![Hand%2BWaving[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hand2bwaving1.jpg?quality=83)
Well not exactly #37, but it sure seems like it with all the handwaving we’ve seen lately.
So far, we’ve heard from Climate Science that ‘the pause’ was caused by:
Too much aerosols from volcanoes, ENSO patterns, missing heat that went to the deep ocean, ocean cooling, low solar activity, inappropriately dealt with weather stations in the Arctic, and stadium waves, to name a few. So much for consensus.
Now, it’s trade winds going too fast that are causing abnormal cooling in the Pacific. A new paper from the University of New South Wales says that once the winds return to normal speed, well, look out, the heat is on.
One thing for certain, even though the media is going predictably berserkers over this paper, the paper clearly illustrates that natural variation has been in control, not CO2. So much for control knobs.
Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming — for now
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
New research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change indicates that the dramatic acceleration in winds has invigorated the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, causing more heat to be taken out of the atmosphere and transferred into the subsurface ocean, while bringing cooler waters to the surface.
“Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear” said Professor Matthew England, lead author of the study and a Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
“But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal – as it inevitably will – our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global temperatures look set to rise rapidly out of the hiatus, returning to the levels projected within as little as a decade.”
The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.
“The winds lead to extra ocean heat uptake, which stalled warming of the atmosphere. Accounting for this wind intensification in model projections produces a hiatus in global warming that is in striking agreement with observations,” Prof England said.
Credit: For articles on this paper only. Credit: Nature Climate Change. Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Prof Matthew H England et al.
“Unfortunately, however, when the hiatus ends, global warming looks set to be rapid.”
The impact of the trade winds on global average temperatures is caused by the winds forcing heat to accumulate below surface of the Western Pacific Ocean.
“This pumping of heat into the ocean is not very deep, however, and once the winds abate, heat is returned rapidly to the atmosphere” England explains.
“Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.
“We should be very clear: the current hiatus offers no comfort – we are just seeing another pause in warming before the next inevitable rise in global temperatures.”
###
The paper:
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich& Agus Santoso
Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106
Abstract
Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.html
” Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.”
So… This kinda implies we knew of the trade winds effects the whole time yet despite this and so many unable to find the source of the “hiatus” in warming these great folks went back and added in the trade winds effects. LOL. Isnt it a bit weird we knew of their effect but didnt include it? Or wait this paper tries to establish this effect doesnt it? LOL. Coincidence the effect is equal to what would be needed to explain the “hiatus”?? Naw. Im sure its all totally legit, and undeniable. Im also sure they totally proved their point right? with data rather then models they programmed themselves??
“Climate scientists have long understood that global average temperatures don’t rise in a continual upward trajectory, instead warming in a series of abrupt steps in between periods with more-or-less steady temperatures. Our work helps explain how this occurs,” said Prof England.”
See what I mean? Clearly this fellow is totally honest!! ALL the models show long period of steady temps. right? Hmmm. No wait that isnt true at all. In fact there seems to be a dozen or so explanations for this current lack of warming because it was such a rare event in the models. Hmmm. so his work explains how something all the scientists knew but had barely shown up in the models. You see they added this aspect of the trade winds effects for the first time. The models show lack of warming as very rare, but the experts KNEW it would happen often,(despite calling you a denier if you acknowledged it) they just didnt know why, or bother to include all variables in the models. Afterall the IPCC itself admits low understanding and consensus on all aspects of climate except co2s effect, we KNOW that totally, undeniably. Now that this group was able to get the models to show what the experts already knew (but could not explain and tried to deny was even true) then I think its pretty clear we need carbon taxes. Its the only possible answer.
I seem to be stuck in some weird bubble in time where if you question things it is anti science rather then the basis of science. If anyone sees this, and has a way to get me back to one of the saner timelines… my phone number is 555-…..
How is the alleged ‘strengthening’ of the trade winds “Unprecedented”? What data is it based on, and how long is the record? Are Tree Rings a proxy? Whale Feces?
