Gosh, you’d think they’d check the data before issuing a statement like this (press release follows).
It [CO2] was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012. Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
But, the temperature data tells an entirely different story, look at this plot of all global temperature metrics and trends from 2002-2012 – there’s no warming to be seen!
In fact, with the exception of UAH, which is essentially flat for the period, the other metrics all show a slight cooling trend.
Plot from Woodfortrees.org – source:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/best/from:2002/to:2012/plot/best/from:2002/to:2012/trend
UPDATE: here is the same graph as above, but with CO2 increase (a proxy for forcing) added. Clearly, global temperature does not follow the same trend.
Plot from Woodfortrees.org – source:
From the World Meteorological Organization – Press Release No. 991 (h/t to Steve Milloy, emphasis mine)
CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere
Geneva, 26 May 2014 (WMO) – For the first time, monthly concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) in April throughout the northern hemisphere. This threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet.
All the northern hemisphere monitoring stations forming the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch network reported record atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the seasonal maximum. This occurs early in the northern hemisphere spring before vegetation growth absorbs CO2.
Whilst the spring maximum values in the northern hemisphere have already crossed the 400 ppm level, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross this threshold in 2015 or 2016.
“This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Time is running out.”
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – over the decade 2002-2012.
Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.
Since 2012, all monitoring stations in the Arctic have recorded average monthly CO2 concentrations in spring above 400 ppm, according to data received from Global Atmosphere Watch stations in Canada, the United States of America, Norway and Finland.
This trend has now spread to observing stations at lower latitudes. WMO’s global observing stations in Cape Verde, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain (Tenerife) and Switzerland all reported monthly mean concentrations above 400 ppm in both March and April.
In April, the monthly mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 401.3 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, according to NOAA. In 2013 this threshold was only passed on a couple of days. Mauna Loa is the oldest continuous CO2 atmospheric measurement station in the world (since 1958) and so is widely regarded as a benchmark site in the Global Atmosphere Watch.
The northern hemisphere has more anthropogenic sources of CO2 than the southern hemisphere. The biosphere also controls the seasonal cycle. The seasonal minimum of CO2 is in summer, when substantial uptake by plants takes place. The winter-spring peak is due to the lack of biospheric uptake, and increased sources related to decomposition of organic material, as well as anthropogenic emissions. The most pronounced seasonal cycle is therefore in the far north.
The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch coordinates observations of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases like methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere to ensure that measurements around the world are standardized and can be compared to each other. The network spans more than 50 countries including stations high in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas, as well as in the Arctic, Antarctic and in the far South Pacific. All stations are situated in unpolluted locations, although some are more influenced by the biosphere and anthropogenic sources (linked to human activities) than others.
The monthly mean concentrations are calculated on the basis of continuous measurements. There are about 130 stations that measure CO2 worldwide.
A summary of current climate change findings and figures is available here
|
Preliminary CO2 mole fractions at the GAW global stations (March 2014; April 2014)
|
 * data are filtered for clean sector ** only night-time values are used to calculate monthly mean |
| Legend and data courtesy:ALT: Alert, Canada, 82.50°N, 62.34°W, 210 m a.s.l. (Environment Canada, Canada)AMS: Amsterdam Island, France, 37.80°S, 77.54°E, 70 m a.s.l. (Research program “SNO ICOS-France” led by LSCE/OVSQ (CEA, INSU))BRW: Barrow (AK), USA, 71.32°N, 156.6°W, 11 ma.s.l. (NOAA, USA)CNM: Monte Cimone, Italy, 44.17°N, 10.68°E, 2165 m a.s.l. (Italian Air Force Mountain Centre – Mt. Cimone, Italy)CVO: Cape Verde Atmospheric Observatory, Cape Verde, 16.86°N, 24.87°W, 10 m a.s.l. (Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany)
HPB: Hohenpeissenberg, Germany, 47.80°N, 11.01°E, 985 m a.sl. (Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), Germany) IZO: Izaña (Tenerife), Spain, 28.31°N, 16.50°W, 2373 m a.s.l. (Agencia Estatal De Meteorología (Aemet), Spain) JFJ: Jungfraujoch, Switzerland, 46.55°N, 7.99°E, 3580 m a.s.l. (Empa, Switzerland) MHD: Mace Head, Ireland, 53.33°N, 9.90°W, 5 m a.s.l. (Research program “SNO ICOS-France” led by LSCE/OVSQ (CEA, INSU), in collaboration with EPA, Ireland) MLO: Mauna Loa (HI), USA, 19.54°N, 155.6°W, 3397 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) MNM: Minamitorishima, Japan, 24.29°N, 154.0°E, 8 m a.s.l. (Japan Meteorological Agency, Japan) PAL: Pallas, Finland, 67.97°N, 24.12°E, 560 m a.s.l. (Finish meteorological Institute (FMI), Finland) SMO: Samoa (Cape Matatula), USA, 14.25°S, 170.6°W, 77 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) SPO: South Pole, Antarctica, 90.00°S, 24.80°W, 2841 m a.s.l. (NOAA, USA) ZEP: Zeppelin Mountain (Ny Ålesund), Norway, 78.91°N, 11.89°E, 474 m a.s.l. (Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Norway |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
milodonharlani – Nice we’re on the same page. Only 7 billion people to go. With half of them of below average intelligence we have our work cut out for us.
