“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian, a prominent green UK daily newspaper, reports that scientists have given up on surface temperature as a measure of global warming:
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London.
“The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem,” admits Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.
Obviously if the surface temperature was still rising, as it was in the 90s, instead of inconveniently contradicting model predictions, then it would still be considered a valid climate metric.
Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.
The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/ericg/kap_paper.pdf
The European Union is supportive of the effort to find climate metrics which point in the right direction – The Esa Climate Change Initiative (CCI) is a €75m programme, active since 2009, to produce a “trustworthy” set of ECV (Essential Climate Variable) data that can be accessed by all.
=============================================================
The guardian story is here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/pause-global-warming-data-sea-level-rises
[note: there was an error in HTML coding that made the entire article look like a quote when that was not intended, that has been fixed – mod]
“Missed with that one, let’s try this one!” Getting to be a common refrain.
Cherry pick your yardstick — whatever works. Disgusting.
Eugene WR Gallun
“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
What’s this “we” stuff?
Right. So after 25+ years and tens of billions expense for “climate research”, they now admit that they don’t know how to measure “climate change”
Where do we go to get a refund?
If the data no longer supports your hypothesis, abandon the data – said no scientist ever.
Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend.
=================
Yes, thank goodness for that. It would be so completely and cruelly crushing if widespread destruction, disease and death were not imminent.
Ever ask a warmist if they would be happy if “global warming” (or whatever the brand du jour is for impending climate catastrophe) were proven false?
As if the sea level data reliably shows a rise that is significantly different from the last 10000 years…
If sea level could be measured very accurately given the fact that the volume of the sea’s container also is changing with long term elastic rebound from the glacial maximum, rifting and ocean spreading, tectonic uplift, faulting, warping, volcanic and sedimentary volumes…it would be the only really good metric.
However, if global warming is going to be catastrophic, 100 well-sited thermometers around the world would be more than enough to detect a 2-4C signal. Sheeshe, no wonder the Europe’s Mars probe shot through the atmosphere and crashed in some unknown part of the planet.
Here is what is happening here. The EU space agency got into the weather business because NASA got into the weather business. They have a budget to protect in a climate of shifting priorities in the EU. I’m only blown away by how stupid EU’s brightest stars must be to come up with this! Probably they created the division to shift the dummies into that their union won’t let them terminate.
Interesting comment in the article (double-checked through other sources) that humans produce about 0.5 X 10^21 joules of energy each year. Didn’t realize it was this high. It is 10% of the amount of energy accumulating on Earth which is 0.5 X 10^22 joules/year. This question has been raised by some before, so I think that provides an answer. It could be high enough to affect land temperatures (but not the ocean heat accumulation).
“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
Morons.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Interesting. They are admitting the science is not only NOT settled, it is based on bad models crunching bad data. Yet, they somehow think it worth spending billions on. Even the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks it worthwhile to spend anything and make any sacrifice.
For me, I will not sacrifice my children and theirs for some supposed guilt of today.
I suggest that we begin to use the yield per acre for corn crops. I read somewhere that it has been rising consistently and could well be an effect of climate change.
“The European Union is supportive of the effort to find climate metrics which point in the right direction” The RIGHT direction? Wow, just WOW!
Eric, thanks for picking up on that article. It’s based on an obvious failed attempt at misdirection by Stephen Briggs.
Sea surface temperatures are still one of the metrics that climate models cannot come close to simulating properly. Not even remotely similar. And it’s not a hiatus problem. Models actually double the warming rate of the global ocean surfaces for the past 32+ years. We discussed and illustrated this in the post “Maybe the IPCC’s Modelers Should Try to Simulate Earth’s Oceans”:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/maybe-the-ipccs-modelers-should-try-to-simulate-earths-oceans/
And they cannot simulate the warming or cooling over the multidecadal periods before then either. We discussed and illustrated those failings in the post “IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide”
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/ipcc-still-delusional-about-carbon-dioxide/
Cheers
If sea level was two metres ( 6 1/2 ft) higher 5500 years ago then it could be two metres higher in the foreseeable future. The problem with global warming isn’t teh catastrophes and moral failure claimed by AGW zealots. The problem is that even a little warming can cause significant economic problems
Global warming and temperature are so old-fashioned. Get with the program. It is now climate change and hidey-heat. In fact, they never predicted global warming at all. In a few years we may hear that it was global cooling they predicted all along and William Connelly will have to go change/hide all the references to global warming on Wikipedia. I really do expect them to go Orwellian, at least the wacko green factions. We have always been at war with Oceania kind of thing.
Dr. Pielke, Sr. is vindicated. He has said for many years that surface temps are not very useful. Hansen told Pielke in a published letter that it was foolish to not trust the surface temp record.
Skeptics are vindicated in this as well. Skeptics have said for many years that the record is not reliable and that surface temperatures are not indicating a climate catastrophe.
And once again the cliamte obsessed are shown to be wrong.
Intriguing. The whole effect of anthropogenic CO2 is allegedly to re-reflect IR radiation back from the atmosphere to the planetary surface to raise surface temperature. So now surface temperatures are a “lousy” measure of warming? But those surface temps are exactly the ‘warming’ we’re supposed to be panicking about. Do these guys actually believe their own BS?
Theory: CO2 increases will increase the temperature of the Earth.
Data: Temperature measurements haven’t shown the theorized temperature increase
New Theory: CO2 increases the temperature of the Earth which then instantaneously converts it to Something Else.
Data: We are now collecting measurements of as many Something Else’s we can until we find one that supports the New Theory.
The saddest part of all that is that they seem to have talked themselves into believing themselves that this is logical.
Like a scared flock of birds, the much touted scientific consensus switches direction. I guess birdbrains are good at that sort of thing.
Eugene WR Gallun
Reblogged this on vuurklip and commented:
Global temperature is no longer an indicator of Global Warming!
Question: Why not?
Answer: Because the warming has stopped 18(!) years ago!
Fortunately, some things still seem going up – even if not by as much as the alarmists would want – like sea levels
“Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.”
Could not believe my eyes while reading this open confession of doing science-by-agenda. “Thankfully, there are still some eclipses we can acceptably predict using Ptolemaic tables, and lately Mars has been moving in a way that is still consistent with the latest batch of epicycles introduced into the Ptolemaic system; in the meantime we must, however, fight at all costs against all those abominable Copernican deniers of true old-time Astronomy”.
“The European Union is supportive of the effort to find climate metrics which point in the right direction” —————> Anti-Science in its highest form. Welcome to post-normal Science.
What they are really saying is, “We don’t care if there is AGW or not, we WANT there to be AGW and we WANT it to be man-made CO2 from industrial sources so we can implement the control policies over the economy that we want to. We don’t care about the Science, so we’ll operate under the assumption that AGW caused by man made CO2 is fact and we’ll look around for metrics that support that, rather than honestly evaluating the science to see if AGW actually exists.”
It points out that belief in AGW is ‘faith’ based, not science based.
I have a feeling that they will come to regret trying to use sea level rise as a marker for AGW even more than using Global Temperature.
It is like flipping a coin. It does not matter whether models give a wrong or a correct answer. Models do not have predictive power.
TAG Said
> If sea level was two metres ( 6 1/2 ft) higher 5500 years ago then it could be two metres
> higher in the foreseeable future.
Indeed but recall that sea level was around 240 ft LOWER at the end of the last glacial period 12,000 years ago. Of course that was because much of Northern Europe, Asia and North America was under a mile or so of ice,
> The problem with global warming isn’t teh catastrophes and moral failure claimed
> by AGW zealots. The problem is that even a little warming can cause significant
> economic problems
History indicates that the onset of cold periods is more disruptive. The end of the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods produced catastrophic upheavals and famines as did the lttle ice age of the 17th century. The most extreme climate catastrophes also occurred around these periods.
Between 535 and 536 AD the onset of rapid cooling produced crop failures, widespread famine and social collapse.
In 1348 we saw a combination of crop failures from cooling, disease and the Great Storms
kill around 50% of the population.
Between 1690 and 1707 a combination of cooling and terrible storms produced widespread famine in Northern Europe, around 20% of the population of Scotland starved to death.
The ‘Climate Scientists’ have been unable to provide any models that reproduce these
catastrophes, this why historians and archaeologists tend to be rather sceptical.
Of course they’ve given up on sea surface temperature data, its not behaving itself.
“Climate scientists have been arguing for some time that the lack of warming of the sea surface is due to most of the extra heat being taken up by the deep ocean. ”
The rate of increase ( in the very limited data) has not changed for 40-50 years.
And there is no inconvenient data from 20s or 30s or 40s to prove them wrong.
Ronald DeWitt says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:55 am
I suggest that we begin to use the yield per acre for corn crops. I read somewhere that it has been rising consistently and could well be an effect of climate change.
______
This is an excellent idea, and if ever we don’t see a rise in yield there’s always a new breed to be introduced.
Oh Dear, this grizzled engineer says that the models are crap because they’re based on juvenile physics, originating with Carl Sagan.
The real operational emissivity of the Earth’s surface is c. 0.4, mostly the ‘atmospheric window’. This plus the stupid application of Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA, to a semi-transparent atmosphere (think about it) means surface heating has been exaggerated by 60^ with the IR part exaggerated 5.1x. No wonder they thought there’d be ‘positive feedback’ etc., but they cheat by using double low level cloud optical depth in hind-casting!
Go into it further and the atmosphere self-adapts. One day, I’ll reveal why!
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/
Over the years the temperature data has been poked, prodded and tortured in every imaginable way to come up with a result that is now considered ‘lousy’.
Tea leaves?
The fact that sea level has been far higher in the past is no cause for complacency. On the contrary, it shows that the range of states that our planet’s climate can adopt includes many that would be rather inconvenient to a civilisation that has so far only experienced a very narrow central range of possible temperatures and sea levels, and has responded by building masses of important infrastructure within a few meters of the current sea level.
I’m sure the honourable Lord Monckton would know the appropriate Latin term for this type of false logic.
..and when they discover they got sea levels wrong
It will be pikas, cherry blossoms, and frog farts……..
This isn’t moving the goal posts, it’s moving the whole stadium.
This post could make a useful contribution. Unfortunately it is marred by poor presentation.
Putting the words ‘lousy data’ in quotation marks is a big problem for me. The fact that the Guardian headline writer wanted to distort the truth is no excuse. Really, we need scrupulous standards of truth. If the best you can aspire to is the standards of the Guardian the I’m not that interested in reading what you have to say.
To be precise Stephen Briggs described sea surface temperature as a lousy ‘indicator of global climate’.
It may be that the data is itself lousy, in the sense of too full of errors to tell us much about real sea surface temperatures. But that is not what Stephen Briggs was talking about, and the Guardian article did not provide any evidence for that.
If you want to make the case that sea surface temperature data is lousy, then go ahead. I’ll be interested to hear the case. But I just can’t see any support for that in the article you linked to.
