph above.
Kadaka, how do you know the deep oceans are warming up? Can you direct me to actual measured temperature trends?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: @ February 3, 2014 at 12:46 am
From Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm:
In fact, a recent Australian study finds that, similar to the CLOUD study at CERN, that the warming is causing a reduction in cloudiness that points to a higher, rather than lower sensitivity.
You really have no idea what you’re regurgitating, do you? ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No he does not know what he is talking about.
The IPCC model projections, actuall temperature and CO2 GRAPH OOPS!
From the Big Bear Solar Observatory Project EARHSHINE:
GRAPH showing changes in earth albedo (A measure of the amount of solar radiation that is reflected away)
A more recent Graph from Project EARHSHINE adds a couple more years.
Substantial correlation can be seen between cosmic ray flux variation and cloud cover variation, such as this illustration from Dr. Shaviv’s site, following Marsh & Svensmark 2003. link
The data says:
Cloud/Cosmic Ray hypothesis = 1
CAGW – manmade CO2 conjecture = ZERO
I lived in St Louis in the 90s. The warmist is lying.
Kyle says at February 2, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Ok, on a friendly note please could Kyle provide three simple pieces of supporting information.
1 How do we know it is the PDO to blame and not something else (like, as suggested, clouds)?
2 How do we know the approximate extent that the the PDO accounted for the Late 20th Century Warm Period?
And finally, (but this is simple I’m sure)
3 What actually is the approximate extent that science has determined he PDO accounted for the Late 20th Century Warm Period?
David L says: @ February 3, 2014 at 2:59 am
Kadaka, how do you know the deep oceans are warming up? …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They do not. If the deep oceans were warming it would have shown up as a change in the ARGO data.
“The warming is hiding in the deep oceans – excuse #4356” is really funny when you think about it because the warmists shoot themselves in the foot again.
CO2 CAN NOT warm the deep oceans. At best it adds a bit of energy th the surface skin of water and helps evaporation. A change in the spectra of the sun is what warms oceans at depth. In other words that excuse is really saying “It’s the Sun what dunit Gov!” (Snicker)
GRAPH Solar radiation wavelengths and intensity at various ocean depths. A second GRAPH showing the whole solar spectrum and the wavelengths that enter the oceans. Note those wavelengths are at the upper end of the spectrum in the UV- vis area and not the lower end (IR)
The variation in the sun’s spectrum:
NASA: SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise
NASA: Solar Irradiance changes
(Mods, Anthony might want to explore this idea a bit more.)
Mervyn says:
February 3, 2014 at 12:05 am
“I refer to President Obama’s State of the Union address – Can someone please explain why the most powerful leader in the world, who is determined to halt ‘climate change’, demonstrated his total ignorance of the 17 year pause in global warming ”
Yes. Ganja blocks the transcription of short term memory contents into the long term memory.
Meaning: Even if somebody told him he has no memory of it. He’s a de facto stateless automaton.
We will see this a lot with all the Ganja legalization in Cali and Colorado etc. Wait, we have been seeing it all these years, in leftist hipster warmist Ganja users. THAT’s why they’re immune to data.
Anyone that can make math entertaining gets my attention, and if Randall has dipped his toe into the CAGW debate with this cartoon, I’m confident on which way he’ll _eventually_ look at the data. I can imagine Randall’s take on the temperature adjustment made to the raw data sets, but I’m afraid that will have to wait until other political climate shoes have dropped, so to speak.
Good cartoon, Josh. Randall needs to recognize a sine curve. I wonder what kind of skill set that requires?
I plotted the data Hoser posted above. It does look like the decade 2001-2010 has an exceptionally long run of years with no days below 0F.
http://tinypic.com/r/2z5ivdi/8
Is this data correct? Do other regions exhibit this same anomaly?
Proof of Global Warming? I don’t think so because there are no corresponding record run of hot temperatures for St. Louis in that same decade.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/xkcd-and-global-warming-and-st-louis/
Since below 0F weather seems to be associated with arctic polar vortex anomalies, I think the explanation will involve some change in the way these vortices behaved in that decade. (Looks like it getting back to ‘normal’ now.)
I was in St. Louis from roughly 1970 to 1995. The winters were brutal. The talk of global cooling was genuine among serious scientists. The cold, ice and snow were so bad that everyone dreamed of living elsewhere. Many left, not only St. Louis but the entire region. In the Spring of 1978 in Atlanta, the Uhaul company would pay anyone to tow one of their trailers to the midwest.
The point is that the period under discussion should be taken as anomalous and that anyone who claims evidence of global warming based on the change from say 1970 to 2000 is clearly cheating.
I think that Josh captured my thinking correctly. The very facts that are discussed in the cartoon that he criticizes are damning of Warmism.
Sometimes Fundamentals are nice:
Imagine there’s no CO2
I wonder if you can.
we’re all dead!
Make the winters colder — some of us die.
Reduce food production — some of us die.
Desertify (cool and dry, y know) — some of us die.
Raise the temperature a degree or two… move 200 mi north to maintain your personal climate, if it’s such a big deal.
Frankly, “climate change may” has become the new valley girl’s “Like, you know”.
A mindless meaningless phrase inserted into every conversation. And we all know you can’t argue with a valley girl.
I just wish, if it’s getting so much warmer, that my oranges weren’t freezing so often.
Hoser,
I plotted your data in xcel to give people a better visual. It looks pretty close to the cartoon. It’s still irrelevant to global warming, but whatever.
http://i.imgur.com/oGg87AY.jpg
Oops. I see John Day beat me to it. O well.
James Abbott says:
February 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm
9 out of 10 warmest years since and including 2002 is on both the NASA GISS and NOAA data sets.
James, GISS so heavily adjusts data sets, that one really looks at trully “anthropogenic” temperatures.
This does not really mean that it is indeed warmer. Such big adjustments have rendered the data of little use. The adjustments are bigger then the signals, Actually the adjustments are the signal, there is no other signal discernable in the dataset due to the adjustments:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/nasanoaa-have-erased-the-unanimous-cooling-consensus-of-1961/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/nasa-has-erased-almost-the-entire-global-cooling-scare/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/nasa-cooling-down-the-whole-worlds-past/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/
here about TOBS adjustments:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/ushcn-v2-tobs-adjustment-is-double-what-it-is-supposed-to-be/
and many more.
Some adjustments may be justified, some do not look at all justified. Then talk about UHI and data quality – see also Watts 2012
See also here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/29/important-study-on-temperature-adjustments-homogenization-can-lead-to-a-significant-overestimate-of-rising-trends-of-surface-air-temperature/
The theory had always been that Climate Change would effect ENSO (frequency, severity, etc.) but it was always treated as a dependent variable. Now, ENSO is being looked at as a heat buffer and a mechanism for shuttling excess heat to the deep oceans. This is new.
It’s the sanctimoniousness of the Warmists I object to. Constantly claiming the science is settled while simultaneously discovering fundamentally new mechanisms hurts your credibility.
The Warmists have been caught off guard by the Pause. The science is not settled.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) The skepticalscience trend calculator takes the autocorrelation in the data into account, which gives a more realistic indication of the confidence interval of the trend. The larger the autocorrelation, the wide the confidence interval (all things being otherwise equal). The standard ordinarly least squares tren calculation assumes there is no autocorrelation, and hence gives narrower confidence intervals than the SkS trend calculator. This means that the SkS trend calculator will give a longer period with no statistically significant warming. For details of how the trend calculator works, see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html
It is important to bear in mind though that a lack of statistically significant warming does not mean that there has been no warming (that would be an example of the so-called p-value fallacy). Essentially it just means that it hasn’t warmed fast enough to effectively rule out the possibility that there has been no warming. Without evaluating the statistical power of the test (i.e. the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis if it is false), we can’t tell whether that is because it hasn’t actually warmed or because there isn’t enough data to reliably detect the expected warming over a period of that length given the amount of noise in the data.
Kyle on February 2, 2014 at 10:02 pm:
“In fact, a recent Australian study finds that, similar to the CLOUD study at CERN, that the warming is causing a reduction in cloudiness that points to a higher, rather than lower sensitivity.”