Pete Brown says:
May 27, 2014 at 4:44 am
This annoys me for all kinds of reasons, but the lack of intellectual and general integrity actually begins right in the first paragraph of the release.
The fact that CO2 concentrations have passed 400ppm is of absolutely NO “scientific significance” and it does not reinforce anything at all, any more than 399ppm or 398ppm or 400.7ppm or, in due course, 406ppm.
“400″ ppm is only interesting if you are the PR executive tasked with spinning the message, and your aim is to create a press release that falsely gives the impression of some threshold having been passed, and the preservation of your own integrity isn’t really an issue…
—————————————-
Very well said. That’s where my BS alarm went off too – right at the start.
Of course I didn’t expect the WMO to have any other position – they are firmly part of the establishment, and as mother nature continues to not cooperate with their AGW conjecture (the establishment’s) the Orwellian language will just continue to get, well, more Orwellian.
The establishment is conducting the conditioning and indoctrination of the masses on a scale not previously possible or imaginable. Things have come a long way since Bernais’ “achievements” with the marketing of tobacco and deadly toxic waste in drinking water. Now they can get people to willingly “do with less” to reduce their “carbon footprint”. They have actually managed to get people to willingly hand over their money to them, to fix an imaginary problem. Genius.
In the UK the BBC keeps running articles about how insects can replace protien in our diet. Just now and again though, these articles. I think it’s just to get you used to the idea. I think they call it “nudge theory” (a PR technique).
As other commenters have pointed out, once the stuff is printed/shown on the telly/broadcast on the radio/put out on the website and the masses have consumed it, the damage is done. It’s precisely because it’s done by the establishment that it is so successful – people trust the World Meteorological Organisation because it sure sounds official. People trust the BBC (Auntie Beeb), etc.. People trust the establishment, generally. I don’t, personally.
And as for NS – can you not get yourself a proper job, something that might allow you to gain a sense of, you know, self respect, purpose in life, instead of being a tool of the establishment?
Given that CO2 absorbs only at certain wavelengths and the amount of energy available at those wave lengths is finite, how much solar energy is available to be absorbed by additional atmospheric CO2? Isn’t the absorbed-energy-vs-CO2-concentration curve getting pretty flat?
Where did the 34 percent come from? Can’t be mentioned in polite company, suffice it to say the source is anatomical. (Like various other numbers emanating from similar sources.)
Why do these people just blatantly lie to us ??
They keep on saying that CO2 is the most important GHG put into the atmosphere by human burning of fossil fuels.
Nonsense.
There is more H2O released into the atmosphere by burning hydrocarbons, than there is CO2.
If we were burning benzene, C6H6; which we are not the CO2 / H2O ratio would be 2:1.
But aromatic hydrocarbons, are all strongly suppressed in getting fuels out of crude oil, for example; because they are carcinogens.
Saturate carbon chain type molecules are close to 1:1, with more water, and with methane, as in natural gas, you get a 1:2 CO2 / H2O ratio.
When we exhale, we exhale comparable amounts of water and CO2.
I did a calculation , on our new entirely unprecedented (in human history) 400 ppm record breaking milestone. for CO2 in the atmosphere..
Whoop de do, a round number we can enjoy; that’s one CO2 molecule in 2500 air molecules.