BOX OF ROCKS asks how strong are the Trade Winds. I have been sailing them for 15 years going from NZ to Tonga, Fiji, New Caledonia, etc. The ‘average’ is 15-20 knots. They originate from a quasi-stationary High Pressure just west of Equador; and are aided by moving Highs that travel from West to East across the Pacific centered near 30 South. When the Highs are strong, over 1030, we have enhanced trades with winds near 30 kts; inbetween the Highs are intra-anticyclonic troughs. This is when the trades reverse and winds come from a westerly quadrant. This is a cycle that lasts about a week, give or take. Winds from 10S to 10N are variable. They are absolutely not trade winds. They may blow from the ESE to SE, but usually in the 10-15 knot range. They often blow across the equator from N to S. They even can blow from the W to NW in the western S. Pacific during the monsoon season. This latitude band is avoided by most yachts due to the variables, but are a necessary evil if one has to cross the equator.
I had to scratch my head over this paper.
DS
the GISP2 temperature record only goes to 1855
“0.095 years before present”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/notetime.htm
There are three main timescales used on the CD-ROM. For both GRIP and GISP2, these timescales are in years before present (yr BP) where year 0 refers to northern hemisphere summer of the year 1950 A.D.
Stephen Ramsey
the warming is not dispersed evenly throughout the entirety of the earth’s oceans between 0-2000m. Some portions of the oceans are warming much more rapidly than others. Due to the effects of the localized changes in the wind patterns. The local temperatures in the southeast pacific and the indian oceans are easily verifiable and significant so that their determination is well within the error margin of the instrumentation.
You should already know these things!
“””””…..milodonharlani says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:37 am
george e. smith says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:08 am
Easterly trade winds occur on both sides of the equator. …..”””””
My post did not exclude NH trade winds.
No matter what I put in a post; there will always be someone who thinks I forgot something.
I think I mentioned the Volvo Ocean race, which covers BOTH hemispheres.
I’m an Aucklander; we know about sailing; and our Polynesian mates also know all about trade winds; N&S.
jai mitchell posted a chart fabricated by Kevin Trenberth et. al as his authority.
Trenberth has shown no indication that he will ever back away from his ‘hidden heat’ pitch, so jai mitchell, Trenberth’s acolyte, posts Trenberth’s misinformation.
Instead, let’s look at the actual ARGO data. If we observe ocean temperatures down to a couple of thousand meters, we see cooling.
Until the ARGO data was diddled with, it consistently showed ocean cooling. But since government scientists depend on the “carbon” scare for continued funding, ever since the ARGO “adjustments”, guess what happened? They started to show warming.
But not nearly enough warming, and only in one strata [0 – 194 metres; hardly the ‘deep ocean’]. All the rest show cooling.
Deep ocean heating is the last gasp of the climate alarmist crowd. Every other alarmist prediction has been wrong, from disappearing Arctic ice, to acidifying oceans, to runaway global warming, to disappearing Polar bears, and a hundred others.
When one’s predictions all turn out to be wrong, honest scientists will admit that their hypothesis has been falsified. The ‘carbon’ scare is one major exception to that common sense admission. I can understand [but not condone] scientists fanning the flames, because their income might be jeopardized. But what motivates people like jai mitchell?
I think it is religion. They cannot admit that any one part of their conjecture is wrong, otherwise they will begin to question everything.
Can’t have that.
Finally, regarding jai mitchell’s fabricated chart: there is no way that temperatures have shot up like mitchell asserts. The total T rise has been only about 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. This chart shows global T in perspective. Notice the numerous ‘hockey stick’ rises over the Holocene. The current natural rise is exactly the same.
jai mitchell needs to stop posting misinformation. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented about today’s global temperature. Asserting otherwise is dishonest.
DBstealey,
Your ARGO data is incorrect is there a reason that you only show the northern hemisphere ocean heat content values as your “proof”?? Link to Bob Tisdale graphic.
With regard to your statement here: The total T rise has been only about 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. This chart shows global T in perspective. Notice the numerous ‘hockey stick’ rises over the Holocene. The current natural rise is exactly the same.
Remember, the last temperatures on that chart you linked end in 1855, right in the VERY END of the Little Ice Age.