I think it would also have aided clarity if you had ended the italics two paragraphs earlier. Your presentation seems to have given some readers, such as Old Huemul at 8.17 that these paragraphs appear in the original article.
(Otherwise I can’t quite understand Old Huemel’s comment – where is the ‘open admission’?)
@ TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:57 am
Sorry, but I beg to differ. Warming is not a problem. Warming would, if history is anything to go by, be beneficial. Note that during the last warming of consequence, Vikings were able to set up shop on Greenland. Please note their current absence as evidence that cooling is more deadly than warming.
It’s a fact of nature that climate changes. But a group of people have created a “crisis” out of it this self-evident fact, because as long as there’s a crisis, people can work it: politicians, rent-seeking corporations, non-profits, lobbying firms, universities. It’s big business. Cold will kill more than warming. Yet all the while, governments waste billions and billions and TIME “studying” the wrong thing. Looked at from a practical perspective, who cares whether it’s getting warmer or colder at this very moment, if we’re smart enough to deal with either contingency? Especially since if it IS warming or cooling, it’s not bleedin’ likely it’ll change catastrophically overnight, so if we know what to do, we have time to do it? All this money could’ve been spent studying how to cope with either situation—and THAT would’ve been an investment, money well spent, because it’s knowledge and research that would pay off. But no: all that money spent on idiotic, computerized ouija boards which only “predict” what they’ve been programmed to show, all trying to prove, against all evidence, that the sky really IS falling. By comparison, a total dearth of studies about what do to in the event of. And lots of Paul Erhlich-types, like Algore, crying doom, and making prophesies that uniformly fail of promise. Of what use is that? Especially if they’re right?
The article claims there are only 50 ECVs (essential climate variables). Precisely. Color me sceptical: if we knew what the variables were with such precision, why are the computer models so very far off? If we know them with such precision, which ones are responsible for the lack of warming? Why did they not know that the surface temperature ECV was a waste of time if they knew what all of the variables were? As a previous generation might phrase it: poppycock. No one “knows” what all the variables are. But we DO know that their computer models don’t take all of even what we do think we know into account.
Small surprise that most of the article was devoted to their next attempts at creating a computer model. Not, you’ll note, “Why are our current models so very wrong?” They never even admitted their models are wrong—
“No, it HAS to be the metric we’ve chosen, not our models, so we’ll choose something that appears to agree with our models and just keep on crying doom.”
IMHO, Warming is not a problem, though it does present some challenges. Tant pis Adapting to future conditions is a challenge, period. Cooling would present greater challenges. But greedy, short-sighted, venal “scientists” and politicians and non-profits and the like—THEY are the problem.
Interesting sentiment displayed here. “Scientists” are “thankful” for a “warming trend”. Why? I think that shows you all you need to know. They are “thankful” that a specific result is being shown rather than simply striving to see what is happening? That right there was a slip of the mask that shows they have an agenda and are not engaged in science. Science should not be “thankful” of a particular result.
“The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.
At the current rate of 8-12″ per century it will take 6-900 years to get to the level of 6Kya, assuming SL is really rising long term. Of course, accumulating more polar ice reduces sea level, so it could also be that long term we are cooling, and the oceans are diminishing, as we exit this interglacial.
Nigel Harris:
In your post at June 14, 2014 at 8:51 am you respond to failure of the climate models.
You say
At June 14, 2014 at 7:57 am TAG presented similar unfounded and evidence-free assertion that the failure to predict what will happen as a result of GHG emissions provides risk that the results of the emissions will be even worse.
There is no need to use Latin when looking for a definition of the logical fallacy you present.
In English your illogical assertion is called idiocy.
Richard
“The models didn’t have the skill we thought they had” sounds ace.
But seems already covered by GIGO.
One study at one location does not make the sea level higher 5500 years ago all around the world.
So thank goodness there are other metrics in the right direction… really, right direction? Wow. How about simply reporting the truth? Is that so dangerous an idea? And how do models have “skills” ? Looking more like “any data in – hockey stick out” regardless of actual observations, I can smell fraud.
Does this mean that climate science is unsettled?
Eugene WR Gallun says:
Insult to birds Eugene. Are you not keeping up with the research?
http://tinyurl.com/n5wqy4y
They are as smart as children which is more than I can say for the climate Scientists (at least the one ones in the mythical consensus)
The computer models in and of themselves, do not have skill. The ones who coded the programming for the models are the human beings who have skill or not.
With time flat-lining and/or declining temperatures I think the lukewarmer sites will lose more and more to those sites that are starting to take a harder stance against AGW by showing with concrete examples the temperature frauds ect. In the end the “denying” sites will probably win since its beginning to look like they were correct after all LOL
This fits the nature of an informal fallacy; see –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
Don’t be fooled by the name – this is not about shooting.
Imagine when the aliens do come and talk to our leaders:
So you left many billions of your own species, the vast majority, to suffer miserable shorter lives because of energy poverty that you would not inflict onto yourselves, because you could not be motivated to build better and stronger buildings that would consistently withstand even your then-current weather extremes, nor would you stop constructing where those and other extremes could and would often destroy even strong buildings.
Which arose from doubting your relatively advanced civilization could survive mildly warmer global temperatures.
Why should we accept you as an intelligent species?
The Cult: So what is your problem? Don’t you understand that questioning the changing dogma of our Cult does not change our beliefs.
The obvious one to use as a measure of global warming is CO2.
Bill Illis says:
Interesting comment in the article (double-checked through other sources) that humans produce about 0.5 X 10^21 joules of energy each year. Didn’t realize it was this high.
I’d be interesting in looking at the other sources. (Yeah, I know I shouldn’t be so lazy, but if you’ve already done the search….)
I’m particularly wondering what it means to say that “humans produce…energy.” Are we talking about ambient heat release? Does it simply refer to changes from chemical to some other form of energy, as burning fuels to generate power or process mineral ores? Smelting iron ore or refining bauxite to produce aluminum reverts a large amount of energy back into chemical form. Pumping water or hauling material uphill converts energy into a form potentially recoverable through gravity. Human dealing with energy is a lot more complicated than simply adding heat to the environment.
Kate Forney says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:37 am
“Ever ask a warmist if they would be happy if “global warming” (or whatever the brand du jour is for impending climate catastrophe) were proven false?”
________________________
Actually, I have not. The warmists I’ve encountered have universally exploded in anger with any mention of the subject of climate change, usually within about 30 seconds of them starting their rant.
TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:57 am
It was more than just a little warmer during the Holocene Optimum.
Interglacials tend to hit their thermal peaks early on, then slide toward the next glacial more slowly. A double peak is rare, & usually shows a severe Dryas like cooling in between.
Humanity cannot warm the planet enough to reach Holocene temperature & sea surface levels, even if we burnt all fossil fuels as fast as a globally growing economy could sustain.
Not so fast re: sea level rise. I have brought this up before (and it is part speculation, part based on publically available data). The mixing layer can rise or fall at the top of that layer (essentially the top of the ocean at the skin layer) driven by warming and cooling through out the mixed layer, and also by being pushed and pulled by currents and wind, while the large deep ocean and the thermocline sluggishly do the same thing to the bottom of the mixed layer. Being that the ocean is…how do I put this…humongously, gargantuanly, monstrously… huge, and rather sluggish when sending a piece of its expanded or contracted mixed layer this way or that, it stands to reason we would only see changes as mostly short and long trends, not daily noise.
So what if (the speculation part), since the LIA and its obviously colder SST, we are currently seeing a long term warming recovery trend, measured by the overall top height of the ocean’s mixed layer while the deep ocean layer below the thermocline is essentially at the same height it was during the LIA?
To measure whether or not it is just the mixed layer that is expanding but not the MUCH deeper deep ocean layer under the thermocline, we would need in-situ measuring devices that would sink to the thermocline and back up again to measure its depth, and millions of them spread all throughout the ocean. I don’t see how a satellite would be able to do anything but measure from the top to the bottom of the whole water column.
So instead of sending 2 and possibly 3 failed satellites up (and we all know how that has turned out), we should be sending a BUNCH of mini satellites down.
I suppose it’s the greenhouse gases in the deep ocean that are causing the warming. Good luck with that one.
>> The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.
I was visiting the north shore of Kawai’i and saw the cave mentioned here (site is not mine):
http://abhiking.blogspot.com/2012/03/manini-holo-dry-cave.html
I remember at the time walking in the dry cave and realizing that it was obviously carved out by the sea, and that the sea level is lower now. It was a strange feeling to realize that the sea level we take for granted has varied quite a bit.
“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
Not just the Models….
Humans and all other fauna create additional terrestrial enthalpy and, by the ordering which accompanies life, decrease terrestrial entropy. To the latter we add increased entropy as the chemical ordering caused by flora, coal, oil and gas, is oxidised. Gibbs free energy of the atmosphere and the oceans increases.
This in turn modifies the processes which take low entropy SW and convert it to high entropy LW. Of the latter, the -50 deg C CO2 15 micron band has the highest production rate of radiation entropy so the planet adapts to have the highest pCO2 possible, minimising CO2 OLR. This means fauna are encouraged, by the warming.
This is the origin of the GHE, there is none from GHGs! Biofeedback is what distinguishes the interglacial from the glacial.
For the present ~11 K GHE (Hansen got it wrong), the planetary atmosphere adapts to control surface temperature in a narrow range. The same mechanism also explains the Faint Sun Paradox and some aspects of ice ages.
RobertInAz says: June 14, 2014 at 9:18 am
One study at one location does not make the sea level higher 5500 years ago all around the world.
The Gulf of Mexico was 2 meters higher 4-6Kya, as archaeological digs at the shoreline fifty miles inland from the current one show. I have a graph by Fairbridge, 1961, that shows sea level 2-3 meters higher than present four times in the past 6K years. If TinyPic gets their uploading service back up soon I will post it.
Don’t try challenging the Guardian’s view on their site. I tried to comment on the article and it was promptly deleted. Too funny. Articles of faith may never be challenged.
With flooding all but imminent, Why, why have coastal property values not declined. These poor beach-house dwellers are doomed. A consensus of government supported scientists cry shrilly of impending sea-level rise, yet the entire real estate industry is unaware.
WUWT?
AGW Movement – Mission Impossible
Assignment: Find cherries to pick where none exist. Report trend.
This message will self destruct as soon as someone shows some warming.
The philosophical underpinning of the AGWers:
“Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.”
― Albert Camus
Alan Poirier says:
June 14, 2014 at 10:16 am
Don’t try challenging the Guardian’s view on their site. I tried to comment on the article and it was promptly deleted. Too funny. Articles of faith may never be challenged.
____________________
Say, “Thank you, Dana Nuccitelli”.
A pretty close look at sea level over the past 10K years:
http://i62.tinypic.com/nchybs.jpg
“So thank goodness there are other metrics in the right direction… really, right direction? Wow. How about simply reporting the truth?”
Ah, but the models are the truth, you see. It’s clearly the data that’s wrong.