So air is (1) CO2 + (25) Ar + (500) O2 + (1974) N2 molecules per 2500.
So if we take one stere of STP air, that is 1,000 litres of air; which contains 1,000 / 22.4 mols of air, or 44.643 mols of air.
So this is 44.643 x 6.023 E+23 air molecules, or 2.68884 E+25 air molecules.
So a sample of 2500 air molecules would be about 9.3 E-23 steres.
Cube root of that gives me 45.3 nm for the side of a cube of air with 2500 molecules in it.
Now just remember that the semiconductor industry passed the 50 nm critical dimension point in their chip technology a long time ago. I can’t recall if they are at 25 nm yet, or not, but that would be around 300 molecules of air.
So I have 1974 + 500 + 25 + 1 molecules in my 45 nm sample. I shaved it a bit so as to leave the CO2 molecule out of it; just outside my sample. (but still there).
No I don’t have any kind of microscope that I can see my sample with, but Mother Gaia; my super Maxwell’s demon, sure does, and she can see 2499 molecules dancing around crashing into each other at thermal energies. 2499 is a big enough number to declare that my sample has a recognizable Temperature; with a roughly Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic energy distribution, and an equi-partition energy of about (3/2)kT Joules per molecule. Well maybe the N2 and O2 molecules need about (5/2)kT energy, if you give them two rotating dumbbell moments of inertia. IANACh, so this is all Alchemy to me. But it is something like that.
And since this is PCh, my alchemybrew sample does NOT radiate any electro-magnetic radiation, and certainly not in the LWIR region.
Well those rotating dumbells maybe broadcast at microwave frequencies. I think Dr. Roy and Prof Christy tune to that station.
Every once in a while, that absent CO2 molecule gets kicked into the field of view, and MG gets a shot in the eye, of 15 micron LWIR photons; but for most of the time, her entire field of view, really has no photons coming from it, from my air sample. The CO2, out of the field of view, is of course singing like a canary, at 15 microns, but that isotropic broadcast never gets into MG’s microscope with its narrow depth of field “macro” lens.
So compared to the one CO2 molecule, my air sample is huge, and is emitting no LWIR EM radiation; nor is it absorbing any.
Well, we non Ch’s know full well, that those quiet molecules, in collision, do in fact have an off and on radiative antenna, that is active during those interminably long times, it takes for the molecules to crash into each other, and then get out of each other’s way. Those collision induced radiative antennas really do emit LWIR EM radiation, but it is in a broad continuum thermal spectrum, peaking at about 10 microns wavelength; but relatively weak on a per molecule basis.
So if you view the atmosphere as a large collection of samples of 2500 air molecules, each having just one CO2 molecule just outside it, you can appreciate that most of the atmosphere is quite transparent to LWIR radiation, and only a small part is causing all of the ruckus.
Of course, I played the same trick, that the Ch’s do, and decreed, that my air samples are of dry air, because as we know, H2O is not a permanent part of the atmosphere, but just comes and goes .
One important concept to grasp.
The CO2 in absentia, is absorbing and emitting narrow line spectra EM radiant energy.
What my MG is looking at in her microscope, is 100% ……””””” HEAT ENERGY “”””…..consisting entirely of the mechanical kinetic energy of colliding molecules. Essentially NO electro-magnetic processes are involved (well apart from the collision debris which Ch’s don’t admit to.)
[ IANACh = ?? And a Ch = ?? .mod]
How is a global average absolute humidity measured? Would it also be something not modeled correctly?
I called Bulls**t on the 30% increase in Co2 (or 34% depending on which propaganda dept. referred to) and was attacked for it. See this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/unsettled-science-new-study-challenges-the-consensus-on-co2-regulation-modeled-co2-projections-exaggerated/
Yet here we are on this thread all agreeing that it is Bulls**t.
Antarctica ice which is, and has been for some time, at record extent levels is a thorn in the side of the high priests of Thermageddon. Somewhat like the Medieval Warm Period that they wanted to exterminate at one time. So it’s not surprising there is currently an all-out attack on this inconvenient intrusion in the “climate change/global warming” dialogue. Their approach is simply to ignore the temperature graphs (what person in the general public reads them or even understands them) and to issue from a recognised “authority” a proclamation of doom.
Yep, Foxy Loxy at work again. Watch the attached video that Disney was asked to make during the dark days of WWII. It’s .relevance now is surprisingly accurate.