How much warmer has it gotten in the arctic (where these temperatures come from) since 1855?
over 2.5 degrees http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/nasa_arctic_aerosol_warming.png
Steven Mosher says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:22 am
“Stupidity annoys me. especially if a so-called “scientist” does not know what to do with observations of nature. Here is an observation: there has been no warming in the twenty-first century”
You must be much annoyed by your own stupidity re 21st century.
Bafflegab.
@jai mitchell 9:24 am to Stephen Ramsey [it is Rasey]
the warming is not dispersed evenly throughout the entirety of the earth’s oceans between 0-2000m. …. You should already know these things!
I do know these things. That is why I call foul on 50 years of spatially biased, sparse temporal and water depth data masquerading as “robust” and “indisputable” 240 KJ of warming. Until 1992 no one had anything that could be called a fair sampled temperature dataset in the 0 – 1000 m interval. Until 2005 no one had a fair sampled temperature dataset in the 0 – 2000 m range.
It is based on that “not dispersed evenly” temperature field that I conclude that we have not the precision needed to know the average temperature of the Ocean to 0.01 deg C. And we have no idea besides preconceptions about what the average temperature of the 0 – 2000 m ocean was prior to 2003.
jai mitchell says: “Your ARGO data is incorrect is there a reason that you only show the northern hemisphere ocean heat content values as your “proof”?? Link to Bob Tisdale graphic.”
There’s nothing wrong with DBstealey’s graph, jai. It’s apparently raw ARGO data. Raw ARGO data shows cooling, or aren’t you aware of that?
Even with the NODC’s adjustments, the only ocean basins, using the NODC’s depth-averaged temperature data to 2000 meters during the ARGO era, are the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/nodc-argo-era-vertical-mean-temp-per-basin-to-2013.png
From this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/open-letter-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/
Have a nice day.
Bob,
The reason that DBstealey’s graph is wrong is because he says that the northern hemisphere ARGO data PROVES that there is NO ocean heat accumulation.
I am sure that you understand that this is an incorrect interpretation of the data.
WRT your open letter to Trenberth. It seems that your question “why (does the Indian ocean not cool under La Nina conditions)” is written about by Michael Mann.
I thought you would find that he agrees with you on this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/global-warming-speed-bump_b_4756711.html
jai mitchell says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:24 am
the GISP2 temperature record only goes to 1855
“0.095 years before present”
Oh my Lord man, you keep going around in circles with the same incorrect statements and thoughts.
First, “0” is 1950, not 1855. You are erroneously calculating it as if the graph starts at 95. It doesn’t. Second, read your own link, even it tells you we have the data until 1993 (and tells you how 1989 is referred to in said data. How do you think it can refer to 1989 if the data only goes up to 1855?)
But here, something you will probably recognize as an unbiased source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
As you can see, even Wikipedia recognizes reality. Why can’t you?
And to your post to DBStealey
“Your ARGO data is incorrect is there a reason…”
Why are you even arguing this? What does it even matter? You are trying to (incorrectly) bicker over microscopic fractions of a degree while I already showed you the Deep Ocean temperature is still dangerously low, barely above the LIA level, despite 400 years of warming to get out of that period of 10,000 year lows. We are thousands and thousands of years away from being anywhere near normal for the past 10,000 years based off our current pace of “warming”, but within striking distance of the 10,000 year low. That is “dangerous warming” to you?
So again, even if you somehow talk yourself into believing it is rising rapidly or whatever, it is still not rising anywhere close to fast enough to keep us from falling into another Little Ice Age, or worse, if we see continual strong La Nina conditions. (constant strong La Nina conditions following the MWP leads right into the LIA)
And while you will surely write off the possibility of another LIA as being impossible because you have been brainwashed into believing this CAGW stuff, take a second and humor me. That is, take a look at the Ice Core data again and point out all the upward spikes which were not followed by a similar downfall within, at max, a 100 or so years. You have to be able to recognize, if the CO2 theory you were told to believe is wrong…
You then go on to give us this faceplant:
How much warmer has it gotten in the arctic (where these temperatures come from) since 1855?