As a side note: it looks like Greenpeace and other NGO’s are going to get thrown out of India for meddling in false propaganda against the government and the left wing politics of promoting poverty through de-industrializations….go India and now the African continent needs to do the same…one can only hope. I hope someone takes Greenpeace to the Haig someday and tries them for corruption. Keeping people in poverty for your own personal gains/religious beliefs is a crime.
Eric, Anthony,
Yes please DO correct the italics in the OP, as it does make some of the author’s content look as if it comes from the quoted article when it does not. 🙂
“So thank goodness there are other metrics in the right direction”
Yes there are. Like the national debt of every country that buys into this and other progressive ideology. It is directly proportional and catastrophic!!
================================================================
Hmmm….this sounds a bit like Mann ignoring all the things that might effect tree rings other than temperature.
Don’t plate tectonics have anything to do with the size and shape of the “bowl” the oceans lie in?
(PS Is Tuvalu still hanging in there?)
“Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.”
“Thankfully.” “Upward trend.” “Right direction.” “Nicely.”
This is disaster they are talking about, right? This is the calamity – the catastrophe – we are all supposed to be SOOO in fear of that we will willingly lay down our computers, energy, heating, technology and civilization for.
Aren’t they supposed to HORRIFIED at the very notion of CAGW? They are not even pretending anymore!
Imagine a newspaper reporting, “Oh good, another car-crash fatality.” That’s exactly what they are doing. “Never mind that data, folks, I’m pleased to inform you that we are still on collision course and we are still all going to die!”
Maybe we should start highlighting their glee.
We can now await a new “Hockey Stick” showing catastrophic sea level rise who’s results and conclusions run against all and are claimed to out mode all past data and evidence.
Pamela Gray says:
June 14, 2014 at 9:57 am
So instead of sending 2 and possibly 3 failed satellites up (and we all know how that has turned out), we should be sending a BUNCH of mini satellites down.
That sounds like ARGO to me. But the warmists claim that ARGO shows the opposite of what you postulate (that the bottom waters have warmed more than the upper 700 meters).
Forget sea level rise or temp data, it is ice cream sales that signify warming or cooling.
Shorter summers slows ice cream sales growth | Business Standard
http://www.business-standard.com/…/shorter-summers-slows-ice-cream-sales-gro...
28 Oct 2013 – Shorter summers slows ice cream sales growth. Players likely to raise prices in January to offset raw material cost increase. Sohini Das | …
Unfortunately, Gregory who is lead author of IPCC’s Chapter 13 on Sea Level Acceleration finds “The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.” http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1 So sea level acceleration as a counter argument to the pause seems to be of little comfort.
Where is the source for Stephen Briggs’s statement? I don’t find it.
The link to the Guardian leads to a link to stories by the Guardian which link back to the Guardian story itself. My brief googling for Stephen Briggs and the European Space Agency likewise turn up nothing.
Keith Willshaw on June 14, 2014 at 8:19 am
Between 535 and 536 AD the onset of rapid cooling produced crop failures, widespread famine and social collapse.
In 1348 we saw a combination of crop failures from cooling, disease and the Great Storms
kill around 50% of the population.
Between 1690 and 1707 a combination of cooling and terrible storms produced widespread famine in Northern Europe, around 20% of the population of Scotland starved to death.
This is the de-industrialised lifestyle to which the CAGW greens want us to return.
Bill Illis says: June 14, 2014 at 7:49 am
Interesting comment in the article (double-checked through other sources) that humans produce about 0.5 X 10^21 joules of energy each year. Didn’t realize it was this high. It is 10% of the amount of energy accumulating on Earth which is 0.5 X 10^22 joules/year.
______________________________
Sound a bit high to me.
Leif did this calculation a couple of years ago. I cannot remember the result in joules, but I do remember him saying that man’s energy output is the same as we receive from the full Moon on a cloudless night. In other words, not a lot.
I will try to find Leif’s posting.
Ralph
Pamela Gray says:
June 14, 2014 at 9:57 am
Was this satirical Pamela? Apologies if so. We have had such a system for several years now; it is called Argo.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/
They seem pathologically unable to utter the most obvious statement regarding the now hopelessly compromised AGW theory: “folks, we were wrong.”
Bill Illis, John Slayton, ralfellis
My figure for global energy use is about 150 petawatthours per year, so to say that humans produce about 0.5 X 10^21 joules of energy each year is about right. But this is equivalent to an energy input of only 0.03 Watt per sq. metre of the Earth’s surface. Compared to the Sun’s energy input, 342 watts per square metre (at Top of Atmosphere), human produced ‘waste heat’ is negligible.
If the climate models that forecast surface temperatures have failed, how are the models that forecast sea level rise doing? Are they doing any better when compared to actual measurements? Does anyone have a chart showing how they compare? I have a hard time believing the models do any better with sea level rise than they do with surface temperatures.
Kemosabe? 😉
I’ve seen this type of behavior before in professional modellers. They fall in love with their model, and when the data do not support the model’s predictions, they try to figure out what’s wrong with the real world.
“The data do not support our model. Therefore, we need better data.”
“The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction”
Sure, albeit at a 30% slower rate in the past decade than the previous one. Well done, you’ve just found a new way to look desperate and clueless. They failed to model natural variability in surface temps, so what the hell makes them think they can effectively model natural variability in sea level rise?
The pig just got a new shade of lipstick.
Ordinarily we think of “proven false” as requiring nearly a decade to get the other side to run out of epicycles and escuses. So no warmist would concede that warmism could be proven false overnight—so he can’t envisage such a scenario. But if the theory below were to become generally accepted within a year, that would do. So the warmist should be asked how he would feel if Robitaille’s paper were proven true. (It could, after all, be tested experimentally.) I think that is a possible way to get him to see his underlying emotionalism.
Ouch. Trouble is rate of sea level rise is in fact decelerating.
Acceleration term, as observed by satellites for more than 21 years is -0.42 m/cy². If it goes on like this, sea level will stop rising well before the end of this century and will be only some 6 cm higher by 2100 than it is now. Furthermore, by 2200 it is projected to drop a foot below current level.
I can see why they are junking temperature and moving over to sea level:
From the European Space Agency website – the flat trend of temperature:
http://www.esa-sst-cci.org/sites/default/files/images/wcrp_ts_1.png
versus the nicely rising sea level:
http://www.esa-sealevel-cci.org/sites/default/files/images/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png
As Co2 rise and sea level rise coincide they must be right!! 🙂
ARGO has a lot of problems with QC related to the subset of ARGO floats that can dive well past the mixed layer into the deep ocean. The anomaly data is still a long ways away because they are still at the calibration stage. Let alone trying to water proof the damn things under such high pressure environments. In summary, the ARGO data shows no such thing regarding the bottom waters. The sampling below 2000 meters is still in research development. Use your “find” button to read all about deep data problems with ARGO.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.argo.ucsd.edu%2FDM14report.pdf&ei=ppWcU8GoHYaxyASNyYGIDA&usg=AFQjCNG4OuO0sZbYmwvlE0qLKrR4gKwVCw&sig2=Yp68PrphyYZfkJZXnDqJNg&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw
Per Bill Illis’s great comment at 7:49 am ( I wondered the same thing). But another thing I have wondered about and still don’t know if it is true – but I have read that insects release more CO2 than humans and all their various activities. Of course this is outside the scope of the IPCC mandate. 😏
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_humans_or_insects_produce_more_carbon_dioxide?#slide=1
Wish I knew of a better source. perhaps this is not correct.
JIMBO?
Bill Illis – Links on human heat output? Curious about it, have wondered about all the biological/geological heat and CO2 sources compared to humans. Be nice to find a site that tried to categorize these, but so many variables. Probably like try to assemble a GCM.
I have just read the paper excerpt from the link above and here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.html
Where Robitaille describes a game changer: black body theory does not apply to climate theory as currently stated!
This throws into doubt the applicability of Kirchhoff, Boltzmann and Planck to this field.
A game changer worthy of intense study….
Steve W. says:
June 14, 2014 at 10:02 am
I remember at the time walking in the dry cave and realizing that it was obviously carved out by the sea, and that the sea level is lower now. It was a strange feeling to realize that the sea level we take for granted has varied quite a bit.
=================================================================
We drive by evidence of higher sea levels OR land that has risen every day, we just don’t recognize them.
Salt Lake City (and a lot of souther Utah) is a great place to observe this. Look above Salt Lake to the east and you will see at least two old beaches high up on the mountains. However, Salt Lake has gone up and down from sea level to its present elevation so it is hard to say whether the oceans were higher or the land was lower. All relative. The area is now high plains and mountains but once it was below sea level. http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/geo/geohistory.htm
I suspect the agenda of the “Scientists” has very little to do with crisis of a metric to measure “Global Warming” (read Anthropogenic GW as opposed to Climate variability) but rather represents a crisis of continued funding. If those who owe there livelihood to AGW alarmism were to have an alternate funding source they would quit the AGW cult. In fact a few of them might even go on to produce useful scientific information in their lifetime. IMHO
Best out of three . .
Oh.oh, how about best out of five?
I’d say too much rain in the Swiss mountains. (maybe amusing but not a sarcasm)
Here is the right direction.
@Pamela Gray June 14, 2014 at 11:46 am
Indeed. But they must have unacknowledged issues at shallower depths as well. Net radiation balance calculated from CERES data has a nice annual cycle, the one calculated from ARGO OHC has not. Which means precision of the latter one is much lower than claimed.
Unfortunately CERES still has a large systematic error, so, in spite of its wonderful precision its overall accuracy is still too low to tell us anything about the energy balance of the climate system.
Helped along by man as usual. Groundwater abstraction is about “one fourth of the current rate of sea level rise of 3.3 mm per year.”
Here is the paper’s abstract
It’s always good to look back at sea level rise since the deglaciation. It could still get worse and begin accelerating! Oh no.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig68.jpg
Waste Heat:
“The waste heat generated by car engines, power plants, home furnaces and other fossil fuel-burning machinery plays an unappreciated role in influencing regional climates, new computer simulations suggest. By altering atmospheric circulation, human-made heat may raise temperatures by as much as 1 degree Celsius during winter in the northernmost parts of the world.”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/waste-heat-responsible-for-most-of-northern-hemisphere-warming/
Gamecock says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:30 am
“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
What’s this “we” stuff?
The “we” could include anyone having anything to do with models.
I wasn’t sure who Peter Jan van Leeuwen was at first, because it’s not a name I’ve ran across previously in my investigations.
Having done some investigation just now, I think it is fair to say that he implicates everyone involved in climate predictions using global temperature predictions.
The IPCC TP III paper writes,”The IPCC considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”
Leeuwen must have forgot this.
Soon after the release of the IPCC, Leeuwen co-authored, “When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures?”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034071/full#grl24645-fig-0003
You will find everything I’m saying in the article I described above.
Everyone is implicated by his admission, Hansen, Jones, Mann, right on down the line.