I leave it to you who might fill the character of Cocky Locky and the place called the “Cave”.
If you don’t have time to view the video here are Foxy Loxy’s strategies from his Psychology Book:
1. To influence the masses aim at the least intelligent (i.e. the Chicken Littles)
2. If your gonna tell a lie don’t tell a little one – Tell a BIG one
3. Undermine the fate of the masses and their leaders (i.e. Cocky Locky)
4. By the use of flattery (I hope I spelled that right!) insignificant people can be made to look upon themselves as born leaders
“Dinner is served”
Enjoy.
@ur momisugly David Ball, “34% increase in radiative forcing” stated in the beginning of article uses what as a baseline? How was the 85% of global warming calculated? I am no mathematician, but something about calculating and quantifying %of radiative forcing attributed to CO2 increases just feels fuzzy. I am also thinking that through the month’s now reading articles and comments here I see evolution of thought largely due to sharing of vast amounts of information which often makes my head spin. I think you forced a valid question in the other thread (sorry I am new to both this site and my new computer, cut and pasting challenged here) which as I remember it, defining how much an increase is 300ppm to 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere? I kinda would like to know that one….curious
george e. smith says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:58 pm
George, while a lot of water is formed from fossil fuels (and cooling towers, including nuclear), that is not important: the average decay rate of any excess water vapor is only a few days. For CO2 it is ~50 years.
Further, I suppose that the 34% increase only is the extra increase of the absorption in the CO2 band, where water is not active. Thus it is extra, but not 34% of the total IR absorption. But even this tiny amount of CO2 does absorb a measurable amount of energy in its 15 micron band if you make the sample a little lager than 45 nm, some 70 km or more to be sure. That is what satellites measure:
http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/news/newsmar01.html
There is a more recent difference plot, but I haven’t found back…
And how transparant is a glass window if you replace 1:2500 glass atoms/molecules by silver atoms?
dp says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:01 am
This blog helps.
Rather than tackling the seven billion all at once, how about starting with 64 of the 127 million Americans who vote in presidential elections?
george e. conant says:
May 27, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Thank you for your response. Milodonharlani has a great post in that thread and this thread. When Co2 is given as a percentile in the atmosphere, it is o.o4% or 4 ten thousandths. So an increase from 3 ten thousandths to 4 ten thousandths would accurately described as 1 ten thousandths, or 0.01%.
The 34% claim is using 400 (ppm) as a base. An increase os 300 to 400 would be ~33.3%. This is what I describe as unadulterated bulls**t. I am not sure how many “Hiroshimas” this is.
Since CO2 global warming theory includes CO2 causing an increasing % of water vapor in the atmosphere (and I can’t speak right now as to whether that was relative or absolute since I just got home from work), it shouldn’t be the case that CO2 alone is calculated. It should be calculated along with whatever the increase or decrease in water vapor is. If there has been a net negative increase in GHG, that could explain the pause and wipe out the CO2 theory in one fell swoop. Why? The increasing CO2 MUST cause water vapor, a very potent greenhouse gas, to also increase.
“Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”
This has nothing to do with CO2 increasing 34%. This is the claimed increase in greenhouse radiative forcing, the amount of energy the greenhouse effect is pushing back down to warm the Earth. And it is talking about a 23 year period, no from preindustrial times so it has no connection to the 300ppm increase to 400ppm in CO2.
Now what is the radiative forcing because of greenhouse cases? 333 wm2 according to Trenberth et al 2009 http://bobfjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/trenberth-cartoon-ex-colose.jpg?w=1764&h=1125&h=1125
So this article is claiming the greenhouse gas radiative forcing went from 333 wm2 and increased by 113.22 wm2 since 1990. Now in theory a doubling of CO2 would increase radiative forcing by 3.7 wm2. So where did NOAA’s extra 109.5 wm2 come from? So that is about the same as 30.6 doublings of CO2, so with a climate sensitivity of 3.4 C per doubling from the IPCC model mean the Earth should have warmed 104.04C since 1990. Looks like it is worse than we thought!
@David Ball and Theodore.. You both answered my query! I just could [not] see CO2 increasing in the atmosphere by 33.3 % when the metric measuring is 300ppm to 400pmm. Thank you David! And my unwritten thought was exactly about how Radiative Forcing was calculated relative to increased CO2 measured in ppm?? Thank you Theodore!