False, that is circular reasoning.and the facts are when low clouds are reduced solar penetration increases, energy content increases and temperatures warm as a result. There is no evidence that suggests warming causes reduced cloud cover. It is a typical cause and effect relationship spun around on purpose. It is like saying the blood on somebody’s nose caused the boxer to punch him.
10 years ago alarmists were incorrectly saying that ENSO had no residual affect on global temperatures at all. Were relying on El NInos to show global warming and to be honest still do now. ENSO warms and warms less, only recently that alarmists are cherry picking half of the mechanism that warms less and emit the half than warms more.
James Abbott,
All global data sets including SSTs show a cooling for at least 12.5 years with the exception of UAH. So they more than show just a temporary non warming period, virtually all agree on at least some cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.5/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.5/trend/plot/uah-land/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001.5/trend
Take it up with the authors of the paper. The lead researcher, Kirkby, said unequivocally that their findings are precisely as I described them. You know, the guy and the study that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.
Just like Anthony’s own years-long attempt to discredit US ground station data was supposed to be vindicated by Muller, you dismiss the results when they don’t go your way. Not very scientific of you.
And so I checked the St Louis Airport data, Lambert that is, and I found no indication that the first cartoon was correct in days below zero.
I found that there were many less than the cartoon indicated.
Anyway to find out the siting issues for this location? And, what have been the adjustments to the data, where colder days are made warmer?
From David L on February 3, 2014 at 2:59 am:
From kadaka (KD Knoebel) on February 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm:
?????
For the info, try that link to Tisdale’s recent “Open Letter” piece.
Love how this is about global warming. People are so oblivious to it so we just leave it alone.
They used to say the missing heat was in the oceans. Now that they found that it is not, they say it is in the arctic. When they find out that that is not the case either, they will say the missing heat is in our coffee
I see that some of you are blissfully charging ahead with the “no warming” meme in spite of the fact that the metric being used represents only 2.3% and that we know there’s been an increase in the nominal 93.4%. What’s wrong? Just can’t process the fact that you’re that far off base? Such dogmatic thinking!
P Wilson – What are you talking about? They have found the heat to be going to the deep ocean. As if there were ever any doubt that the surface cooling of La Nina is at the expense of increased heat flux to the depths. This is elementary logic!
compared to the IPcc projections from over a decade ago when global warming was said to be full steam ahead, even if there was unknown heating in the arctic, the fact remains that the projections back then for now are 95% wrong
Kyle,
Don’t be silly. Show us that global warming.
Take your time…
Kyle:
At February 3, 2014 at 1:51 am I took the trouble to give you some helpful and friendly advice which you clearly needed.
You have not acknowledged that but – instead – you have provided your silly post at February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm. And that post does everything I told you makes you a laughing stock.
So, I will try to help you again.
If you have a point to make to someone then address them, say your point and explain why you think they are wrong. Arm waving excuses for your inability to defend your assertions are laughable.
“Take it up with the authors” is one such laughable excuse for your inability to defend your assertions. Indeed, that excuse is really, really stupid because the paper is being discussed and is NOT being taken on trust.
Also, assertions about “you guys” merely demonstrate your ignorance of those who read this thread. If you know of somebody or some group that claims something then say who you mean. The people here are individuals and they are not similar to the brainwashed idiots who have attended one of Gore’s alarmism training camps.
Perhaps you are too young to be capable of understanding how to engage in discussion with adults. If so, then I suggest you ‘lurk’ and learn.
However, it may be that you do have sufficient maturity to understand how to engage and you want to be thought a fool. If so, then please do it somewhere else.
This is the second time I have offered you helpful advice. If you cannot understand it then perhaps you should ask a trusted adult to explain it to you.
Richard
I find your first point to be odd. You seem to be implying that rather than the usual tactic of misrepresenting the science, you’re actually prepared to rebut it. The person to whom I response certainly did not; he merely asserted the opposite. Bare assertions of amateurs do not register with me as valid rebuttals of peer reviewed science.
As for your scone point – “you guys” references the term that Anthony uses as an excuse to censor those who accurately characterize “you guys”.
And I’m 55 yrs old and know both the science and the misinformation campaign well. I refute in an often mocking or dismissive manner because “you guys” are undeserving of more respect.
John Day says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:57 am
Is the number of 0 °F ys below 0°C F really exceptional? During the 20s, there was a 9 year (centered) avg min of 1.2 days/yr < 0 °F, and 2 or less for 14 years. During the 50s, the 9 year avg min was 1.0 and the period 2 or less lasted 14 years also. The max all time 9 yr avg was above 6, in a period above 2 lasting 17 yrs. You have to go back to the 1880s to see 9 yr avg values above 5. The point was, the 1980s were unusually cold over the entire temperature record and should not be used as the standard for comparison. The average number of days / yr < 0 °F over the entire temperature record is less than 2.7.
Granted, the 9 yr average min during the 2000s was about 0.1 for one year. How different is that from the 50s?
Consider, much this cold weather in St. Louis during the 80s occurred when "warming" was increasing rapidly.
I’ve been lurking here a while, but I HAD to reply to this.
My boss is a AGW supporter. Recently, he told a client, “It hasn’t snowed in St. Louis for 20 years.”
Only 2 years before, I drove us through one of the worst snow storms in recent memory. It was snowing when we left for Kentucky, and had dumped 2′ on us by the time we got back that night. This is a man who’s sent company-wide e-mails alerting employees not to come to work due to dangerous road conditions caused by SNOW.
Facts, logic, and reality don’t matter to most of these folks.
Kyle says:
“They have found the heat to be going to the deep ocean… The logic is inescapable – the pause in surface temperatures (2.3% of climactic heat content) is very, very likely caused primarily by a slight increase in warming of the oceans (93.4% of climactic heat content) by means of a known mechanism! …I’m 55 yrs old and know both the science and the misinformation…”
Kyle, I am 65 years old. Listen up, please:
1. There has not been a “pause” in global warming. That is a misuse of the language. For there to be a pause, warming must have resumed after it stopped. It has not. It is still stopped. After global warming’s halt beginning ≈17 years ago, there is no indication that global warming has resumed.
2. Your “logic” is just a baseless assumption: that global warming has somehow bypassed the 3,341 ARGO buoys — which regularly dive thousands of metres deep — and ends up warming the very deep ocean. Do you see how crazy that sounds to rational people? In addition the ARGO array consistently showed that the oceans are cooling [before that inconvenient fact was “adjusted”].
3. The oceans have stopped warming. In fact, almost all of the predicted ocean heat content is missing.
If you have verifiable data showing where the deep oceans are heating up, please post it here. I have not been able to find any such data. Without measurable data, all you have are assertions. That is not nearly good enough. In fact, it amounts to misinformation.
================================================================
Huh? If ‘they” actually found it then why is it still missing? Or is it that since they can’t find it anywhere else it must be where it can’t be measured and/or where there is no long term records?
Kyle,
The rising in ocean temperatures previously have been caused by a known mechanism that alarmists were ignoring, no wonder they are always wrong. This mechanism involves reduction global low cloud levels during the 1980s and 1990s causing increased solar radiation penetrating the ocean surface. Solar shortwave energy penetrates down to 100 m, hence why the oceans were warming. During the recent period of cooling cloud levels have stabilized and surprise surprise, with no increased solar penetration this has led to no further warming.
If you wondering is it possible to remove the recent warming from global temperatures? The answer is yes it is just by adjusting for satellite low global cloud levels. I can remove all the warming just by this adjustment in one swoop. The alarmists are wrong because CO2 has not caused this as I have demonstrated.
Increased solar energy during the 1980s and 1990s fueled the stronger El Ninos that we saw. Since the last strong El Nino in 1997/98 there has been no warming.
Kyle:
You say you are 55 years old.
I am saddened for you that you are unable to accept helpful advice. Perhaps that is why a 55-year-old behaves in such a childish manner. It does you no good.
Perhaps you have a different persona on the web than when you are talking to people. I sincerely hope so because if not then you must be a very lonely person.
I urge you to behave rationally. Try not to make self-harming statements such as
The sentence I quote provides you with disdain and probably contempt. Is that what you want?
I will explain using that sentence as example.
1.