How can Leeuwen even suggest that only sea level rise can properly predict climate change, when seal level rise is dependant on global temperature.
If he doesn’t retract this comment, I imagine anyone having anything in association with Leeuwen, will soon be distancing themselves from him.
Have they told the IPCC that they should now abandon metrics based on surface warming? A lot of work has gone into them there reports dontcha know.
After many years of telling us what was important (surface warming), they now tell us it’s not important. I wonder what they would say if there was no pause? 😉
Hi Eric. Unfortunately the Guardian article linked does not contain the two most damming paragraphs in your quotation above. Specifically:
“Obviously if the surface temperature was still rising, as it was in the 90s, instead of inconveniently contradicting model predictions, then it would still be considered a valid climate metric.
Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.”
Was the story changed after you posted this story in which these two most damming paragraphs were removed? Do you perhaps have a screenshot or otherwise a copy of the Guardian story containing these paragraphs?
Kindest regards,
DFact
Very simple….just like thinking scientists the sea surface measurement “are not helpful”
We must remember these people and never, never consider them scientists again. Useful tools of their political bosses is more spot on.
Just a short document on correct terminology regarding “deep ocean”.
An internet search reveals that http://www.artinaid.com/2013/04/the-ocean-layers/
The ocean is divided by depth into five main layers:
◦the “hadalpelagic zone” between 11,000 meters (36,000 feet) and 6,000 meters (20,000 feet) deep,
◦the “abyssal” between 6,000 meters (20,000 feet) and 4,000 meters (15,000 feet) deep,
◦the “bathyal” between 4,000 meters (15,000 feet) and 1,000 meters (3,000 feet) deep
◦the “midwater” between 1,000 meters (3,000 feet) and 200 meters (700 feet) deep
◦the “epipelagic” (from 700 feet to the surface) where 90% of the living from the sea.
Over 90% of the volume of the ocean is below the bathyal layer and the temperature there is constant due to the ocean volume + movement + lack of light + salinity + “heaviness” + pressure physics involved. The midwater layer is where the thermocline “slab” meanders depending on a number of variables. The thickness of the slab can vary dramatically, especially on the top. It is that slab that separates the mixing layer from the deeper temperature stable areas. It can also vary in terms of its temperature and pressure gradient.
From these basic understandings, it is a stretch to say that energy is in the deep oceans defined by being below 700 meters. Why? Because natural mixing from the epipelagic layer and movement of the bottom part of the thermocline slab to the deeper pressure levels is likely to happen below 700 meters under normal circumstances. This means that any data collected below 700 meters that demonstrates warming could easily be contaminated with natural trends.
To say that anthropogenic warming is being stored in the deep ocean to me means that it should be measured below the midwater level, IE below 1000 meters. That means deep, to me. Anything less than that is in the midwater to the surface ocean level, not the deep ocean level.
To be able to proceed from here I need to know how it is possible for an “Atmospheric Gas” (AG) that is incapable of warming other atmospheric gases, or any solid surfaces, can possibly warm the bottom of the oceans.
Here am I, sitting around, thinking that “Hot Air Rises”
Ok, SST is lousy –
ARGO initially showed a decrease which of course was intolerable so they adjusted it to show an increase and it’s now more wrong than ever.
http://virakkraft.com/S-trop-Indian-OHC-SOI.png
http://virakkraft.com/Trop-OHC-SOI.png
and sea level do not change more now than 80 years ago
http://virakkraft.com/PSMSL-from-KNMI.png
But wait – antarctica ice is collapsing – puh – or was that next century?
MikeB, there is only a small subset of ARGO divers that go to the deeper layers. It is a very small set and they are currently not quality controlled to the extent that the very short time wise amount of data is not publishable (or at least it seems that is the case based on the last 2013 ARGO meeting document).
Keith Wilshaw wrote:
=================
TAG Said
> If sea level was two metres ( 6 1/2 ft) higher 5500 years ago then it could be two metres
> higher in the foreseeable future.
Indeed but recall that sea level was around 240 ft LOWER at the end of the last glacial period 12,000 years ago. Of course that was because much of Northern Europe, Asia and North America was under a mile or so of ice,
> The problem with global warming isn’t teh catastrophes and moral failure claimed
> by AGW zealots. The problem is that even a little warming can cause significant
> economic problems
History indicates that the onset of cold periods is more disruptive. The end of the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods produced catastrophic upheavals and famines as did the lttle ice age of the 17th century. The most extreme climate catastrophes also occurred around these periods.
=================
From what I can see, we are agreeing with each other at least on the potentially serious effects of even relatively slight changes in climate. So the effects of CO2 induced warming is something to be concerned about. One does not have to buy into the hysterical predictions of AGW zealots to understand that it is only responsible to pursue the knowledge that will allow society to prepare for any consequences. That is why it is so important to have valid and not politicized climate science. That is why we need to make sure than any climate predictions are being made by scientists and not activists or careerists working as scientists.
Oh dear, another failed narrative.
I’m waiting for… “Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are driving a new Ice Age”.
At least their climate predictions will likely prove out even if the causation is mis-characterized.
This seems to be one of those “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia” moments.
This new goal post move is going to be a big problem for warmunists.
Sea levels were rising before 1960, when even the IPCC said CO2 induced global warming was indistinguishable from natural variation, since we are still recovering from the LIA (except in Mann’s mind). Even more of a problem, SLR has recently been slowing rather than accelerating as measured by satellite altimetry. Something that several completely asinine papers have tried to explain away after admitting the slowing observation. These are shredded in an essay for my next book in process. Bottom lines, it did not rain as much in 2010-2011 in Australia as some papers required (off by half), and GRACE did not verify terrestrial water retention (off by 75%). In the newest paper, fancy statistical corrections to correct SLR for more La Nina rainfall in the Amazon and Congo ignored two basic problems: first there haven’t been more La Ninas, second, the Amazon and Congo river basins where all this extra rainfall was supposedly stored over 6 years (slowing observed SLR) actually cannot store any extra water at all over even one season. They are both annually saturated. The authors really should have visited. Then they would have realized their statistical paper was ‘all wet’. Proves only that CAGW climatologists desperate to explain slowing SLR know nothing of hydrology (and have never been to the Amazon or the Congo), that peer review fails big time, and that the pause makes warmunists increasingly desperate. Even silly looking.
Anyone who thought the global temperature anomaly was suspect should contemplate the design spec for the newest SLR altimetry satellite, Jason 2. The altimetric sea level spec for any specific location is an RMS error of 3.5cm (darned those waves, clouds, and other stuff); the system drift spec is 1mm/yr. And present SLR is supposed to be 2.4mm/yr down from 3.1. Inside a location specific RMS 3.5CM?!? Exactimundo-NOT.
The Jason 2 design spec is available at OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook, JPL ref. OSTM-29-1237 (1/20/2009). Please refer to Section 2.3.1, Accuracy of Sea Level Measurement.
Do you have any evidence for claiming that a “little warming” can cause “SIGNIFICANT” economic problems?
The world has been warming since the end of the Litttle Ice Age and standards of living around the world are higher today than in 1850 or 1920 or 1950 or 1975 etc.
Here is the difference between warm and cold. First the warm.
Now the cold. Below are some of the effects of the Little Ice Age on humanity from the literature. In short we had crop failures, hunger, mass migration, epidemics, great storms in the North Atlantic, Europe wide witch hunts, endemic Malaria in England & part of the Arctic Circle, higher wildfire frequency in circumboreal forests, strong droughts in central Africa (1400–1750), social unrest in China, dead Central American coral reef, century-scale droughts in East Africa, large increases in flood magnitude (upper Mississippi tributaries), environmental and economic deterioration in Norway, decline in average height of Northern European men, climate became drier on the Yucatan Peninsula, sudden and catastrophic end of the Norse Western Settlement in Greenland, River Thames freeze-overs, agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century.
So the thermometers were GOOD for the purpose until the pause? Should we pay anymore attention to the IPCC’s surface temperature projections? Will they abandon the ’cause’ IF the rate off sea level rise fails to accelerate? (which it has so far failed to do – see above.)
The dog ate my thermal expansion.
Bill Illis says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:49 am
Humans are so funny. We always like to think that we’re far more powerful than we are. The world is a huge place, and the amounts of energy flowing through the climate system are gigantic.
The sun supplies 340 W/m2 to the earth at top-of-atmosphere, which is about 5.5E+24 joules/year. This is no less than 10,000 times the human-produced energy. Of this, about 240 W/m2 actually makes it into the system, with the rest reflected into space.
This means that the human-generated component of the total available energy in the system, all of our electricity and all of our burning of fossil fuels and all of our energy use in every form, it all adds up to a pathetic 1 / 7500 of the total, or about 0.01% of the global energy budget.
You’re comparing it to the ocean storage, which is only a minuscule part of the whole. Here’s a graphic showing the flows to scale:
Regards,
w.
Jimbo writes:
Do you have any evidence for claiming that a “little warming” can cause “SIGNIFICANT” economic problems?
Well we now have an industrial civilization with major cities located at the sea coasts. Sea level rise could necessitate major investments in widespread areas. Increased temperatures in North America compel agriculture to move north and northern regions with the results of the last glaciation are not as fertile as land to the south. it is difficult to grow crops in the rocky ground of northern Ontario. Society must be aware of the consequences and only sound non-political science can provide that.
Lousy scientists, lousy models, lousy AGW hypothesis,…
Climatology has the resources to do much better. Show the door to these cretins and reclaim your field.
TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Jimbo writes:
TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:57 am
If sea level was two metres ( 6 1/2 ft) higher 5500 years ago then it could be two metres higher in the foreseeable future. The problem with global warming isn’t teh catastrophes and moral failure claimed by AGW zealots. The problem is that even a little warming can cause significant economic problems
Do you have any evidence for claiming that a “little warming” can cause “SIGNIFICANT” economic problems?
Well we now have an industrial civilization with major cities located at the sea coasts. Sea level rise could necessitate major investments in widespread areas. Increased temperatures in North America compel agriculture to move north and northern regions with the results of the last glaciation are not as fertile as land to the south. it is difficult to grow crops in the rocky ground of northern Ontario. Society must be aware of the consequences and only sound non-political science can provide that.
——————————————————————————————————————————
You are talking about the consequences of bad choices not the consequences of a warmer climate on human health. Coles notes…..Cold climate people die as a consequence of the cold…..Warmer Climate people thrive as a consequence of the warmth. Of course extreme warmth would have dire consequences but a 2’C increase (if it came to be) is not extreme IMHO but my opinion is worth what you pay for it.
TAG, the weather and climate responds with some pretty well known patterns that are themselves noisy with variants within themselves when responding to for example a variable having to do with things that change solar insolation or things that increase or decrease temperature variations or pressure systems between latitude bands. It has within itself these natural highly variable things that trigger natural highly variable weather and climate responses. These form the basis for short (IE in a couple days) and long range (IE out to a month or two) weather pattern predictions. They get them pretty close inside the ballpark with a short lead time locally and with a longer lead time regionally.