The Arctic is not even as warm today as it was in the 1930s and has been following the PDO cycles.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/polyakov.jpg?w=500
That brings us back to even Wiki knowing the GISP2 graphs includes the 1930s in them, so you should be able to figure out the Arctic is no where near as warm as it has been in the past.
So we have, Arctic today not as warm as 1930s, and Arctic not as warm as it has been in the past, but still CAGW is going to kill us all because… the Arctic?
jai mitchell complains that I only posted the ARGO Northern Hemisphere data. But upthread I posted this, and noted that with the exception of one [relatively shallow] ocean strata, every other ARGO data set and ocean strata shows cooling. Not slight warming. And certainly not jai mitchell’s wild-eyed belief in runaway ocean warming. But rather, it shows net ocean cooling.
Face reality, jai: the models predicted rapid ocean warming, but that hasn’t happened. As with global warming, ocean warming has essentially stopped. [How could there be rapid warming of 71% of the planet that is ocean, but with no global warming overall?]
Of course, jai mitchell has a religious belief in runaway global warming due to the “carbon” scare. He cannot accept what even most alarmist scientists now accept: global warming has
pausedstopped. [To be a “pause”, warming would have to have resumed; so far, it has not. It has simply stopped.]If jai mitchell cannot admit that global warming stopped about 17 years ago, then he has no interest in the truth. He wants to convert non-believers to his own religious belief. But that might be pretty hard, with the well educated folks who post here. None of them seem to agree with jai mitchell’s unusual world view.
DS
1950 is time = 0
.095 years before present is .095 THOUSAND years before present or 95 years before present or, as I said, 1855. The end of the little ice age.
–the little tail end that you thought was the modern era warming is only a tiny bump coming up after the little ice age. There has been a full 2.5C warming since then putting it right back up there just about the peak of the Minoan warming period.
DS and DBSTEALEY
if “every other ARGO data set and ocean strata shows cooling. Not slight warming
then WHY does bob tisdales’ graphic say that the entire southern hemisphere ARGO data show SIGNIFICANT HEAT ACCUMULATION?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-1.png
you can’t say that there is no heat accumulation and then have every data set say that there is significant heat accumulation, if you do, well then you just look silly.
for example, this bob tisdale graphic (ANOTHER ONE)
The amount of heat energy shown in this graphic is enough to raise the earth’s atmosphere by 37 degrees Fahrenheit EVERY DAY AND EVERY NIGHT, permanently.
Now, that is a LOT of heat accumulation!
jai mitchell says:
February 11, 2014 at 7:59 pm
“1950 is time = 0
.095 years before present is .095 THOUSAND years before present or 95 years before present or, as I said, 1855. The end of the little ice age.
–the little tail end that you thought was the modern era warming is only a tiny bump coming up after the little ice age. There has been a full 2.5C warming since then putting it right back up there just about the peak of the Minoan warming period.”
That tiny blip is 1855-1950!!!
How is this so hard for you to understand?
As I said, look at the Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
And where the heck do you get this “full 2.5C warming since then” stuff? You mean from absolute Low to Peak in the 1930s? Sure, I guess. We are talking “climate” not “weather” though, which means we are talking long running averages. You are trying to combine Apples & Oranges. If we were just talking anomalous peaks, then all of the previous warming periods would similarly skyrocket much higher then they are shown on the graph, making it useless
Anomalies caused by short Weather stints mean nothing though, and instead what matters is; in another 1,000 years that graph will still show today’s period of “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming” as little-to-nothing more then that little tiny blip at the end. Kind of pitiful when put completely into perspective, huh?
“then WHY does bob tisdales’ graphic say that the entire southern hemisphere ARGO data show SIGNIFICANT HEAT ACCUMULATION?”
Because that is not a significant heat accumulation; it is hardly even a blip compared to the amount of heat the Oceans normally hold. In fact, just 10 feet of Ocean can hold all the heat in the entire Atmosphere. It is that much of a heat sink It pretty much sits there guaranteeing the CAGW you are all worried about can’t possibly happen.