“could NOT see ” forgot a word
“””””…..Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 27, 2014 at 4:05 pm
george e. smith says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:58 pm
George, while a lot of water is formed from fossil fuels (and cooling towers, including nuclear), that is not important: the average decay rate of any excess water vapor is only a few days. For CO2 it is ~50 years. …..”””””
Well Ferdinand, I deliberately left out the water, and other polar molecules to point out that a lot of the atmosphere is quite transparent to the CO2 molecular spectral lines. And your 70 km of air, consists of a large number of 45 nm samples, each of which has a CO2 molecule just outside it. The total scale doesn’t matter.
And NO, I am not one of those “how can 400 ppm of anything have an effect?” people. I never deny the CO2 or other GHG influences. But I’m glad you mentioned that “excess water” in the atmosphere can decay quickly.
Just how much water vapor is “excess”, Ferdinand ??
You just explained how rapid variations in the water vapor quickly counteract the much slower changes in CO 2
In a nutshell one can simply say that the range of Temperatures and other climate conditions, that earth enjoys, and has enjoyed for eons, are simply a consequence of the various properties of the H2O molecule. Notable among those properties, is the roughly 104 degree angle of the H2O molecule. Life wouldn’t exist without it.
And your 50 year lifetime of CO2 excess is nonsense.
Every year the atmospheric CO2 “excess” at the north pole and surrounds, drops 18-20 ppm in just five months, due to the natural removal processes. At that rate, of decline, the claimed 120 ppm excess over the “pre-industrial” comfort value, is all removed in 25 months, about two years. So following an exponential decay, 99 % of the excess would be gone in 125 months; ten years and five months; not 50 years..
If our oceans were methyl alcohol, instead of water, the earth’s comfort range would be different. I have no idea whether life could evolve in such a Goldilocks state; or what sort of life it might become.
The statisticians can masticate their R values all they like; but unless they can change the water molecule angle to some value different from 104 degrees, they won’t ever change earth’s comfort range.
85% of nothing is …?
Didn’t they invent radiative forcing because they didn’t know what actualy caused the warming?
So the forcing of the models has risen 34% to keep the temperatures even? or something?
I’m not questioning that there has been no net warming, as your data clearly shows, Anthony, but could there still have been an increase in radiative forcing, offset elsewhere, that they were talking about?
george e. smith says:
May 27, 2014 at 7:51 pm
And your 70 km of air, consists of a large number of 45 nm samples, each of which has a CO2 molecule just outside it. The total scale doesn’t matter.
Sorry, but the scale does matter: the CO2 molecules are not lined up against each other, but randomly distributed together with the 45 nm samples. Thus the probablility of a 15 nm IR wave to hit a CO2 molecule is very high near ground, but less and less with reducing air density.
Just how much water vapor is “excess”
Every molecule above the maximum humidity at the temperature and pressure of any point in the atmosphere… Where it is emitted, it may get into the atmosphere, but when that reaches colder places – a few hundred meters from a cooling tower may be sufficient to drop out as condens/rain.
And your 50 year lifetime of CO2 excess is nonsense.
You make the classic mistake of looking at the residence time of CO2: that is how much CO2 of the total amount in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs. That is ~150 GtC of the current 800 GtC or a residence time of ~5.3 years. But that is only exchange and doesn’t remove any CO2 from the atmosphere as long as ins and outs are equal over the full (seasonal) cycle.
But the ins and outs aren’t equal: there is a net uptake of ~4.5 GtC/year of CO2. That is the result of the extra pressure from 110 ppmv (234 GtC) above equilibrium which pushes more CO2 into the oceans and vegetation. The e-fold decay rate of a linear dynamic equilibrium process can be calculated:
234 GtC / 4.5 GtC/year = ~51 year. That is a half life time of ~40 years.
Far longer than the residence time, far shorter than the IPCC’s Bern model, which is based on the saturation of the deep oceans, for which is currently not the slightest sign.
See also a similar calculation by Peter Dietze at the late John Daly’s website:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm Peter Dietze
That is already from 1997, but he did find a similar decay rate as today…
The first column, with error margins (greater than the annual change) in the second column.
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-2000m.dat
Wow! Does anyone else see the really, really interesting feature in this data?
without the knock-on feedbacks. Maybe Nick has an answer for that, or maybe the incoming radiation is simply diluted below the level of detection in the oceans.