You have not refuted anything, On the contrary. You have made unsubstantiated assertions which are plain wrong and others have refuted your assertions with real evidence and data. So the sentence starts with a blatant falsehood which everybody who has read the thread knows is a falsehood. In plain language, you have proclaimed yourself to be a liar and nobody likes or trusts a self-proclaimed liar.
2.
Adopting a “mocking or dismissive manner” makes you disliked especially when most people here can see that you are their inferior in both intellect and knowledge.
3.
Calling people names such as “you guys” induces a rejection of you by everybody whether or not the names are directed at them.
4.
Unfounded and unjustifiable insults such as “undeserving of more respect” cause you – and thus what you say – to be treated with contempt especially when the insults are hurled over the coward’s barrier of anonymity.
You claim to be 55 years old. Whether or not that is true, for your own sake I beg you to grow up.
Richard
Richard, I’ve long since gicivil with “you guys”. You earned it. I’ve already been bombarded by more BS than I can ever address, allowing you apparently full-time science obscurers to claim victory. I work for a living; I can’t refute what a dozen retirees and paid shills can produce.
dbstealy alone has just posted a rafty of BS, mostly refuted in the very links that he cites. Multiple posters are simply reassserting over and over that ENSO, etc. has not been considered by climate researchers in the recent past.
I do know that the lead researcher in CERN’s CLOUD study unequivocally stated years ago that nothing in the their results supported the claims being made by the ABC crowd (anything but carbon) and then in 2013, he stated flatly that their latest results indicate an unaccounted for cooling forcing that points to a higher CO2 sensitivity:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html
CERN press release:
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change
“Results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN bears directly on the Svensmark hypothesis: ionizing radiation has a negligible influence on the formation rates of aerosols.”
In the lead researchers own words:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/14/2774891/nature-cloud-study-climate-sensitive/
“The global average temperature on land and sea rose by 0.85C from 1880 to 2012, the IPCC said in a major report last month. The fact that amines are produced by animal husbandry means that humans are responsible for a previously unknown cooling effect on the planet. So the overall man-made “forcing” of the climate -– once greenhouse gases are taken into account -– may actually be less than thought.
And that could be bad news because, Professor Kirkby said, it suggested “the climate may be more sensitive than previously thought”. “If there’s been more cooling from aerosols than thought at the moment then this temperature rise will have resulted from a smaller forcing – or change – than previously thought,” he said. “That would mean the projected temperatures this century for a doubling of carbon dioxide may be bigger than current estimates.””
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change
And then there’s the other study that I made reference to earlier:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
“Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.”
[Request you clarify who is a “paid shill” and justify that claim. Mod]
“So, I repeat that if you want to come here and play with grownups you need to try to act as a grownup and not as you would in your school playground.”
You are using kindergarten tactics, Richard
REPLY: You are BOTH acting like children, 24 hour timeout for both Richard and “sisi”. – Anthony
From Kyle on February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm:
Um, no, you are not talking about the Sherwood paper and I have NO idea who you’re talking about.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
Title: Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing
Authors: Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony, Jean-Louis Dufresne
No “Kirkby” mentioned at all, whomever that is.
I notice you have not been supplying links to all this learned knowledge you’re spewing. I understand it’s difficult for a paid commenter who’s working off a “talking points” list to know where the “truth” they’re ordered to disseminate has come from. But can you, Kyle, at least TRY to provide some links?
Kyle spouted on February 3, 2014 at 1:37 pm:
KYLE, we’re referring to GLOBAL temperature datasets, not US-only. There is no “2.3%” metric, only a 100% metric.
What’s wrong? Just can’t process the fact that you’re that far off base? Such dogmatic thinking!
From Kyle on February 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm:
Gee, I’m sorry we didn’t automatically recognize the absolute scientific truthfulness of your un-sourced badly-stated incorrectly-worded “talking points” pronouncements. My apologies for how we did not endear ourselves to you and prove we deserve more respect from you BY PROMPTLY KNEELING DOWN AND POLISHING YOUR WANG!
As it is, you proved yourself to be a boring troll who has demonstrated ignorance of the “proof” you cite, who cannot tell us where your “knowledge” came from, and appears only interested in chucking steaming handfuls of your “wisdom” around the site, not civilized debate.
Therefore, although we originally extended to you far greater respect than you ever gave us, as is our normal wont, we must sadly withdraw that respect, and admit you’re just another closed-minded willfully-ignorant a-hole.
You are dismissed. Leave.
Oh sure, sometime right before I post, THEN Kyle finally dredges up some links. Including one from ThinkRegress, noted center of paid shilling.
And he’s linked to the Sherwood paper I referenced, as well as some “Kirkby” paper he was mistakenly referring to when rebutting(?) the Sherwood paper.
Kyle had said on February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm of Kirkby: “You know, the guy and the study that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.”
I’ve never heard of him before. Anyone here know who the heck he is?
kadaka – Dismissing information because of the source is an ad hominem fallacy.
Although you may genuinely be unaware of Kirkby, CLOUD, and CERN, I assure you that most of Anthony’s minions are quite familiar. The CLOUD project at CERN, led by Kirkby, has been repeatedly misrepresented as supporting the Svensmark hypothesis (a WUWT favorite ABC contender) even after Kirkby specifically and unequivocally declared that it did no such thing. Then, last year, CLOUD actually produced results (much like BEST) that are 180 degrees from that which the resident ABC crowd had been claiming. See the previous links.
kadaka – “Um, no, you are not talking about the Sherwood paper and I have NO idea who you’re talking about.”
Um, no, I was referencing both. Try to keep up.
“http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
…snip… No “Kirkby” mentioned at all, whomever that is.”
In spite of your inability to deal with all of two papers, I must thank you for citing the Sherwood paper. Be sure not to miss this part of it – “Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.”
I notice you have not been supplying links to all this learned knowledge you’re spewing. I understand it’s difficult for a paid commenter who’s working off a “talking points” list to know where the “truth” they’re ordered to disseminate has come from. But can you, Kyle, at least TRY to provide some links?
Already done. BTW, I work for a living and post as I can and don’t always have time to spoon feed you. Your accusation is unfounded. It is also projection of the highest order as many climate “contrarians” (cough, cough) are known to be exactly as you accuse me.
“KYLE, we’re referring to GLOBAL temperature datasets, not US-only. There is no “2.3%” metric, only a 100% metric.”
Where did you come up with “US only”?! I’m referring to the FACT that all of “surface temperature” represents 2.3% of climactic heat content. That’s the US, all the rest of the land mass, the ice, and the entire ocean surface! What’s wrong? Just can’t process the fact that you’re that far off base? Such dogmatic thinking!
“Gee, I’m sorry we didn’t automatically recognize the absolute scientific truthfulness of your un-sourced badly-stated incorrectly-worded “talking points” pronouncements. My apologies for how we did not endear ourselves to you and prove we deserve more respect from you BY PROMPTLY KNEELING DOWN AND POLISHING YOUR WANG!”
Well, now that I have provided the sources, corrected your misunderstandings, etc., you can do exactly that.
“Therefore, although we originally extended to you far greater respect than you ever gave us, as is our normal wont, we must sadly withdraw that respect, and admit you’re just another closed-minded willfully-ignorant a-hole. You are dismissed. Leave.”
I’ll leave when “you guys” have sufficiently discredited denial. Or when the mods dishonestly and selectively delete my input and ban me. Happens here and at Goddard.
(REPLY: You will not find a more open and uncensored site than this one. It would be easy to snip your comment for using the “denial” pejorative. But maybe you haven’t read the Policy page yet. Suggest you do. ~ mod.)
Kyle says:
“dbstealy alone has just posted a rafty of BS, mostly refuted in the very links that he cites.”
That is the problem with the alarmist crowd. As Kyle demonstrates, he debates science by assertion. Nothing in his comment contains any raw data or empirical observations, otherwise known as scientific evidence. I asked him to post any evidence he has; his response was to make his baseless assertion above. [Kyle does not understand that neither pal reviewed papers, nor computer model outputs are “scientific evidence”.]