But once more, (and stop ignoring it! All you are doing is showing you have no interest in fact and are only interested in illogical talking points that fit what you desperately want to believe) …anyway, we have gone about 400 years and Deep Ocean temperatures have made it all of 0.25C above 1600-1700AD/LIA. We need to get to 0.65C to even get back to the 1000AD/MWP level, and need between 1-2C to get back to what would be considered Normal over the past 10,000 years. (you know, the time periods covered between 2,000-10,000 years prior to today on the GISP2 graph. That is back when everything was consistently 1.5 to 3 Degrees over our current climates. Oh, and fell to our current extremely low levels only twice over those 8K years, I might add.)
Your doom and gloom, “OMG! We’re gonna die” graph is like someone pissing in Lake Superior and insisting it will turn yellow. Whoever is telling you that nonsense is merely trying to play off your fears and gullibility, while insuring they give you absolutely no perspective because you wouldn’t take them seriously if you had any.
And just curious, why did you just completely ignore the fact that the Arctic was warmer between 1920-1940 then it is today? I hope it’s not because you question my source. If so, I can give you this which hopefully you will feel more comfortable with
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
or even this if you prefer
““Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” – IPCC AR5 Chapter 10”
So, please tell us, why is it that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s completely Natural “Global Warming” than it was during this, the age of “CAGW”? And don’t worry, I wont bother asking how that is even possible when “Nature can’t possibly cause warming like this.” But do look at the NASA graph again. They highlight the 1980-2000 period, pointing out the +0.48/Decade increase as if it is “unprecedented” and “catastrophic”, which means it must be Man causing it. What they don’t label, for some odd reason, is 1918-1938 when it rose a full 2 degrees over 20 years (or +1.0/Decade) completely Naturally. (It’s almost as if Hansen and his team hopes you don’t notice that.)
Anyway, so can you at least admit that the supposed catastrophic CO2 warming of the Arctic from 1980-2000 is absolutely no match for completely Natural forces?
jai mitchell says:
“The reason that DBstealey’s graph is wrong is because he says that the northern hemisphere ARGO data PROVES that there is NO ocean heat accumulation.”
Wrong as usual, about everything.
First, it is not my graph. It is ARGO data. Argue with them if you don’t like it.
Next, I said “every other ARGO data set and ocean strata shows cooling.” How can we have a discussion if you cannot understand that “other” indicates an exception? You are just erroneously nitpicking whatever you think you can — while I am saying that you are wrong abvout everything.
As I have repeatedly stated, the oceans are doing what the planet is doing, i.e., not warming, as incessantly predicted by you and your ilk. All of your runaway global warming/catastrophic AGW predictions have turned out to be wrong. All of them. What does that tell you? That you’re right anyway?
It looks like someone has wired around your On/Off switch, and you cannot ever admit that your predictions of climate catastrophe are nonsense. But they are! You are just too infected with Cognitive Dissonance to see it. CAGW is a religion with you, nothing more. Like any martyr, you would die to be right. But as everyone else can see, you have been consistently wrong. There is no runaway global warming. There is no “hidden heat” building up in the deep oceans. There is no climate catastrophe happening, much as you fervently wish it were so.
You are wrong about everything. It is amusing to watch, by folks who are level-headed about the situation. So keep up the swivel-eyed Chicken Little scare stories. Your arguments are fun ‘n’ easy to deconstruct. Because the rest of us see that the sky is not falling; it was only a little acorn that bonked you on the head. ☺
All,
1. The ARGO data shows a heat accumulation (WARMING) in the world’s oceans SINCE 2005 that, if that same energy was instead deposited in the world’s atmosphere, would cause a 37 degree F warming of the daily average temperature, EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. IF WE EXPERIENCED A 37 DEGREE WARMING OF OUR ATMOSPHERE WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING?