But can what makes up our climate have both high sensitivity and low sensitivity? For example, its response to a small volcano blow is not detectable in global weather averages used to create temperature trends. It has to be a big one. So it has low sensitivity, globally, to an atmospheric variable change in aerosols. How can it then have high sensitivity to a different and far less powerful variable, such as the amount of additional atmospheric CO2 directly related to humans? Explain that paradox please.
What does he mean with “we”?
Let’s add a new Ice Age to the growing list of proven consequences of Global Warming, as proposed by The Only Real Global Patriots.
Sometimes you have to choose between the theory and the data.
As far as the rising ocean levels, there is another major factor that is not being discussed as a cause. Lets talk about tectonic plate movements of the earth. Is the sea level rising or is the land sinking? Is the bottom of the oceans rising? To say that melted ice is the whole cause of rising oceans is too narrow of a hypothesis.
The issue is not about rising sea levels – they have been rising since the last deglaciation. It’s about whether there has been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. I have seen no evidence there has been; see my references above to show DEceleration in the rate.
The issue of pause or no pause is merely a diversion in the face of noisy data and short term chaos, whereas granting sea level proper authority in the climate debate represents a perfect opportunity for skeptics to point to the official peer reviewed update of sea level on the ground in the form of the world average of tide gauges and the blunt fact that despite virtual sea level constructions being illegally labelled as “sea level,” the real McCoy shows a pencil straight trend right through our high emissions era, meaning it shows zero enhanced warming trend as the oceans act as a liquid expansion thermometer, thus falsifying climate alarm:
http://postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/
Sea level rise isn’t expected to itself pause since it only acts as a thermometer above and beyond normal ice melting at the frigid poles between ice ages, though even that assumption is confounded by growing sea ice in Antarctica.
Well… I guess it’s full steam ahead, on ocean acidification. After all, the largest buffered salt solution reservoir, in the known universe , has/maybe decreased in pH (0.1). The war on CO2 production (proxy for industrial might) will continue… forever. GK
You say.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age and the recommenced rise in sea level we adapted. We used concrete and move back as necessary. This is nothing new, there is no need for anything ‘special’. We just need to do what we have been doing. Sea level rise is not NEW to us, we adapted while our standards of living improved.
Why should they move north and northern? How many crops are there in the world? Now here is what you really need to remember. AGW says that global warming would be felt most as you head away from the equator and towards the poles. It also says the effect would be felt most in winter and at night. As you can see agriculture in the USA would benefit and not shrivel and die.
And how long was that piece of string?? That’s got that one out of the way, conveniently, now let US…..’ Say no more!
G. Karst, from what source to your get your pH change? Is this in relation to the entire volume of ocean or just the first 200 meters, which is a fraction of the entire volume.
JK says: “If you want to make the case that sea surface temperature data is lousy, then go ahead. I’ll be interested to hear the case.”
There are so many reasons why the SST data prior to 1970 is lousy, but only those who took them and have read the UEA.CRU HADCRUT explanation of how they were fiddled would appreciate them.
“sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”. ” As most of the ” Global ” data in HADCRUT prior to 1970 is fiddled SSTs, it goes to show all these so called scientists are talking extreme bovine excrement. They are just hilarious!
Even more funny “Climate scientists have been arguing for some time that the lack of warming of the sea surface is due to most of the extra heat being taken up by the deep ocean. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate’s heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises.” So for an average rise in sea level, there must be an average cooling, because the average temp of the oceans is given as 3.8deg. C, and water does not begin to expand by a rise in temp until it is 4 deg.C.
[fixed, thanks -mod]
Did anyone here think the moon was made of cheese? Apparently climate skepticism is the scientific equivalent of believing the moon to be made of cheese. So says the POTUS.
They are really going for it. The big lie, that is.
I note here that they’ve redefined what climate is and as a consequence what climate change is. It is also important they’ve centered on the deep ocean where detection of energy content variation can only be achieved with models. It also obsoletes all surface data and methods. This is going to be expensive.
Pamela Gray, please don’t ask me for citations regarding warmist propaganda. The MSM and SkS does quite enough of it. The whole idea of man caused CO2 induced ocean acidification is absurd. We can consider it infinitely buffered and I have no confidence in current measurements being representative… of anything. GK
hunter says “Skeptics are vindicated in this as well. Skeptics have said for many years that the record is not reliable and […etc…etc…]“. I regret to have to inform you, hunter, that you have missed the point. Check the article again : no mention of sceptics. The controls are tightly held and will not be relinquished no matter what. It doesn’t matter at all if the message changes, provided the orwellians remain in control of it. Regrettably a lot more remains to be done to prise their fingers from the steering wheel.
chris moffatt “surface temps are exactly the ‘warming’ […]“. Tropical Troposphere temps were the first ones, together with temperatures at the poles. Two of the three never materialised, so the focus moved swiftly onto surface temps plus the one complier, the Arctic. The strategy is actually very simple: with enough parameters in the models, any real world data can be matched post-facto, and if the world is divided into enough parts, there will always be at least one that is warming (or, for back-up if needed, droughting, flooding, storming, etc). The parts they were relying on – the Arctic and surface temps – have started diverging from script, and the deep ocean didn’t capture public imagination as well as hoped, so they are now quietly switching to new parts of the world. Just at the moment these are difficult to find, but it has reached the point where they can use imaginary ones and (they think) get away with it.
They could still be right! If the polar see-saw continues to operate as in the past, they will heave a sigh of relief that they don’t have to keep fake ideas going, and morph seamlessly into Antarctic warming. As I said, there is still a lot of work to be done.
Bottom line : Don’t just see who’s right. See who is controlling the message.
Eric: One report that sea level at one location was 2 m higher 5500 years ago doesn’t imply that GLOBAL sea level was 2 m higher then. The local sea level at almost all locations is rising from uplift or falling from subsidence. Unless there are several credible reports from geologically stable regions showing the sea level was 2 m higher 5500 years ago, it doesn’t make sense to promote this outlier.
Sea level during the Eemian was higher than today, but others say 4 m, not 6 m.
A little bit of ice melting, or a little bit of heat expansion….is nothing
..compared to the amount of sedimentation washing into the oceans
From every stream and river, every coast line…24 hours….7 days a week
Now that the models are falling apart the climate obsessed are dismissing the models so they can cling to the catastrophe.
Of course these clowns are grateful for the production of a “new metric”. To mimic a trend that works for their social construct. It keeps the green political classes employed. But I must say, if that “metric” is put under the skeptic microscope, there is little doubt it will be full if the usual confirmation biases. Let’s be having this metric!
Need a new name. Global high tiding? Global lapping? Global beach creeping?
I certainly agree that the SST is lousy
data.
But…but…CONSESUS!
nexus4684
Hi Eric. Unfortunately the Guardian article linked does not contain the two most damming paragraphs in your quotation above. …
No, they are my comments, the Guardian as I said is a green newspaper, and very rarely criticises anything related to global warming hype.
[note: Eric is correct, there was a formatting issue, since corrected -mod]
Most of the outrage generated by this article is due to the failure to close an italics tag. It’s been pointed out several times in comments, but not corrected. That’s pretty sloppy. It’s also sloppy proofreading, which would have taken maybe a minute to see before publishing.
Jeff Alberts
Most of the outrage generated by this article is due to the failure to close an italics tag. It’s been pointed out several times in comments, but not corrected. …
The format issue has just been corrected. I’m sorry that my personal comments have been misinterpreted as part of the article, that was not the intention. The Guardian as I said is a green newspaper, and the article I linked is sympathetic to the suggestion that scientists switch to sea level as the main climate metric.
The Guardian very rarely print any criticism of green narratives, the two exceptions I can think of are Monbiot’s pro-nuclear article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima , and Monbiot’s call for CRU resignations http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails , a demand which he later reversed http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jul/07/russell-inquiry-i-was-wrong .
Switching yardsticks because the old one doesn’t fit the narrative is IMO still pretty outrageous.
Steve O said on June 14, 2014 at 1:46 pm:
Between the model and the spouse.
I have said thus before and I will say this again: climate modeling does not work, it never did, and it should be abandoned. It started with Hansen in 1988 when he showed his three models, A, B, and C, of climate forecasts. Model A was his “business as usual” case, meaning normal course of events. B and C were examples of how emission control would alter it. He worked it all out to the year 2019 and frightened many with his predictions. We have lived through most of the period he was forecasting then and find that his predictions are truly worthless. He used an IBM mainframe but with huge sums going his way they have all switched to supercomputers and their model codes are now a million words long.. You see their output in the CMIP5 duster graphs where each individual thread, dozens of them, comes from a separate supercomputer. You would think that using supercomputers and writing million word codes for them should get their predictions close to reality, but no such luck. They have had time to polish their act for 26 years since Hansen’s original presentation yet their present day output is no better than Hansen’s original work was. And in some cases it is much worse, like their attempt to deny the existence of the twenty-first century pause. There may be reasons why they just can’t hack it despite millions spent on their supercomputer collection but that is no excuse. One reason is their mistaken notion that carbon dioxide causes warming. Miskolczi greenhouse theory (MGT) proves that failure of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is the cause of this pause in warming and NOAA records That Miskolczi used prove it. Hansen announced grandly in 1988 that the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide had been detected when that was entirely wrong. What he did was to use the non-greenhouse warming that took place between 1910 and 1940 as part of an imagined “hundred years of greenhouse warming” that supposedly proved the existence of the greenhouse effect. But he proved no such thing because his hundred years of greenhouse warming was not real. Nevertheless, he has been talking about it for the last 26 years. IPCC was founded in 1988 in the belief that he really did discover the greenhouse effect. As a result, all claims of anthropogenic global warming take this as a fact and assume that greenhouse warming caused it. If you consider that with thousands of climate scientists working with the greenhouse hypothesis no one has still come out with one solid experimental demonstration that the greenhouse effect exists you should become suspicious about this too. It so happens that Ferenc Miskolczi has produced proof that that the greenhouse effect actually does not even exist. Using NOAA radiosonde observations that go back to 1948 he studied the absorption of IR by the real atmosphere over time. And found that absorption remained constant for 61 years while at the same time carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This is an exact parallel to the pause we have had for the last 17 years, for in both cases carbon dioxide increase does not cause any temperature increase. The models are totally incompetent to handle this, just one more reason to dump them.
JK says: “To be precise Stephen Briggs described sea surface temperature as a lousy ‘indicator of global climate’.”
VERY good point. I too was mislead by this the first time I read it. Thanks.
So the lousy models make a lousy job of predicting a lousy indicator of climate.
Well, crap! I suppose we’ll need to find something else to worry about then.
Well we know the data is lousy. But it is the ancient data; about pre-1980, of supposed ocean Temperatures (lower tropo over the ocean) that was lousy.