That is the problem with the climate alarmist point of view: they assume that their baseless opinion alone is enough to win the debate. It isn’t. They assume that since they have reached a conclusion, that their papers and models are all that is needed to validate their conclusions; they aren’t. Skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists — require evidence. Such evidence must be measurable, and testable. Otherwise, Kyle and his side are merely asserting what they believe. That is not nearly good enough.
There is no evidence of any ‘hidden heat’ lurking and collecting in the deep oceans, as I showed in my links. The oceans are not warming at an accelerating rate. In fact, they are not warming at all, as I also showed in my posted links. Kyle claims, with no evidence given, that “93.4%” of the oceans are warming. I posted links showing that is false.
The job of skeptics is to tear down conjectures and hypotheses. That is how we arrive at a position closest to scientific truth. The alarmists should be happy to pursue truth, but of course, they aren’t. They act as if it’s a bad thing if global warming stops. But it is neither good nor bad, scientifically. It is an advance in our knowledge. That is good.
As I wrote to Kyle above:
If you have verifiable data showing where the deep oceans are heating up, please post it here. I have not been able to find any such data. Without measurable data, all you have are assertions.
Enough with the assertions, Kyle. Either post verifiable, measurable scientific evidence showing rising heat in the deep oceans, or admit that your conjecture is nothing but another assertion, designed to keep the runaway global warming scare alive.
The key observation from what I’ve read regarding the CLOUD experiment results is the need for charged attractors to nucleate droplet formation. Cosmic rays, and the shower of charged daughter particles certainly can knock electrons off molecules. The question is to what degree the particulates in the air accumulate charged centers that can attract the water dipole.
It’s important to be sure we are discussing an experiment or a model.
The PNNL/ SUNY experiment was not an experiment (http://phys.org/news/2013-02-cosmic-rays-cloud-droplet-formation.html) it was only modifying an existing model. Their results may have no meaning in the real world.
One of Kyles refes from above.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7471/full/nature12663.html
This paper discusses amines and sulfates in relation to cosmic ray ion production. Alone it is almost useless. I don’t have time to do a proper analysis at the moment, but my gut feeling is Kyle wants me to be wowed by the awesomeness of the graphs. In reality, the paper has a lot of holes in it. For one thing, I haven’t found a discussion of the fraction of cosmic ray energy actually deposited. Most of the energy would be deposited at the end of the track, not the beginning. For all I know, the entire CLOUD experiment was botched because of that fact. I have to look into that question.
I don’t have time to go through the rest of the Kyle refs either right now.
Well, I know Kyle was saying Kirkby was the “lead researcher” according to that ThinkRegress piece, but at the actual Nature link, Jasper Kirkby is the last author on the list. And with 79 authors, I doubt all of those authors would willingly agree any one of them was lead researcher, although many would be willing to claim they are on CV’s and for mass-consumption media pieces.
I did find a 2007 Surveys in Geophysics paper for which he’s the sole author, for which I will not be paying Springer $39.95 to glance through. 170 references, yet no Supplementary Material?
Cosmic Rays and Climate.
Looks like his work is similar to Svensmark, who’s a reference, as well as Shaviv. But as both have been awarded their Scarlet “D”s and associating with them is persecuted by the (C)AGW entrenched establishment, it’s understandable if Kirkby wants to differentiate his work from Svensmark et al.
And Kirkby is still not “…the guy…that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.” Which orifice did Kyle extract that from?
Kadaka bloviated – “Well, I know Kyle was saying Kirkby was the “lead researcher” according to that ThinkRegress piece, but at the actual Nature link, Jasper Kirkby is the last author on the list. And with 79 authors, I doubt all of those authors would willingly agree any one of them was lead researcher, although many would be willing to claim they are on CV’s and for mass-consumption media pieces.”
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jasper-Kirkby/277736296
“Looks like his work is similar to Svensmark, who’s a reference, as well as Shaviv. But as both have been awarded their Scarlet “D”s and associating with them is persecuted by the (C)AGW entrenched establishment, it’s understandable if Kirkby wants to differentiate his work from Svensmark et al.”
Conspiracy theory much? LOL
“And Kirkby is still not “…the guy…that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.”
Uh, yes, he is, because the Svensmark hypothesis has been the go-to ABC for quite some time. It’s been CLOUD this and CERN that all over WUWT for what seems like forever. In previous years, CLOUD was lied about so much by the ABC crowd that Jasper Kirkby made statements explicitly condemning their misrepresentation of CLOUD. Now that CLOUD has produced results antithetical to the ABC crowd, they’ve largely ignored it. Or when brought up as I have done, they must lie about it.
“The lack of knowledge about aerosols – particles suspended in the atmosphere – and their effect on clouds is widely recognised as the major source of uncertainty in predictions about global warming. “We have to understand how clouds have been changed by human activity or natural activity if we are to understand climate change in the 20th century and therefore have reliable projections in the 21st century,” Professor Kirkby said.
The global average temperature on land and sea rose by 0.85C from 1880 to 2012, the IPCC said in a major report last month. The fact that amines are produced by animal husbandry means that humans are responsible for a previously unknown cooling effect on the planet. So the overall man-made “forcing” of the climate – once greenhouse gases are taken into account – may actually be less than thought.
And that could be bad news because, Professor Kirkby said, it suggested “the climate may be more sensitive than previously thought”. “If there’s been more cooling from aerosols than thought at the moment then this temperature rise will have resulted from a smaller forcing – or change – than previously thought,” he said. “That would mean the projected temperatures this century for a doubling of carbon dioxide may be bigger than current estimates.””
Hey, Kevin Knoebel, welcome back (you were missed for a couple of months, there). Hope all is well.
And, now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…
GREAT CARTOON, Josh! #(:)) (sshh, don’t tell anyone, but…. I saw l/ (hockey sticks!!!) all over the place in your drawing — seriously, very clever of you (smile))
Kyle writes:
…Professor Kirkby said, it suggested “the climate may be more sensitive than previously thought”. “If there’s been more cooling from aerosols than thought at the moment then this temperature rise will have resulted from a smaller forcing – or change – than previously thought,” he said. “That would mean the projected temperatures this century for a doubling of carbon dioxide may be bigger than current estimates.”
Nuts. Another evidence-free assertion. [And re: Kyle’s failure to respond to my last comment leads me to think, “Silence is concurrence.”]
The comment above in italics seems to imply that warming and cooling forces are so exactly in balance, that they result in the exact same natural step changes observed since the 1800’s. Does anyone believe in such an extraordinary coincidence?
I don’t. Because the universe doesn’t work that way.
Enough with the assertions, Kyle. Post measurable scientific evidence, or admit that you are doing nothing but speculating.
dbstealy – “I asked him to post any evidence he has; his response was to make his baseless assertion above.”
Believe me, I CAN support exactly what I claimed.
“[Kyle does not understand that neither pal reviewed papers, nor computer model outputs are “scientific evidence”.]”
dbstealy does not understand that dismissing peer review as “pal review” and any unwelcome climate science as “mere models” is classic science d____l.
“There is no evidence of any ‘hidden heat’ lurking and collecting in the deep oceans, as I showed in my links. The oceans are not warming at an accelerating rate. In fact, they are not warming at all, as I also showed in my posted links.”
We shall see.
“Kyle claims, with no evidence given, that “93.4%” of the oceans are warming.”
Wrong. I claim that 93.4% of any net heat flux ends up in the ocean because the ocean represents 93.4% of the thermal mass relevant to climate. Try to keep up.
“As I wrote to Kyle above: If you have verifiable data showing where the deep oceans are heating up, please post it here. I have not been able to find any such data. Without measurable data, all you have are assertions.”
Sure thing:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3682.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/284.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50541/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00834.1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1767.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/nature12534.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/7/245/2013/tcd-7-245-2013.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006601/abstract
dbs – “The comment above in italics seems to imply that warming and cooling forces are so exactly in balance, that they result in the exact same natural step changes observed since the 1800′s. Does anyone believe in such an extraordinary coincidence?”
That’s an insane interpretation.
I also like how you dismiss the project lead’s unequivocal conclusions as “an evidence-free assertion”. You seem to think you know better than these stupid PhD’s. Write it up. Your Nobel awaits. (face -> palm)
Let it be known that my previous comment came through but the one prior – the one with numerous links to peer reviewed science – is for some strange reason still stuck in moderation. Perhaps the mods are trying to decide if there’s any science that needs to be suppressed?