2. The GISP2 data has it’s most recent dated value at 0.095 thousand years before present.
the date of “before present” is 1950, the most recent date of the GISP2 data is .095 thousand years before present: see actual data here ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
AS This graphic clearly shows, the GISP2 temperature trend ends at the very end of the little ice age. Since then there has be 2.5C of additional warming that you can see here: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/3500years.png
Jai,
I dug thru to find the data so you can see that the “coming out of the LIA” blip is post-1855, not pre-1855
-31.58 30Yr … -31.65 Actual … 1890
-31.92 30Yr … -31.77 Actual … 1880
-32.35 30Yr … -32.14 Actual … 1870
-32.30 30Yr … -32.30 Actual … 1860
-32.38 30Yr … -32.24 Actual … 1850
-32.23 30Yr … -32.60 Actual … 1840
-32.25 30Yr … -31.71 Actual … 1830
-32.09 30Yr … -32.34 Actual … 1820
-32.22 30Yr … -32.12 Actual … 1810
-32.25 30Yr … -32.24 Actual … 1800
-32.15 30Yr … -32.15 Actual … 1750
-32.48 30Yr … -32.53 Actual … 1700
-32.04 30Yr … -32.24 Actual … 1650
-31.72 30Yr … -31.58 Actual … 1650
As you can see, Greenland didn’t come out of the LIA until the 1900s, not the mid 1800s as you apparently assume. In fact, you can see 1850 was the second coldest 30-year stretch listed; beating 1700 by all of 0.1 Degrees.
The absolute peak as far as recent years is that 1930s run I showed you earlier, which resulted in a running average of about -30.50. That is right around what we were able to sustain over long terms during the MWP*. The problem is, it wasn’t sustained at all this time, and by the 1970s Greenland was right back down to the -31.50 range. (In fact, 1970 actually hit -32.0 again. Hence why everyone was panicking over the “Global Cooling” and the possibility we were headed into another Ice Age. We were only about 70 years out of the LIA, saw a peak 40 years prior, and had fallen like a brick from that peak right back to temperatures common for the LIA. They had very good reasons to think we might have been headed right back into the LIA. Now we even know we had been trying to rise but instead falling back to -32.0 ranges constantly the past 1,000 years (as can be seen in all those little blips during the LIA on the graph.) …Some might say ‘thank God the Sun hit it’s Grand Maximum from 1950-2000, it might have saved us from another LIA!. Of course, the bad thing is the Sun has now fallen back asleep)
Case in point on my mentioning of attempts to rise but falling back. You can find a similar period of time like today’s in the 1400s, which resulted in -31.50 range 30Yr averages. That time period is the section right between the MWP and LIA, and can be seen in the graph getting pretty close to today’s peak. It didn’t last, and instead we went into the worst of the LIA. (and this is an appropriate time to mention the Sun again, which happened to go to sleep between 1450-1550 – what a coincidence, huh? We call that period the Sporer Minumum. and yes, it is really similar to the Maunder Minimum of the 1600s.)
Right now, what you call “catastrophic man-made warming” that is destroying the planet or whatever, is not even as extreme as Natural Warming in the 1930s. Meanwhile we aren’t close to the MWP on a longterm average, only get close to the longterm average of the MWP in very small bursts we can’t sustain, and match up pretty well overall with a period we consider the beginning of the LIA. Without perspective, one might think “oh geez, we rose 0.5 degrees in only a couple decades.” In perspective, we are dangerously close to where we were during the LIA, and have not even reached normal temperatures in the last 1,000 years.
So just like with the Deep Ocean temperatures, the Arctic is fluctuating closer to the Little Ice Age then to “catastrophic global warming.”
*Side-note – look at the graph again. You can see the MWP is pretty much “average” for the past 10,000 years. So at the Arctics peak of warming (1930s), we were almost back to average.
Doesn’t that give you any perspective at all? Doesn’t that at least quickly you question why some supposedly educated scientists are acting like the world is about to end? Doesn’t it leave you even remotely interested in what their real desires must be since they are clearly misleading people like that?
Ponder those questions against stuff like:
To convince people that global warming is a threat, use “your personal conviction as a friend, colleague or neighbor” to make your case — avoid using scientific arguments.
“Speak openly of your personal ownership of your convictions,” said Marshall, who founded the Climate Outreach and Information Network and is the author of the book “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.”
They are kind of openly playing you for a sucker here, and you seem to be more then willing to allow them to.
jai mitchell says:
“1. The ARGO data shows a heat accumulation (WARMING) in the world’s oceans…”
Um… wrong. How many times do you have to be shown that the oceans are not warming? They are cooling overall, as I have shown several times in the various raw ARGO data charts I’ve posted. But mitchell’s reaction is always the same.