That was because pre ocean buoys, circa 1980, atmospheric temperatures over the ocean were evidently believed to be the same as the actual ocean water temperatures; specially back in the 1850s. So they measured the temperature in a bucket of water from some unknown depth, evaporating on a windy deck, and assumed that was the air temperature. Later , (early 1900s) they switched to measuring the water temperature from some variable depth, depending on ship loading, in the cooling water intake for often coal burning steamers, and often in the hot boiler room, rather than the cold windy deck.
About Jan 2001, John Christy (Prof) et al reported on direct simultaneous near surface (-1 meter) water temperature, and near surface (+3 meters) air temperatures, and found they are not the same . FOR THAT 20 YEARS (roughly), the air temperature change (for those buoys) was something like 60% of the water temperature change . If I have this all scrambled, then read it yourself. I believe it was Jan 2001 GRL.
BUT !! the big news, was that the two weren’t correlated. So you can’t correct earlier numbers from the water temperatures, so that ^0% or whatever discrepancy was ONLY for that 20 odd years of observations. It is not a universal global correction factor.
SO I always assume than all pre 1980 “global temperature” records, are total junk..
I’m sure PJC never said that. that is my interpretation of the Geo-Physical Research Letters paper from Jan 2001; or thereabouts.
Giggle it yourself.
If no one else says it then I will.
THE MODELS HAVE FAILED!
We have been saying that for many years and even some Warmists now agree. They are crap, not fit for their purpose, a disgrace to Climastrology. Or maybe they were fit for ‘the purpose’, 😉 if you know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Long live the astrology models!
When are we going to shut down the IPCC??? These folks need to get back to science work and leave this mumbo jumbo well alone.
A wise, old psychologist was leading group therapy sessions for people suffering from an irrational fear of global warming and all the catastrophic results. He found it was difficult with just dry facts to overcome years of indoctrination by the government, the media, the UN and so forth. He racked his brain for a way to make a break through. Then he had an idea. He announced that the group would meet at the beach next time.
The next week they all met on the sand near the water’s edge. The doctor asked them to close their eyes and imagine they were traveling back in time 5500 years.
“Now open your eyes and tell me where the water level is. In case you don’t know at that time the sea level was 6 1/2 feet higher! We would all be floating. And yet look, the world is still here. The water subsided and life has gone on,” he said.
One more time he asked them to close their eyes. This time they were to imagine traveling back in time 120,000 years.
“Open your eyes,” he said. “Where are you now? I’ll tell you. We are all floating at sea in twenty feet of water! Yet here we are today and all is okay with the planet. Consider this: 20,000 years ago the ocean was far lower than now, as much as 300 feet lower. We would have had to walk miles to get to the water. Today here it is 300 feet higher and again everything is fine.”
That was the turning point for the group. They all began to show improvement.
To confirms reports posted above: The Guardian is censoring comments at a furious rate… total Stalinists… judging by comments the climate catastrophe set seems pretty demoralized… perhaps WUWT readers and kindred blogs are having a cumulative effect. The skeptic’s message gets huge credibility when the Insiders and High Priests start defecting and doing funny things when the cold hard truth of data (or lack of) starts bearing down.
While Greenie activist types can prattle on to the bitter end with no ramifications to themselves, the professionals have to worry about losing complete face and status. Thus we see the whole CAGW edifice crumbling before our eyes and watch the mandarins scramble for ad hoc fixes. The results are amazing. It’s like watching the die hard geocentric philosophers grasping at epicycles while the elegant case for a heliocentric solar system begins dominating the discourse.
In this regime, strange things happen. Watch Kevin Trenberth here (h/t to Bob Tisdale) completely undo the whole “CAGW driven by CO2 paradigm” by showing the “step wise” rate of warming are artifacts of El Nino and the PDO… which,of course, shoves the “AGHG argument” far to the side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCgsxPbAvk (at around 7:37… though the whole thing is interesting)
MikeB: “Compared to the Sun’s energy input, 342 watts per square metre (at Top of Atmosphere), human produced ‘waste heat’ is negligible.”
What if all the waste heat occurred near thermometers?
Ronald DeWitt on June 14, 2014 at 7:55 am
I suggest that we begin to use the yield per acre for corn crops. I read somewhere that it has been rising consistently and could well be an effect of climate change.
————————–
Excellent metric for another reason: corn yield has never been this high since the planet’s birth. So any increase is actually and truly unprecedented.
The Grauniad article points to a strengthening of the Pacific trade winds over the last decade. While this is used as an excuse for the pause – ocean heat blown under the surface by downwelling, they neglect the much better established consequence of the trades – cold upwelling.
Vertical movement of ocean heat alone can explain climatic shifts in temperature locally and globally. These folks have cause and effect confused. Both the warming during the 70s-2000 and the current pause are due to natural ocean driven climate oscillations.
On the subject of ENSO – the current SST animtion shows a La Nina-like upwelling cold tongue:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/globalsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif
but in the Atlantic, not in the Pacific, of the west coast of Africa at the equator. The Atlantic has its own ENSO too, and this looks to be entering “La Nina” territory. How long before the Pacific ENSO follows suit?
How does the track record for climate change models compare to chicken entrails?
TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Jimbo writes:
TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:57 am
If sea level was two metres ( 6 1/2 ft) higher 5500 years ago then it could be two metres higher in the foreseeable future. The problem with global warming isn’t teh catastrophes and moral failure claimed by AGW zealots. The problem is that even a little warming can cause significant economic problems
Do you have any evidence for claiming that a “little warming” can cause “SIGNIFICANT” economic problems?
Well we now have an industrial civilization with major cities located at the sea coasts. Sea level rise could necessitate major investments in widespread areas. Increased temperatures in North America compel agriculture to move north and northern regions with the results of the last glaciation are not as fertile as land to the south. it is difficult to grow crops in the rocky ground of northern Ontario. Society must be aware of the consequences and only sound non-political science can provide that.
Since sea levels were two meters higher 5,500 years ago, then the situation had nothing to do with CO2 nor was it caused by man. In which case, why spend billions on limiting CO2? It’s a non-problem.
Also, sea level rise isn’t like a tsunami. Cities can adapt. There are thriving cities currently existing below sea level, after all. And in a warming world, agricultural regions would expand closer to the poles and up the slopes. That would mean more land under cultivation.
Finally, your examples aren’t evidence but so much vapor. Evidence would be actual catastrophes that have taken place as a result of the little warming.
Pamela Gray,
The expansion of the ocean with a temperature rise is instantaneous. It is the time needed to heat up the water that is sluggish.
“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
No “climate scientists” YOU didn’t have the skill YOU thought you had. YOU didn’t have the evidence YOU thought you had. YOU didn’t have the AGW case YOU thought you had. What you did have was just arrogance and hubris when things fell your way for a while.
Why is sea level rise so localized over areas that might be rising up because of plate tectonics?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends
Regarding Sea Level, my wife and I used to own a waterfront house in England.
Unusually, our title included part of the tidal river bed, because the original land titles on which our property title was based, were granted when sea level was significantly lower than today. Part of the land covered by the original title was now under water.
If medieval people could adapt to substantial changes in sea level, then we shouldn’t have anything to fear.
The new owners of the house have raised the floor of the house by a couple of feet, which should eliminate the risk of flooding in their lifetime – less than $10,000 worth of renovation.
Regarding my comment that humans are producing 0.5 X 10^21 joules of energy per year right now.
This is mostly fossil fuels and nuclear. Energy sources that would not normally be released into Earth’s environment. Does it go into the environment? Or does it just produce work that is valuable to us. At the end of the day, energy is energy and it has to have residual joules entering the system.
It just so happens that the total land surface warming, ice-melt, atmosphere warming is almost exactly the same number at 0.5 X 10^21 joules/year.
Willis’ comment about the solar energy received by the Earth (my calculation) is 3864 X 10^21 joules/year is valid enough. But the Earth also emits to space each year 3859 X 10^21 joules/year. Only 5.35 X 10^21 joules is accumulating.
I think our energy production (from sources not normally available to the system) is about the same as the total land, ice, atmosphere warming. The total amount the oceans are absorbing is 10 times this level but one could say it is coming from the 3864 X 10^21 joules of solar energy received each year since humans are producing energy on land.
This is not an explanation for the warming but something that is a curiosity. Maybe it is something people should look into further.
I’m a bit confused about this:
“The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.”
But this seems to suggest otherwise?
The rate of sea-level rise, Cazenave, et al. March 2014
“Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change1. Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
What did I miss?
Paul
Several things in the Guardian’s theory don’t add up, IMO. I hear that the ocean is expanding because climate change is heating it up. The heat rise is going into the deep ocean where it can’t be sufficiently measured until we spend billions over such timescales that the scientists who say this is happening will be safely collecting pensions.
1) If it is true that 90% of the ocean’s volume is below 3000 feet, then isn’t most of the ocean below 4C, the temperature at which water shrinks in volume when heated? If so, how does a rising ocean indicate climate change in the deep ocean?
2) Why is the tropical deep ocean cold, anyway? Don’t tell me it is because the sun isn’t warming it, dig a 10000 foot deep hole in Sri Lanka and tell me how cold it is. Perhaps it is because the effects of the global currents past ice exceed the effects of top down diffusion? Wouldn’t you have to allege that surface waters were themselves heating in order to diffuse more heat to the depths?
3) Even if it was true that the deep ocean is warming, isn’t a more plausible explanation warmer water that was at the surface 800 years ago being carried to the depths by those currents and diffusing horizontally and up.
Did I misinterpret anything? How does *ANY* of this make even a lick of sense?
-Matt
@TAG … a nice article for your edification and delight:
Climate Profoundly Impacted Development Of Civilization…Cool Periods Brought On Plagues/Death
http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/14/climate-profoundly-impacted-development-of-civilization-cool-periods-brought-on-plaguesdeath/
Ahh I see. We should measure distance with a hygrometer not a tape measure, temperature with a aenomometer rather than a thermometer, weight with a barometer instead of a scale, stress with a scale instead of a strain gauge. How silly of me not to realise that, or maybe I just live in a different universe – one governed by common sense and rationality instead of religious idealism. How far does all this have to decend into utter obscene farce before it is called to account.
Arno Arrak says (June 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm) “I have said thus before and I will say this again: climate modeling does not work, it never did, and it should be abandoned. [and lots more]”.
Arno, everything you say is correct. The reason is that the models as designed cannot work, because they are trying to tune very small pieces of the globe over very small periods of time, in order to work out what will happen in the long term. Any mathematician and/or modeller can tell you that it can’t work – not in as complex a system as climate. As soon as a small error appeared in one piece, it would generate a slightly larger error in the neighbouring pieces in the next time slice, and very quickly the whole model would spin out of control. In reality, that’s only how the models are described, to make them sound really really impressive. The way they have dealt with the instability problem is to parameterise all natural factors so that over time their effect reduces to net zero. That way, the whole model remains stable, and actually tends to an unchanging state, apart from the one and only factor which is allowed to keep changing Earth’s temperature: CO2. The end result is that all model forecasts in the longer term match exactly the amount of CO2 warming coded into them. All the millions of lines of code and public money in the models has net zero effect on model predictions – by design!