[Reply: Read the Policy and About pages. Comments with several links are held for approval. ~ mod.]
Kyle posted a lot of links, all of which confirm my statement that without measurable data, all he has are evidence-free assertions.
A sentence from each of Kyle’s first seven links:
Model results from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4), show that…
And:
Models contain a delay between greenhouse gas forcing and surface temperature increase…
And:
…two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences…
And:
We investigated the extent to which state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) can capture this hiatus period by using multimodel ensembles of historical climate simulations…
And:
Several recent modeling studies… advocate for the role of the deep ocean…
And:
Simulating these processes in a coupled climate model…
And:
Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model…
I have explained to Kyle several times now that models are not scientific evidence. Not one GCM [computer model] was able to predict the major event of the past two decades: the stopping of global warming. That’s how good [or bad] his models are.
Models are not evidence. But Kyle will not accept that, because if he did, he would have to admit that there is no evidence supporting his belief in Trenberth’s ‘hidden heat’ lurking in the deep oceans. That is a preposterous assertion to any reasonable person, since heat rises. The 3,351 buoy ARGO array would have detected rising heat long ago. Instead, ARGO shows ocean cooling.
Kyle is just winging it. He has no measurable evidence that supports his belief system. Until he can post scientific evidence showing his hidden heat in the oceans, his entire argument consists of baseless assertions.
dbs – Models are fundamental to many scientific fields. Many applications of models are rock solid science. As I stated previously, dismissing science by essentially claiming that if the word “model” is involved, it;s all BS, is a lazy d____r copout.
[snip. It does not require a moderator to ‘discredit’ comments, only logic. ~ mod.]
“The 3,351 buoy ARGO array would have detected rising heat long ago. Instead, ARGO shows ocean cooling.”
Both a Big Lie and a red herring, as they are limited in depth to less than 2000m.
“Not one GCM [computer model] was able to predict the major event of the past two decades: the stopping of global warming. That’s how good [or bad] his models are.”
His reasoning is perfectly circular. The 2.3% of the total heat that he obsesses on is KNOWN to be subject to annual/decadal scale cycles imposed over any trend by a small variation in the heat flux to/from the 93.4%. It is also KNOWN that we have been in a cycle of surface cooling/ocean warming for several years. These are FACTS, Jack! Simple logic says that there has been above average heat uptake by the oceans during this time.
Yet dbs ignores 93.4% to dwell – dishonestly – on the 2.3% in spite of the KNOWN processes and their KNOWN effects. The motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty involved is astounding to behold. Also entirely predictable. That’s what “you guys” do.
Models may be fundamental, but measured data is more fundamental. Without it, all you have are True Beliefs. That’s witch doctor territory.
Kyle has no evidence to support his assertions. Further, he does not seem to even accept that heat rises.
Until measurable evidence is produced, everything being claimed is nothing more than assertion. Conjecture is the first step in the hierarchy: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. So an assertion is not ipso facto wrong. But without verifiable measurements, assertions are hardly science. And there are no measurements of Trenberth’s ‘hidden heat’ in the deep ocean. That nonsense is the King of Baseless Assertions.
So Kyle has nothing. He keeps arguing as if he has measurable facts, but he has no scientific evidence to support his True Belief. None. He is winging it.
Skeptics view people who actually believe that heat is coming into the deep oceans, but is unmeasurable and hidden from view, as somewhat off the deep end. It’s like a man who believes there is a black cat in his dark bedroom, hiding under his bed. He believes that he can even hear the cat breathing! But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
Just like ‘hidden heat’ in the ocean. Same-same. ☺
“Kyle has no evidence to support his assertions.”
Only conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermo!
“Further, he does not seem to even accept that heat rises.”
Whuh?! ROTFLMAO!!!
“he has no scientific evidence to support his True Belief. None. He is winging it.”
Says the guy who thinks that rising cold waters can cool the entire planet without warming! Put a fork in this loser; he’s done!
Kyle says:
February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm
His reasoning is perfectly circular. The 2.3% of the total heat that he obsesses on is KNOWN to be subject to annual/decadal scale cycles imposed over any trend by a small variation in the heat flux to/from the 93.4%. It is also KNOWN that we have been in a cycle of surface cooling/ocean warming for several years. These are FACTS, Jack! Simple logic says that there has been above average heat uptake by the oceans during this time.
Since it is so well KNOWN then all the Climate Models predicted a 30 year stall in warming starting around 2010*, right? That is, we should easily be able to check any single one of the models and every single one of them will show a flat to declining line up until the year 2040 or so, correct?
* the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipped in 2008, not 1997 when Global Warming actually started its stall. So even if you somehow talk yourself into believing the stall is happening because of the negative cycle, you are still left with the 12 inconvenient years (or 71% of the total stall period) from 1996-2008 that goes against your entire theory.
@ D. B. — just so you know, those of us up here laughing at “Kyle” in the stands, can see he is nothing but a bagful of straw. He is PATHETIC.
His trash talk would not be worth dignifying with a response except for the opportunity it provides for a genuine seeker of truth to learn. Good job, Professor Stealey!
This sums up the entire attempt by “Kyle:”
“Kyle”: You want “evidence?” Okay. Mister Expert says so.
DB (et. al.): “Mister Expert says so” is not evidence in this forum.
K: But, Mister Expert says so very, very, definitely.
DB (et. al.): Provide the evidence for what Expert says, please.
K: Oooo, you are just “insane.” Laws of physics…. they, uh, they support my conclusions.
DB (et. al.): Proof? Causation? EVIDENCE?
K: {hurls an armload full of sawdust, a.k.a. the proven-failed CLIMATE MODELS, lol} Here! This proves everything.
Conclusion: Kyle’s performance had some entertainment value, ZERO science value.
D. B. Stealey (et. al.) — High science value. GREAT WORK!
Kyle says:
February 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm
“Only conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermo!”
I can’t decide if you are serious here.
I mean, you can’t be that dumb, can you?
What’s your position then? Do you deny that we’ve been in a phase wherein increased upwelling of cold water has acted to cool surface temps? Do you deny that heat extracted from the atmosphere by the ocean is, in fact, going into the ocean? Seriously, I have no idea what you’re objecting to or why.
@ DS — he could be that blinded by pride… .
Pitiful.
Finally found that “2.3%” that Kyle rattled on about. It’s a SkepSci thing, not surprising no one here ever heard of it. Doesn’t Kyle realize virtually no one pays attention to SkepSci anymore so they wouldn’t get the reference?
Dr. Pielke Sr had noted an important 2012 paper: New Paper “Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance II. Relation To Climate Shifts” By Douglass And Knox 2012 (links to paper there). Pielke noted this from the paper’s Conclusion:
This is climate heresy to those insisting the deep oceans are mysteriously soaking up the global warming, as it says that energy isn’t here to be stored in the deep ocean anyway. So the SkepSci crowd reared up and penned a rebuttal:
Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts”
Nuccitelli, Dana, Way, Robert, Painting, Rob, Church, John and Cook, John (2012) Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts”. Physics Letters A, 376 45: 3466-3468.
I found the “2.3%” at a pleasant little WordPress blog, Nature’s Half Acre, whose owner is obviously another deceived misinformed believer (gave credit to SkepSci) as other articles there are well-researched and informative, a true old-style environmentalist seeking to understand and work with nature. Worth looking at.
Global Warming and Ocean Heating
Excerpt:
I would think “continents” would show up in the land surface record, and Antarctica has been getting colder while absorbing its share of the “missing” warming, etc.
There’s a link there to a downloadable version of the paper, once you add the missing “f” to the end of the URL.
Then came the reply, as reported by Dr. Pielke Sr.:
Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012
Dr. Pielke noted the first and last paragraphs summarize with:
Wow, misinformation and misdirection from the SkepSci crowd. I am shocked, shocked I say!
Pielke’s link to the Reply is to Elsevier thus paywalled, but here’s the free version:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DK_reply_PLA_2012.pdf
To complete the set, here’s a free version of the original paper:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/PLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf
Kyle:
Evidence, please. So far, all you have are assertions.