For some needed perspective, jai mitchell should look at this. But as always, he will find some way or other to feed his Cognitive Dissonance, and come to the silly conclusion that catastrophic AGW is happening.
Finally, mitchell’s last link shows that prior Holocene temperatures have been higher — during times when CO2 was much lower. Normal folks would look at that fact and agree that CO2 is not the cause of either natural global warming, or global cooling cycles. Instead, mitchell looks at higher temperatures in the recent geologic past — and preposterously concludes that while current temperatures are lower, they must be caused by human activity.
There is no reasoning with religious fanatics, and mitchell qualifies for that label in spades. He makes Chicken Little look like Prof Richard Lindzen. Glacier ice a mile deep could descend once again on Chicago, but mitchell would still be singing his old cAGW tune. Like Harold Camping, jai mitchell would be posting the same kind of links, hopelessly trying to show that the end of the world is nigh. I suppose there is some degree of comfort in being so certain, even when people are laughing at him.
DS,
You went to great lengths to show that the “blip” at the end of the graph is after 1855.
I just plotted the actual data that you worked through to show you the graphic is complete. I even added key points and values to show you the actual dates and the temperatures in the chart.
here it is. It clearly shows that the little blip at the end of the GISP2 data does indeed end at 1855.
I know that this may be a shock to you since this data has been misrepresented so many times all over the internet. but now you have the actual data and a chart to back it up.
you said, “Side-note – look at the graph again. You can see the MWP is pretty much “average” for the past 10,000 years. So at the Arctics peak of warming (1930s), we were almost back to average
well, according to bob tisdale, the arctic has experience 2.5C of warming in the modern era. so, now all we have to do is add the 2.5C to our GISP2 graph to show how current warming compares to previous values.
this current graphic, using the bob tisdale arctic chart temp increase in the modern era, shows that we are currently at the Holocene maximum
So, we know that the 2.5C of arctic warming, tacked onto the GISP2 chart at the correct endpoint (1855) shows that we are currently at the highest recorded temperature of the last 8,000 years or so. During that period of time, the global average temperature has only increased by about 1 degree C
currently, we are on track for the global average temperatures to go up another 5C by 2100. This is an additional 5 times what has happened so far (2.5C in the arctic) which means another 12.5C of additional warming.
This is what that looks like when compared to the 8,000 year temperature record
I hope that this clears up the misconceptions you have regarding the GISP2 temperature record and how current temperatures and future temperature projections look when compared to that historic record.
DBStealey,
You are the one who is refusing to observe the evidence. The surface temperature average of the oceans does not, in any way show if the deeper ocean is warming or cooling due to stratification. You realize that the surface of the ocean is insignificant to the total volume, right???
you keep saying that the ocean isn’t warming but EVERYONE, (including Bob Tisdale ON THIS WEBSITE!) says that it is warming, EVERYONE BUT YOU, that is.
The warming that Bob Tisdale, ON THIS SITE says has accumulated in the oceans since 2005 is
Total amount of heat energy differential (warming) measured by the ARGO network since 2005
= 17×10^22Joules – 9×10^22Joules = 8×10^22 Joules
Therefore if all of this heat energy went into the atmosphere instead of the ocean, the total amount of average temperature increase of the atmosphere would be:
=8×10^22Joules/5.025×10^21 Joules per degree Kelvin
= 15.9 degrees Kelvin increase.
= 28.6 degrees Fahrenheit WARMING SINCE 2005
so, instead of 1.4 degrees F average warming, we would have a jump of almost 29 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 2005, that is EVERY DAY AND NIGHT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
think you would believe in global warming then?????
jai mitchell says:
“So, we know that the 2.5C of arctic warming, tacked onto the GISP2 chart at the correct endpoint (1855) shows that we are currently at the highest recorded temperature of the last 8,000 years or so.”
Apparently jai mitchell never looked at this link. Or the other links I posted. Too bad, he might have learned something.