Sea level change ??? They think they can accurately separate out tectonic , eustatic, variable ice melt & other hydrologic cycle variations , etc from thermal expansion ???
Good luck with that.
Hard to see where it will be any more accurate than surface temps
So if this is no longer about increasing surface temps, what will the alarmists call it ? … And still make it sound alarming ???
Catastrophic thermal expansion ??
Good luck convincing the average man on the street that he should be worried about that
“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” – easily done with DNA testing
What we are talking about here is increasing carbon dioxide IN THE ATMOSPHERE, causing warming OF THE ATMOSPHERE! All the other metrics, like ocean warming, sea level rise, ice melting and weather changes, are potential effects of a WARMING ATMOSPHERE. If the atmosphere is not warming, changes in the other metrics cannot possibly be the result of increasing atmospheric CO2! If you say they eggs are coming from your chickens and you have no chickens, the eggs are obviously coming from someplace else!
Looking for other metrics (because there is no warming) in order to keep a climate change crisis on the radar is blatant, premeditated lying for the purpose of self-enrichment. It doesn’t take a science degree to see this. Only the kool-aid drinkers and politicians are still chanting about consensus and settled science. Everyone else knows it is a sham.
“””””…..Paul says:
June 14, 2014 at 6:12 pm
I’m a bit confused about this:…..”””””
Yes Paul, you are more than a bit confused about this.
FRESH (pure) water, does have a point of maximum density at about 4 deg. C (for some reason, I think it is 3.98 deg. C), BUT that is NOT TRUE for salt water, that contains a lot of salt, like ALL ocean waters.
Ocean salt water, continues to increase in density down to its freezing point, which is lower than zero deg. C.
So that “lake turnover” thing, simply does not happen in the ocean. The ocean salinity, is almost double the amount it takes to not expand before freezing.
You should giggle ocean salinity, and freezing, so that in the future you are NOT confused about this.
There are a lot of readers here who need to learn a few basic facts, and that is one of them.
Also it has been discussed on WUWT many times.
This is a question from a lay person: Is anywhere information about how much water humanity is throwing into the ocean via sewage into rivers, how much does that affect sealevel anywhere, and how much can be separated from normal flow and rain, real or imaginary “ice melting”?
I mean to ask about it, because in my country, A FREAKING LOT of fresh water (needed) is thrown into the sewage for the sea, at the same time that we are bombarded about no-more-water-apocalypse(and insane amounts of money and energy is used to bring water from other places), many menacing policies about water pricing for restriction are looming; and now they are telling that sea level (as tiny as it could be found somewhere) is a new way to measure “global warming”?!
Paul said (regarding a slowing of rising sea level):
“What did I miss?”
You forgot Obama was elected, waved his hands and said “whoa there!”
A really, really sad indictment of the pseudo-science of climastrology..
When I approached middle age and as the kids appeared set to leave home I reassessed my life and found it wanting. I had sacrificed achievement and fulfilment for security and money to pay the bills and educate my children. It was a good life, but quietly frustrating: there had to be more.
Since then I have turned down more work than I have accepted (costing me a fortune in the process), but now I have to see a worthwhile outcome for every assignment and task or I don’t do it.
What a sad unfulfilled life of lies and scams climastrologists live. When they get to the end of their careers, will they look back with satisfaction on how they spent their lives, or will they be depressed and regretful? Unfortunately, I suspect that many of them are they so devoted to the cult and the accolades of their fellow cultists they will never reflect that the rest of us simply regard them as being liars, cheats and scammers with the redeeming touch that some are too moronic to care about the truth when it is presented too them.
Tilt, tilt, tilt. The above is addressed to Matt , NOT Paul.
Read everything before doing anything.
Sorry Paul.
“”””””……David L. says:
June 14, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Ronald DeWitt on June 14, 2014 at 7:55 am
I suggest that we begin to use the yield per acre for corn crops. I read somewhere that it has been rising consistently and could well be an effect of climate change…….””””””
I bet that the new breeds of corn, that have been developed at great commercial expense, have also contributed to corn yields continuing to increase.
Don’t blame increasing world food availability, on the weather.
I have been waiting for the warmest crowd to abandon their temperature records. Thanks to places like WUWT it has become difficult for them to manipulate the past down and the present up. They are still doing it to a degree, but the cooling trend is wiping out their fudges to a pause.
The increased scrutiny has over the past few years, has them by the short and curlies. Thus they now grasp at straws. The British Admiralty embarked on the mapping of the oceans and the marking of low tide dry rocks world wide a long time ago. They are still there imprinted and still dry at low tide. Many along the coast of my home land Australia, if the oceans have risen over the last couple of centuries, it has been by very little. Good luck to them trying to prove global warming by inundation, a fools errand.
“””””…..sunshinehours1 says:
June 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm
MikeB: “Compared to the Sun’s energy input, 342 watts per square metre (at Top of Atmosphere), human produced ‘waste heat’ is negligible.”……”””””
The suns rate of energy input (to earth) is 1366 W / m^2., not 342.
And the units of energy are Joules, not Watts.
The truth is, sea level as a global calorimeter is probably the best thing we have for integrating the net of all the fluxes in the climate system. The problem is that with a heat capacity that exceeds the atmosphere and surface by orders of magnitude, it tells us next to nothing about the conditions that we live in, other than sea level itself. If the deep ocean warms by 0.005°C/year and continues to rise at 2-3mm/year, that would balance the books for anthropogenic warming, without any “unprecedented” floods, droughts, superstorms, heat waves, polar vortices, or anything other than climate and weather as usual.
>Tilt, tilt, tilt. The above is addressed to Matt , NOT Paul.
Yes you were right, Furthermore, TCE of seawater increases with pressure as well.
As long as you’ve got the hair’s “bulb” as well as the hair. The hair alone is insufficient.
So ….. the models are wrong and the data is worthless. Amazing …. proposals for trillions of dollars of energy reconfiguration based on a scientific theory that once again is exactly that …. a bloody theory – with no observational support and no models worth a damn.
And this new proposal : base theoretical validation on observations that are at best a proxy, have every limited historical data, comes from an extremely chaotic and complex system the understanding of which is in its infancy and where the actual proxy data they now state as THE evidence required, is showing the WRONG trend to be able to support the theory, ie, MSL rise has been decelerating over the last 15 years when it should have been accelerating (if all this hear is supposed to have been going tinto the ocean
The whole MMGW idea is a complete house of bloody cards.
Apparently they also missed, that the rate of sea level rise is slowing. Just read recently the rate of sea level rise is down 30%.
Looks like they’ll be scraping the barrel for new excuses to justify the carbon taxes, shutting down of industry and offshoring of jobs.
“..and when they discover they got sea levels wrong
It will be pikas, cherry blossoms, and frog farts……..”
what you can not see or touch must be the…
The holy CAGW ghost?
Great find, very significant admission. But it doesn’t seem that sea levels were 2 meters higher during the Holocene, 5500 years ago, it seems they were slightly lower than today. See graph in this article on Judith Curry’s web site:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
I’ve seen this same graph, or one very similar to it, many other times.
Yes, sea level was about 7 meters higher during the Eemian.
They make it up as they go along.
Is it wrong to laugh at these wan*ers?
We have lots of data showing that temperature increases at approximately 25 degrees C per 1000m as you descend into the depths of the earths crut (deep gold and diamond mines etc).
The deep ocean is just a few degrees C implying that there may be a massive transfer of energy from the ocean floor to the adjacent sea water.
I have not found any documentation on the ocean bed / water energy transfer.
*SR*
These are our models and if you don’t like them we have others!
Steve Keohane says:
June 14, 2014 at 9:07 am
“The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, was not mentioned in the Guardian article.
At the current rate of 8-12″ per century it will take 6-900 years to get to the level of 6Kya, assuming SL is really rising long term. Of course, accumulating more polar ice reduces sea level, so it could also be that long term we are cooling, and the oceans are diminishing, as we exit this interglacial.
================
hmm next big bullshit campaign
its not acid oceans but they might get too Salty?
as the evaporated water turns into snow and ice on land
george e. smith says:
June 14, 2014 at 8:16 pm
“””””…..sunshinehours1 says:
June 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm
MikeB: “Compared to the Sun’s energy input, 342 watts per square metre (at Top of Atmosphere), human produced ‘waste heat’ is negligible.”……”””””
The suns rate of energy input (to earth) is 1366 W / m^2., not 342.
And the units of energy are Joules, not Watts.
====
Hint 342 * 4 = 1368 😉
MikeB’s figure correctly gives the average of the solar flux over entire Earth’s surface. Compare surface of sphere ( 4 pi r^2 ) to the circular cross-section intercepting solar rad. ( pi.r^2 ) at 1366 W / m^2
Joules and Watts are surnames, the scientific units are joule and watt, neither capitalised nor pluralised. The “rate of energy input” would be W not W / m^2, the latter being a unit of flux. If you’re going be pendantic, you need to get it right. 😉
“The European Union is supportive of the effort to find climate metrics which point in the right direction – The Esa Climate Change Initiative (CCI) is a €75m programme, active since 2009, to produce a “trustworthy” set of ECV (Essential Climate Variable) data that can be accessed by all.”
“Trustworthy” meaning having been suitably homogenised, bais-adjusted etc. to give the required answers, at which point the only the end result “can be accessed by all.” Open access and transparency has never been the hallmark of access to primary data neither at european agencies nor from national meteo services within european countries.
The UK Met. Office is still part of the Ministry of Defence and if climate data it not marked “top secret” it may as well be if you want to actually see it.
Daily climate data in UK is controlled by local met offices that usually want a prohibitive amount of money to release daily data. Per Phil Jones in climategate emails , they’re “hiding behind” intellectual property arguments to avoid releasing data.
Swiss meteo data ( geographic, not political “europe” ) don’t even have a link to download _anything_. Austrian met. office demand a large sum plus a “non disclosure ” agreement.
Open and transparent ? Don’t make be laugh.
Jeff L says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Sea level change ??? They think they can accurately separate out tectonic , eustatic, variable ice melt & other hydrologic cycle variations , etc from thermal expansion ???
Good luck with that.
Hard to see where it will be any more accurate than surface temps
=====
No, but they think that gives them enough “correction factors” to get the result to be whatever they want it to be, no matter what.
This will then “trusted data” , the ONLY dataset that will acceptable for assessing “global warming”.
So we have a new saying?
“When the data fits – use it”
Or perhaps the reverse of the old saying..
“When the cap doesn’t fit – find a new head”
RobertInAz says:
June 14, 2014 at 9:18 am
One study at one location does not make the sea level higher 5500 years ago all around the world.
True that. There is ample evidence that sea levels can be many feet higher in one location (Bay of Fundy) than generally.