Anth0ny:
I have just seen your post at February 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm. It gives me a “24 hour time out”.
I have made two posts in response to points put specifically to me since then on another thread. This was not disobedience but was my not having seen your instruction which I will obey for 24 hours from now.
However, I also place on record that I did NOT adopt “kindergarten tactics”. I provided three posts to Kyle which each gave Kyle genuine advice which would enable Kyle to behave appropriately and effectively in this forum. They are here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/02/josh-on-the-uncomfortable-pause/#comment-1557414
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/02/josh-on-the-uncomfortable-pause/#comment-1557838
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/02/josh-on-the-uncomfortable-pause/#comment-1557897
Subsequently, the thread has demonstrated that everything I said in those posts was accurate, correct and true.
Richard
Of course, climate scientists have repeatedly disproven this idea of a “global warming pause” for the past year, citing both improved temperature models and, much more importantly, the increasing rise in the ocean temperatures. But hey, whatever helps keep your delusional ideas afloat (in warming water) go nuts. Hopefully your dumbfuckery won’t kill us all.
I feel neglected (sigh)
I said at February 3, 2014 at 3:59 am:
Perhaps, I wasn’t friendly enough?
Kyle, I’m just asking if you have evidence for your belief about the ocean -logic that isn’t circular.
Models are fine but if they can’t reflect the real world then they are just wetter and duller versions of Grand Theft Auto.
So please, answer the three questions.
Tell me the facts.
Kyle says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:09 am
“What’s your position then? Do you deny that we’ve been in a phase wherein increased upwelling of cold water has acted to cool surface temps? Do you deny that heat extracted from the atmosphere by the ocean is, in fact, going into the ocean? Seriously, I have no idea what you’re objecting to or why.”
We have been in such a phase between the 1940s and 1970s, where increased upwelling of cold water acted to cool surface temperatures. Global temperatures cooled for decades and CO2 made no difference at all. This period was known to be during a negative PDO phase, so what is different know compared to then? Only reason why global temperatures warmed after this negative PDO period was down to mainly the cold water stopped upwelling. When this happens increasingly strong El Ninos occur and the solar energy that fuels them remains near the surface.
Ironic that you use this to try and explain the missing energy, when the reason the energy was there in the first place because of increased warming from solar energy in the tropics staying near the surface. The previous global warming period was due to positive phase of the PDO where upwelling of cold water hardly occurred. Its not us ignoring the positive phase with you cherry picking of the negative phase only. Your the one that is denying the reverse mechanism of this cold water upwelling scenario.
Kyle says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:09 am
“What’s your position then? Do you deny that we’ve been in a phase wherein increased upwelling of cold water has acted to cool surface temps? Do you deny that heat extracted from the atmosphere by the ocean is, in fact, going into the ocean? Seriously, I have no idea what you’re objecting to or why.”
Position on what? You apparently want us to tell you where something is that you feel must exist but is somehow just missing.
It is your position that CO2 is causing catastrophic warming of the planet evenly in a blanket like process scratch that, that is the old theory and is sooo 2010. The new, post-stall theory is that CO2 is causing only the deep oceans to warm, and every 30-40 years or so that extra warmth is being released in the form of catastrophic global warming.
Of course we are in a negative cycle of the PDO. The PDO, coupled with the extreme maximum solar output, has been the “skeptics” stance since the argument started years ago. Your side is the one who has just now woken up to it in your effort to explain the stall, after insisting the PDO had nothing to do with warming only a few short years ago (you conveniently ignore all those articles from SkS, why?)
But if your new theory is correct and the heat is being trapped in the ocean only to be released during a positive cycle, then you have four major issues you will need to account for
1, why the supposedly missing heat wasn’t released from 1997-2008. That was a positive cycle which should have been warming the planet under your theory, but instead represents 71% of the to-date stall in temperatures
2, why the rate of heat from this recent positive cycle matches the rate of heat being released from the deep oceans from 1925-1940 during that positive cycle. That is before CO2 induced Global Warming, and we witnessed the same pattern with the same rate of warming over about the same amount of time. Once you come up with some theory as to that, then you will need to move onto the other period with the same cycle which produced the same results in the late 1800s. You conveniently ignored that data provided by DBStealey
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
your theory is the third arrow is 100% Man Made because this time we heated the deep oceans, while the other two red arrows are completely natural.
3, I will help you out and tell you that yes, the deep oceans are warmer today then a couple hundreds of years ago The problem is, they are much cooler today than they have been for most all of the past 10,000 years. I will also tell you they were much warmer than today during the MWP, fell dramatically during the LIA, and subsequently have been rising for the last roughly 400 years. Unless your next theory revolves around CO2s ability to time travel…
4, since your side of the argument has finally woken up to the PDO, then I assume they filled you in on the 60 year cycle, correct? If not, it’s simple. A Negative+Positive cycle accounts for 60 years. So if you really want to see how the climate is changing over a length of time, it should be compared to the last time it was in the same cycle; 60 years prior. We can do that back to 1910 since we have global records dating back to 1850
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics4/co2-graph.jpg
The IPCC says that Man Made Global Warming began in 1950. Ironically, the real “stall” pretty much starts that same year. All of the Catastrophic Global Warming took place before 1950, prior to when the IPCC says Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming began Since then we are just repeating the natural cycle experienced in the 60 years prior.
So the question for bullet #4: if CO2 is heating the deep oceans at a much faster rate today, and that heat is being released through the PDO positive cycle, then why are temperatures today following the same exact path as temperatures 60 years ago, a time which was prior to CO2 induced Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming even beginning?
Kyle says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:09 am
“What’s your position then? Do you deny…”&blah, blah, etc.
Scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Skeptics do not have to ‘deny’ anything. Rather, the onus is on those who make conjectures such as, “Heat is hiding in the deep oceans.” It’s like this:
Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – ‘The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.’
Regarding the conjecture that CO2 produced by human emissions is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the belief that there has been an unprecedented spike [hockey stick] in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.
That is the Scientific Method for you. But then there are people like Kevin Trenberth, who has attempted to reverse the Scientific Method, writing: “…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
That, of course, puts skeptics in the impossible position of having to prove a negative. That is what Kyle is trying to do here. Kyle is trying to force skeptics into the position of proving that there has not been warming hiding in the deep oceans.
Won’t wash, Kyle. Heat hiding in the deep oceans is your conjecture, therefore you have the burden of showing that conjecture is valid. That burden is accomplished by posting measurable scientific evidence — data showing that the deep ocean is, in fact, heating up. And computer models are not sufficient. Models are just another assertion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no evidence of Kyle’s ‘hidden heat’. None at all. Kyle is trying to claim that he has “evidence” of deep ocean warming — but without any evidence. That is why Kyle is going so ballistic: skeptics are holding his feet to the fire of the Scientific Method.
Winning the debate is easy for Kyle: all he needs to do is produce measurable, testable evidence. But until and unless he does, he loses the argument.
All of those things have been supported; the d____l industry simply d____s that they have been. That’s why you’re called d_____s.
[Reply: Please do not use “denial”, “denialist”, or any of their pejoratives, including underscores in place of letters. You can use that meaningless word all you like on alarmist blogs. Not here. ~ mod.]
Kyle says:
February 4, 2014 at 8:18 pm
“dbs – All of those things have been supported; the d____l industry simply d____s that they have been. That’s why you’re called d_____s.”
If that is somehow true then surely there is evidence of it. So, where is the evidence?
Then, why don’t you start answering some of the many questions from multiple posters you keep avoiding? I know they are facts, and facts are clearly not your thing, but surprise us and at least give it a try. I’m sure SkS has an excuse somewhere you can copy/paste. Keep searching, maybe you’ll find something! (Word of advise though, do pay attention to what you are actually parroting. Like that unbelievably asinine “conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermo!” line you pulled after searching “How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?” Two seconds of research should have had you realizing it would leave you looking like even more of a complete moron.)
Lastly, why do you debate like a preteen girl? The blind devotion to a theory you clearly don’t understand, the sad capitalizations, the odd characterless words, the pitiful conspiracy theories, the obsessive name-calling… You claim to be 55, yet act like you are probably taking the Short Bus to High School each morning.