The heat content data look like a slam dunk for this, actually. Note well — the ocean warmed in the first third (but the atmosphere did not, if anything it slightly cooled). Then, while the temperatures of the atmosphere were “rocketing” up (if increasing by 0.2 to 0.3 C over 15 years can be called rocketing) the ocean nearly stopped warming! Note that the heat increase is at the level of noise, at the error/resolution limit. Then atmospheric warming paused (or “hiatused” a la AR5:-) and the ocean resumed warming. If it weren’t for the reason below that I find the data set itself deeply suspect, I’d say that this is very strong evidence that a) the ocean buffers atmospheric temperatures; b) the rate at which the ocean warms countervaries with atmospheric temperature. This is highly counterintuitive — one rather expects a warmer atmosphere to produce warming oceans, but in fact it atmosphere that is not warming is well-correlated with ocean warming; c) It isn’t clear if a) and b) should refer to the rate at which the atmosphere warms or its temperature. Curiously, the data suggest that it should be correlation of rates but that makes very, very little sense. The atmosphere has almost no heat capacity relative to the ocean, remember, and it is difficult to understand how it can retain heat for times that are long compared to its thermal relaxation times (that are all order hours to days — without sunlight the atmosphere would almost immediately cool to very cold indeed in a matter of a week or two) without the help of the ocean.
This is really a substantial puzzle in the non-Markovian dynamic evolution of the heat content of the Earth.
[As an aside, note that one unbelievable thing about this data set is the error column and its explicit assertion that we were measuring oceanic heat content in the 1960s at the same precision that we measure it today with ARGO, but that’s another story, as always in climate science when considering statistical error AFAICT the error bars are all of the “and then a miracle happened and ARGO buoys — or thermometers, or proxies, or tide gauges — were transported back to the 1960s (or what the heck, the 1860s) so that the error estimate then is about the same is it is today”. I don’t know that it makes me doubt the whole thing, but it makes me wonder how the hell they compute both the numbers presented and their error.]
rgb
The saddest part about things like this piece and those that defend it with their posts is what do they REALLY think is in it for them? Do they REALLY think that they will be part of the 10% of the population the elite will show favor to by keeping alive when the preparations for “global warming” have been completed – tear down of the energy system and reduction in arrable land dedicated to food production – and we are faced with the reality of a little ice age or worse? Useful idiots they may be at this time, but are they the constructive, productive portion that will be retained to serve as the servants to the privileged? I doubt it. And I truly have a difficult time believing that they can actually BELIEVE what they are saying, either. They would have to be “blind with eyes wide open.”
I called Bulls**t on the 30% increase in Co2 (or 34% depending on which propaganda dept. referred to) and was attacked for it. See this thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/22/unsettled-science-new-study-challenges-the-consensus-on-co2-regulation-modeled-co2-projections-exaggerated/
Yet here we are on this thread all agreeing that it is Bulls**t.
No, we’re not. I’m perfectly happy to attack “you” for misusing standard, well-defined mathematical terminology on this thread as well. And the silly thing is, you could avoid making the error a second time so very easily. You are absolutely welcome to call the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO_2 since maybe 1950 “0.01%” (added to 0.03%). Just do not say “the percent increase in atmospheric CO_2 is 0.01%”, because that is not the standard meaning of percent increase, as I pointed out with a round dozen or more examples drawn from math, science, medicine, and information websites, most associated with things like Universities and math departments.
High school math. A change in concentration is not referred to as “percent increase”. The latter is a relative term. The former is an absolute term. Everybody knows this and understands this. The only one inventing a political language here is you, and you don’t need to to make your point.
rgb
Anthony et al
I’ve got to agree with Nick Stokes. There is nothing wrong with the NOAA statement. The fact that we haven’t seen warming doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a “warming effect”. As sceptics, we might be able to argue that this provides evidence that sensitivity to ghg forcing is not as high as that claimed by the CAGWers but we can’t claim that ghg forcing has not increased.
Also, note that radiative forcing is effectively a disturbance from “normal” background levels of ghgs, solar, volcanic etc forcings.
Finally, thanks to Ferdinand Engelbeen who, with great patience, continues to explain atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I fear ,though, he will probably need to do it all over again in the near future.