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?quality=75)
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:
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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) (@ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.