John Day says:
February 3, 2014 at 5:57 am
I plotted the data Hoser posted above. It does look like the decade 2001-2010 has an exceptionally long run of years with no days below 0F.
http://tinypic.com/r/2z5ivdi/8
Is this data correct? Do other regions exhibit this same anomaly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is another explanation. The Urban Heat Island Effect (The surface station project may have data on this station.)
Dr. Brown @ Duke Univ mentioned the Raleigh-Durham airport that was built between those two cities and has since been developed. On January 30 2014 the record low was 7 °F (1977) (@ that airport) was tied.
Dr Brow states:
Dr Brown lives in the suburbs and as Dr Spencer noted in his “Global Urban Heat Island Effect Study: An Update” (search for it)
His graph shows a steep rise in the Urban Heat Island effect just going from 1 to 10 people per sq. km.
Now I happen to live 25 miles just about due south of RDU by ~25 miles. The cow pasture airport down the street had a minimum on January 30th of 1 °F.
This was not a mistake. A city part way between RDU and my location but a bit west showed:
[Siler City Muni, Siler City, 0 °F] on Jan 30th And the city to the east of that and further south, Erwin, NC (another airport) was 4 °F Erwin is near the city of Lillington NC.
This is not in the mountains. Siler City Municipal Airport has an elevation of 615 feet (187 m) above mean sea level. Please note that since those two stations are not part of the ‘Official Data Set’ the record was not broken despite the fact the temperature was below the record by all other indications.
Another city in the state of North Carolina shows the same problem of the Airport being warmer than the nearby city weather station.
The city is on the North Carolina/Virgina border and right on the ocean. Take a look at the city vs the airport. Norfolk City and
Norfolk International Airport
Unfortunately the website has been returning this message for a month:
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: @ February 3, 2014 at 4:55 pm
…Kyle had said on February 3, 2014 at 1:28 pm of Kirkby: “You know, the guy and the study that you guys have been heralding for years as the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.”
I’ve never heard of him before. Anyone here know who the heck he is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
kadaka, I think he is Dr. Jasper Kirkby, head of the CLOUD Experiment at CERN.
This is “the silver bullet to kill the CO2 werewolf.” that Kyle is referring to
From the National Post newspaper.
Funny how you ignored the part where he specifically condemns any attempts to lie about the results over the years or his 2013 findings that point to higher, not lower, CO2 sensitivity. LOL!
dbstealey says: @ February 3, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Kyle posted a lot of links, all of which confirm my statement that without measurable data, all he has are evidence-free assertions.
A sentence from each of Kyle’s first seven links:
Model results from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4), show that…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kyle has a big problem relying on climate models because the IPCC says:
As Doctor R.G. Brown, a Physicist at Duke University has been at pains to point out the Earth’s climate is a chaotic system with ‘Strange Attractors’
More on Strange Attractors: http://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/attractors.html
In short the system has many ‘Forcings’ (I hate that word) many of which are probably unknown unknowns and the system is sensitive to initial conditions. This is shown by the fact the IPCC models have flunked the reality test.
If you look at the temperature of the earth for the last 65 million years GRAPH you can see the oscillation between ‘Strange Attractors’ and the changes caused by the movement of continents or mountain building. This is a graph of the last five million years that shows the earth’s climate is now bouncing between two ‘Strange Attractors’.
The interesting thing is during glaciation Dansgaard-Oeschger events, a rapid warming of temperature, cause global temps to change 16C and 8, 10C in dramatically short times gives weight to ‘Strange Attractors’ and a bistable climate . These events bring the temperature back to close to interglacial temperatures. NOAA Graph of D-O events (No Kyle it doesn’t help the CAGW conjecture. The interglacial analog of D-O events are Bond events which are much less dramatic)
….
As far as the 97% of scientists… goes, the number of contributing scientists was over 2200 for AR4 and over 800 for AR5. Scientists are distancing themselves from the ‘hypothesis’ it would seem.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: @ February 3, 2014 at 10:17 pm….
Another BIG LIE is that the earth’s energy is in some sort of rigid balance.
What the earth’s climate is trying to do is balance the earth’s incoming and outgoing energy. As the surface energy increases the outgoing energy increases (Stefen-Boltzmann law). This is not instantaneous as the day/night temperatures show.
What I find hysterical is this (from an engineer):
compared to this:
That would be at the surface or 479 W/m2 @ 21 June insolation 65◦ N – 9% higher would be 43 W/m2 some how a DECREASE of 43 W/m2 makes an INCREASE of 1.4 W/m2 look a wee bit wimpy don’t you think?
It also shows that the climate remains rather stable until it shifts to the other ‘Strange Attractor’ which is going to be down not up, if we are unlucky. Otherwise the earth’s climate will bump along near the switching point to glaciation for another 40,000 years.
For Kyle here is your peer-reviewed paper from the September 2012.
Don’t like that one? How about a paper from 2007.
Or since you like models how about this paper?
Discussion
Sure looks like burning coal and putting as much CO2 in the air as possible is a REAL GOOD IDEA especially since plants grow better and C3 plants (most of our crops) become more drought resistant at higher CO2 levels.
Kyle:
Your post at February 5, 2014 at 5:42 am says in total
This is merely another of your pre-adolescent mytherings which I (repeatedly) and DS have advised you to avoid. Your post is meaningless and infantile blather which contributes nothing and only serves to increase the clear impression that – in the words of DS – “you debate like a preteen girl”.
Who is “you”?
What did “you” “ignore”?
Who is “he”?
Where does he “specifically condemns”?
What “lie” and by whom?
Which “results”?
Over which “years”?
What “2013 findings” and where and how were they reported?
How do those “findings” “point to higher, not lower, CO2 sensitivity”?
What “higher” value and what “lower” values of “CO2 sensitivity”?
And to what is CO2 “sensitive”?
You see, Kyle, your post is meaningless blather which has needlessly taken up space in the thread.
I suspect you are trying to discuss climate sensitivity which is expressed as anticipated global temperature rise in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. And I suspect that you are trying to say something about somebody’s specific determinations of climate sensitivity. But my suspicion could be wrong.
However, all my posts addressed to you have attempted – and have clearly failed – to help you. So, in another attempt to help you, I will try to salvage something from the wreckage which is your post. To do that I will assume my suspicions are correct and therefore, that you are trying to comment on climate sensitivity but do not understand it.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected because it would be much, much smaller than natural climate variability.
If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
But, of course, that is science so I have no confidence that you are capable of understanding it.
Richard
Kyle says:
February 5, 2014 at 5:42 am
“his 2013 findings that point to higher, not lower, CO2 sensitivity. LOL!”
Not one scientist has shown scientific support for high sensitivity with CO2. To able to do this scientific observations need to support any assertion.
For CO2 to be seen as high sensitive, global temperatures must rise significantly, unnaturally and with this being the only reason. Since the 1970s global temperatures have almost entirely risen with just 2 step ups in global temperatures. This is shown below and for CO2 to be high sensitivity these steps must have only been caused by it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.5/trend/offset:-0.05/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:1996.5/trend/offset:-0.05
Remove these step ups and overall global temperatures have risen less than 0.1 c since the 1970s. What caused the step ups, CO2?
No, strong El Ninos caused the initial huge rises and global temperatures fell to levels roughly half of each one and remained fairly constant with even slight cooling. This backs up the sensitivity is high towards ENSO at a certain threshold, not CO2. El Ninos are independent of CO2 and therefore suggest this rise was natural.
Can’t CO2 sensitivity be high too? No
Removing the steps leaves less than 0.1 c warming that may or may not be related to CO2. 0.1 c over a period of 4 decades clearly shows CO2 with very low sensitivity. The main conclusion was that if CO2 had high sensitivity with continued increases, we would have not seen a non-warming period since the last strong El Nino back in 1997/98. Clearly any natural variance is easily hiding any pseudoscience high sensitive influence what CO2 has because it is hardly detectable even in the past 4 decades with all science observations using satellites.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.5/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.5/trend/plot/rss/from:2001.5/trend/plot/uah-land/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2001.5/trend
In response to my 5:51 post above, Kyle says:
“All of those things have been supported…”
No, Kyle, they have not.