But other readers no doubt looked, and have learned that mitchell is nuts. Especially if they clicked on his last link @ur momisugly 8:26 pm above. If that isn’t a bunch of preposterous nonsense, then I’m nuttier than jai. ٩(͡๏̮͡๏)۶
mitchell’s fabricated chart is even scarier than Michael Mann’s thoroughly debunked hokey stick chart. That’s quite an accomplishment!
It’s too bad that jai mitchell has never heard of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. If he had, he would understand that there is nothing being observed today that is either unusual, or unprecedented. There is no scary rise in temperature. Arctic ice cover is recovering nicely from it’s recent natural, cyclical decline. Ocean ‘acidification’ is another nonsense scare. Global temperatures are not shooting upward like mitchell’s chart claims. Global precipitation is normal. Polar bears are not dying out; in fact their population is exploding. And so on.
The Null Hypothesis requires current climate parameters, like the ones above, to exceed past extremes in order to be falsified. Since past parameters have all exceeded the current ones, the obvious conclusion is that there is nothing unusual happening. Everything currently observed has happened before, and to a much greater degree. Thus, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, as noted by Dr Roy Spencer.
But religion cannot be reasoned with, therefore jai mitchell cannot be educated with facts. His beliefs are religious in nature: he believes that there is runaway global warming in progress. Nothing can change his belief. But his Chicken Little imitation is amusing to folks who only want honest science-based evidence. That evidence does not support jai mitchell’s belief.
If runaway global warming begins to occur, I will be among the first to accept verifiable scientific evidence that it is happening. But so far, it is just the opposite: global warming stopped seventeen years ago. That is a long time to keep one’s religious belief alive. But our boy jai can do it if anyone can.
Thanx for being entertaining and amusing, jai, especially with your last link above. I for one was getting tired of the same old hokey stick. Your new one will keep me amused for quite a while.
<a href="http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/03/31/2943649/wwu-faculty-find-overwhelming.html"further proof:
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook’s definition of “present temperature” in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.
DBStealey,
your grapic is simply wrong. The endpoint of your chart is 1855, the amount of warming tacked onto the end of that chart is the amount of warming that has occurred in the arctic since then. not the global average
The correct amount, as reported by Bob Tisdale (here) is 2.5C. not the pathetic .6C that your graphic shows but actually 5 times that amount!
you keep asserting that global warming has STOPPED for the last 17 years, but evidence provided ON THIS WEBSITE shows that it just ain’t so.
I’m not sure about Anthony Watts’s ‘long’ list of ‘excuses’ for the non-existent pause. Aren’t ‘ENSO patterns’, ‘heat that went into the ocean’ and ‘trade winds in the pacific’ all very closely linked? The article he points to about ocean cooling seems to be specifically about the mid-20th century and not really relevant – was this included in error?
Anyway, it shouldn’t be a surprise if there is a range of factors contributing to the possible recent decrease in the rate of surface warming; even a fawning uncritical amateur like myself can see that climate is complex and influenced by many different factors. Watts has happily written and posted about a large number of possible influences on the climate (and he’s posted a number of articles alleging ‘Omitted variable fraud’ by Alec Rawls), so it’s strange if Watts is now saying that scientists are considering too many variables.
Some of Watts’s list seems not be in question; I think it’s well-established that solar irradiance has been lower on average, and ENSO has been predominantly in a more cooling phase, over the period of the possible recent decrease in the rate of surface warming, than in the 1990s (correct me if I’m wrong). Is anyone seriously arguing that these factors have not exerted a relative “cooling” influence since the turn of the century?
I’d be interested to know whether mainstream climate scientists consider the ‘stadium wave’ as a likely contributing factor to the possible slowdown in recent surface warming. (I wonder whether the ‘wave’ would persist if a more rigorous attempt were made to remove the effects of external forcings on NH temperature, rather than just linear de-trending). I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed comments published about this study.
Please accept my apologies – my comment above was much more blunt than I had intended. If you wish to remove it I’ll understand. I should explain that I think there hasn’t been a pause in global warming as the oceans have continued warming over the last 15 years. Also, I’m certainly not qualified to judge Wyatt and Curry’s “stadium wave” or to be saying whether or not it is a likely contributor to the recent slowdown in global surface warming.