Once again: ‘supported’ is a vague assertion. ‘Supported’ does not mean there is scientific evidence, which is what I was explicitly requesting from you in that post. ‘Supported’ merely means that someone agrees with you — but without evidence. As I keep reminding you, ‘evidence’ means either empirical observations or measured data.
But apparently you don’t have measurements showing any hidden heat. Which is why I posted the stricture: the onus lies on those who say so.
You say so; but we want proof. Measurements are proof.
The onus is on those who claim there is increasing global warming, but that it is hiding in the deep ocean. The onus is on you, Kyle, to produce measurable evidence to support what you claim is happening. Despite repeated requests, you have provided no verifiable measurements of your putative “hidden heat” lurking in the deep ocean.
Skeptics do not simply accept assertions like yours. We need verifiable data showing that hidden heat. The thousands of ARGO buoys, which transit through the occeans from the surface to thousands of metres deep, have not located any such hidden heat. Heat rises; if there were heat building up in the ocean, the ARGO array would have detected it as the heat rose to the surface. But no such heat has been detected in the mid-ocean, or at the surface, or at coastlines. Your claim is apparently that warm water is increasing, but that it remains stationary on the bottom of the ocean.
I understand that demanding measurable evidence puts you in a difficult position. But that is how science works. Runaway global warming is your conjecture, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of its existence. The fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support your belief indicates that skeptics are on the right side of the argument — an argument that you and your alarmist clique are decisively losing.
You can easily turn that around, by posting testable, verifiable, measurable scientific data if you have it, showing that ‘hidden heat’ collecting in the deep ocean. Otherwise, you are just being stubborn.
dbs – When a la Nina brings cool waters to the surface, cooling the atmosphere, what are the options for where the heat goes? Take your time.
Matt G. – You just treated ENSO as a forcing!
DS – “Word of advise though, do pay attention to what you are actually parroting.”
I was parroting nothing. I’ve studied thermodynamics.
“Like that unbelievably asinine “conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermo!” line you pulled . . . ”
Why is it “unbelievably asinine”, DS? A la Nina brings cool waters up to cool the atmosphere. That heat goes where?
“. . . after searching “How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?”
What are you on about? I didn’t search anything. I was at a stoplight!
“Two seconds of research should have had you realizing it would leave you looking like even more of a complete moron.”
Well, you certainly talk big. Let’s see you answer my above question without looking like a complete moron.
Kyle says:
February 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm
That’s because it is solar forcing. and warms the worlds surface ocean currents either more or less.
Matt G. – That is dead wrong and I suspect that you know it. A solar forcing is a solar forcing. IF a solar forcing drives ENSO (a bare assertion), ENSO is part of the climates response, NOT a forcing!
It can’t be a forcing by simple logic:
In the absence of any forcing, ENSO is a purely cyclical phenomenon without a trend. No trend; no forcing – by definition.
Kyle says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:01 pm
I was parroting nothing. I’ve studied thermodynamics.
Yeah, right
Why is it “unbelievably asinine”, DS? A la Nina brings cool waters up to cool the atmosphere. That heat goes where?
What the hell do you even think takes place during La Nina/El Nino and the Positive/Negative PDO cycles anyway? You have absolutely no idea, do you?
<< “. . . after searching “How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?”
What are you on about? I didn’t search anything. I was at a stoplight!
Yeah, right
Well, you certainly talk big. Let’s see you answer my above question without looking like a complete moron.
You provide a question that makes sense and I’ll do just that.
However, I’ll go a step further and even answer the question which I assume you were (quite poorly) attempting to ask. In fact I’ll show it to you in pictures so it is hopefully easy for you to understand
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.14905.1389714848!/image/Warming2.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/Warming2.jpg
Although you must remember, a lot of it also goes into the air. That part is what you call CAGW. Others just call it what it is, a constantly repeating natural pattern seen throughout history doing the same thing.
I’ll even go further than that as well; I’ll provide the article I grabbed that image from. It will let you witness the bumbling fools that are the ‘Climatologists’ struggle to figure out on their own what ‘Skeptics’ have been trying to tell them for years.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525#b6
In that article you can not only see them finally discover the correlation between Positive/Warming and Negative/Cooling, but also watch them argue amongst themselves if there even is a PDO Positive/Negative cycle. Apparently there is no consensus on that yet. And my personal favorite part is when they ponder the possibility that La Nina is actually caused by global warming, before having it dawn on them that their models likely overestimate global warming because they never thought about the possibility La Nina could become more frequent or powerful (like it was the last time the PDO was in that cycle they are not completely sure even exists because their models don’t contain it)
And that article comes not from the 80s or 90s when they decided exactly what CO2 must be doing and to what extent it was doing it. Nope, it comes from less than a month ago. Apparently they should stop spending so much time alone painstakingly programing their models with all their assumptions in an attempt to prove their theories, and instead start spending some actual time in the real world around them that has been completely passing them by.
Now just image what might happen if they started comparing cycles with each other to better understand them though. Would look like this
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics4/co2-graph.jpg
But crud, all that Global Warming they were ever so certain of completely disappeared. No matter, give them another 10-20 years and maybe they sill stumble on that reality as well. And that might be just in time for them to switch back to the “Global Cooling is going to kill us all” position they held the last time we were in this negative cycle
Kyle says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:50 pm
Matt G. – That is dead wrong and I suspect that you know it. A solar forcing is a solar forcing. IF a solar forcing drives ENSO (a bare assertion), ENSO is part of the climates response, NOT a forcing!
It can’t be a forcing by simple logic:
In the absence of any forcing, ENSO is a purely cyclical phenomenon without a trend. No trend; no forcing – by definition.
———————————————————————————————————————–
I did mean it is a response to a solar forcing, but itself needs a change in ocean surface circulation to move between the two negative and positive phases. What causes the persistent weak or strong trade winds to cover a negative or positive phase is not clear. Over 60 years covering both a negative and positive cycle, solar energy is always entering the tropical oceans, but the change in surface circulation appears to gives us different surface trends.
The tropical oceans are naturally always trying to cool and to do that ENSO is part of the process that moves this energy to others parts of the planet via surface ocean currents.This means that it is irrelevant what trend ENSO has because it does not reflect the energy moved elsewhere. The ENSO appears to only have no trend when cover both a positive and negative phase together. During the positive or negative phase over a 30 year period it is clear to see they have a trend. ENSO actually does or does not have a long term trend depending on the source data you use.
For example using ERSSTv3b does show a long term trend.
Whereas HADSST below doesn’t.
In the absence of solar forcing ENSO wouldn’t exist and it only occurs due to a build up of solar ocean warming that is naturally dispersed in bursts.
The above link actually shows this below and represents a warmer ENSO trend compared with the earlier period.
Whereas HADSST doesn’t show long term trend is now shown below.
I note that Kyle still cannot post any measurements showing his putative heat hiding in the ocean.
If the heat exists, measurements should be easy. The 3,000+ ARGO buoys repeatedly traverse between the surface and thousands of metres down, taking temperature measurements each way.
Those measurements show ocean cooling. They do not show any heat collecting in the deep ocean. Any such heat would have to be rising. The ARGO array would detect rising heat, but it hasn’t detected any.
I have posted several measurements showing ocean cooling. But Kyle only responds with his assertions; he does not post any testable, real world measurements. Without measurements, Kyle’s assertions are inadequate.
Kyle is like the guy laying in his dark bedroom who believes there is a black cat under his bed. He can almost hear the cat breathing. He knows it’s there. But when he turns on the light… There is no cat! And there never was.
The missing cat is just like that missing heat supposedly hiding under the ocean; same-same. Without measurements, it’s all Belief; simple opinion. Evidence-free conjecture, nothing more.
Kyle insists that we must take his word for it. But science doesn’t work that way. As Prof Richard Feyman said: if it disagrees with experiment [ARGO], “It’s wrong.” If it doesn’t match observations [ARGO]… “…it’s WRONG. That’s all there is to it.”
Kyle and Feynman cannot both be right. Readers can decide for themselves which one is right, and which one is wrong.