But the warmists claim that ARGO shows the opposite of what you postulate (that the bottom waters have warmed more than the upper 700 meters).
Given that ARGO only dives to 700 meters that is very convenient.
Greg, a watt is one joule per second and watts per square metre is simply saying how much energy each square metre receives in one second. Scientifically literate people recognise that all these terms are referring to an energy input; sorry if that excludes you.
For SI unit values more than 1 or less than -1 the plural of the unit is used and a singular unit is used for values between 1 and -1. See the link to the National Physics Laboratory if you doubt this http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-units/si-conventions/
“Wikipedia is also good on this “The plural forms of units follow the grammar of the language concerned: in English, the normal rules of English grammar are used, e.g. ‘henries’ is the plural of ‘henry’”
You could have looked these things up yourself before making afool of yourself but then you would be in danger of learning something.
By the way, the joule is named after someone called Joule, not Joules and the watt is named after someone called Watt, not Watts.
George e smith
All SI unit names are lower-case, so it is wrong to say Watts and Joules. You are even behind Greg on this one so you can learn from him.
TAG says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:57 am
“…..The problem is that even a little warming can cause significant economic problems…….”
You mean, like the Roman period, the Medieval Warm Period and the late 20th century?
Chris
@MikeB: the NPL style sheet says this: ‘The unit symbol is in lower case unless the name of the unit is derived from a proper name, in which case the first letter of the symbol is in upper case…….For unit values more than 1 or less than -1 the plural of the unit is used and a singular unit is used for values between 1 and -1.’
So, we have N, Newton, Newtons, Pa, Pascal, Pascals, g, gram, grams, kg, kilogram, kilograms…….
As for ‘watts’, 1 W = 1 [J/s] 1 Watt = 1 [Joule/second], 10 Watts = 10 [Joules/second]
As for Wikipedia, “‘henries’ is the plural of ‘henry’” should read “‘Henries’ is the plural of ‘Henry'”
Sorry, must be self-consistent. The plural bit means that we cannot use ’10 W’; it must be expressed as ’10 Watts’.
MikeB says:
June 15, 2014 at 3:26 am
“Greg, a watt is one joule per second and watts per square metre is simply saying how much energy each square metre receives in one second. Scientifically literate people recognise that all these terms are referring to an energy input; sorry if that excludes you.”
Before being so vitriolic you should read what I said. I was supporting what you said. I was saying it was incorrect of G.E.Smith (having incorrectly corrected your numbers) to pedantically yet incorrectly correct your units.
There’s little point in the joule/watt knit-pick if he’s going to state “rate of energy” in units that represent a flux. I was not criticising your less rigorous comment which was clear enough.
“Joules and Watts are surnames, the scientific units are joule and watt, neither capitalised nor pluralised.”
I did not say Joules and Watts were the names of the scientists, I said “Joules and Watts are surnames” which is perfectly accurate, ask our host !
You are reading something other that what I actually wrote then attacking me for your own misinterpretation. Less venom would be in order.
“the scientific units are joule and watt, neither capitalised nor pluralised.” Let’s get it from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.bipm.org/en/bipm/
The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) was set up by the Metre Convention and has its headquarters near Paris, France. It is financed jointly by its Member States and operates under the exclusive supervision of the CIPM.
Its mandate is to provide the basis for a single, coherent system of measurements throughout the world, traceable to the International System of Units (SI).
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/derived_units/
” Units with special names and symbols; units that incorporate special names and symbols: see radian, steradian, hertz, newton, pascal, joule, watt, coulomb, volt, farad, ohm, siemens, weber, tesla, henry, degree Celsius, lumen, lux, becquerel, gray, sievert, katal”
Again, you are incorrectly reinterpreting what I wrote and attacking me for your mistakes.
You seem to be scientifically literate but your reading comprehension is lacking, both in precision and intent. I was agreeing with you !
Ronald DeWitt says:
June 14, 2014 at 7:55 am
I suggest that we begin to use the yield per acre for corn crops. I read somewhere that it has been rising consistently and could well be an effect of climate change.
===================
I think some guy named Adam Smith ‘Wealth of Nations’ already used that idea
Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London…
Scientists are now trying to simulate the behaviour using computer models. This is difficult because the behaviour of the deep ocean is too poorly known to be reliably included.
So the thermometer is now declared “passee”, you can’t measure temperature by measuring temperature. I wonder how long before possession of a thermometer will be a crime. The housemaiden’s tale is coming closer to reality.
If climate is so complex and chaotic that even defining let alone measuring it is a slippery business, then why not focus on integrating indicators such as:
Global sea ice
Global land ice
Biological species extent and abundance
Amount of snow
Local temperature minima and maxima
M Simon says:
June 15, 2014 at 3:06 am
But the warmists claim that ARGO shows the opposite of what you postulate (that the bottom waters have warmed more than the upper 700 meters).
================================
These folks would tend to disagree with that claim (yes, I’m aware it is from 2011)
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
“Apparent pause in global warming blamed on lousy data”
So the Guardian spins the title to give the public the impression that global warming is continuing and that the pause isn’t real.
As we have been on a slight cooling trend for the last six years then I guess the Guardian will conclude that the data must be getting worse. Could be as we enter the next solar cycle that the data will get even worse. Guardian writers will be struggling through snow drifts and will tell the world not to worry, the world isn’t cooling, its just lousy data .
M Simon says:
June 15, 2014 at 3:06 am
But the warmists claim that ARGO shows the opposite of what you postulate (that the bottom waters have warmed more than the upper 700 meters).
Given that ARGO only dives to 700 meters that is very convenient.
===========================
Argo buoys dive to 2000 meters. The expendable bathythermographs that were used prior to the deployment of the Argo system only measured to 700 meters, temperature below 700 was ‘estimated’ from the temperature at 700 meters. The significance is that prior to the Argo bouys we really don’t have measurement of ocean temps at 2000 meters so we can’t say with a great deal of confidence whether the ‘deep’ ocean has heated, cooled, or stayed the same prior to 2003.
We have no consistent measurement of temperatures below 2000 meters over a wide enough area of the oceans to draw any conclusions at all, even to make a decent guess.
So sea level rises are taken as an indication that the seas are warming? But couldn’t that rise also be due in some part due to reducing global sea level atmospheric pressure?
“sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used”
yet climate is defined as surface temperature averaged over 30 years. In effect Briggs is arguing that climate is the worst indicator of climate.
in science, no amount of positive data proves a theory correct. It simply establishes that the theory is useful for prediction. the reason for this is simple. there are an infinite number of positive correlations to be found, few of which are due to cause and effect. most are simply chance.
however, it takes only 1 negative example to prove a theory wrong. the theory that we could use CO2 levels to predict surface temperatures has now been shown to be wrong.
“sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used”
thus, we cannot use CO2 levels as an indicator of future surface temperatures. it may provide reliable prediction of other effects, but clearly not of temperature.
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
HANG ON. All the dire consequences: more frequent and stronger storms were supposed (incorrectly) to relate to increases in surface temperature. More frequent and more severe droughts and flooding. “Tipping points” in melting of arctic tundra and permafrost. The “catastrophic” changes that _may_ happen if the world rises more than 2 deg. C above pre-industrial level (IPCC).
These are ALL supposed to result from a change in surface temperature (primarily SST) which is now apparently the worst indicator of global climate that can be used.
HadSST3 has a ‘hiatus’ , HadCRUT4 ( land + sea ) is flat , lower tropo air temps (TLT) is flat , temperature of lower stratosphere (TLS) is flat
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
Arctic sea ice gained 50% in volume in just one year to October 2014.
Yet somewhere there are are more “trustworthy” metrics that will show us just how bad it “really” is.
“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse !”
.
Seriously guys, this is becoming a pathology. You need help.
Gunga Din says:
June 14, 2014 at 10:42 am
===============================================================
I made that comment before the italics were fixed that made what I was commenting on look like it was a quote from the Guardian.
I saw some of the comments about the typo but initially thought they were about a comment and not the post itself.
Perhaps the MODs could insert an “Update” just under the post’s title noting the correction?
AP can write this without laughing!
15 June: Daily Mail: AP: Denying climate change is like saying the moon is made of cheese, argues Obama as he takes on global warming deniers at commencement speech.
Obama gave the commencement address at UC Irvine on Saturday
He says Congress is ‘full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence’ of climate change
While in Orange County, the president also attended a closed-door fundraiser at the Laguna Beach home of Getty oil heiress Anne Earhart
‘They say, “Hey, look, I’m not a scientist.” And I’ll translate that for you: what that really means is, “I know that manmade climate change really is happening but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot,'” he said…
The president said today’s young dreamers are fed a steady diet of cynicism but argued they have a right to be optimistic.
‘Consider this: since the time most of you graduated from high school, fewer Americans are at war,’ Obama said. ‘More have health insurance. More are graduating from college. Our businesses have added more than nine million new jobs. And the number of states where you’re free to marry who you love has more than doubled. That’s just some of the progress you’ve seen.’…
While in Orange County, Obama also raised money for the Democratic National Committee at a closed-door fundraiser at the Laguna Beach home of Getty oil heiress Anne Earhart. About 25 people paid up to $32,400 to participate in a roundtable discussion with the president.
He’s spending the rest of the Father’s Day weekend on vacation at the Rancho Mirage home of White House decorator Michael Smith and his partner, U.S. Ambassador to Spain James Costos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658079/Denying-climate-change-like-saying-moon-cheese-argues-Obama-takes-global-warming-deniers-commencement-speech.html
How is sea level going to do it? IPCC AR5 fig 13.6 (if I recall) shows satellite telemetry data between 2005 and 2012.5. Sea rise was 20 mm, 3/4″. Japan’s metrology group has seen no significant trend and Australian sea rise is hotly debated. No, AGW is toast, at last.
TAG says: “Society must be aware of the consequences and only sound non-political science can provide that.”
Exactly. The problem is that we have not seem much of that since the early 1990s.
It did exist, but it’s a dim and distant memory. Probably why the “sceptic” demography is mainly 50+ age group.
Seems that there is a retreat to “metrics” that have longer and longer time constants.
Surface temps stopped rising around the turn of the century, so they got obsessive about Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice gained 50% in volume last year, so it’s gone a bit quiet on that front (let’s talk about millennial scale change in Antarctica for a while). Now they’re switching to ‘deep ocean’ warming where the mass of water will necessarily take 100s to 1000s of years to change.
They’ve retreated into geologic time-scales metrics to try to support the hypothesis of an “urgent” , “we must act now, before it’s too late” problem.
Head meet rear-end. Hi, may I come in?
Well, I think scientific monitoring should keep a close eye on the Ungava Peninsula. Apparently this is where the Laurentide ice sheet begins to grow.
The theory is in conflict with the data. One of them has to go…
Almost comical how the climate cultists cling to straws like that, when at the same time basic research comes up with explanations of the “pause”, that, if the eplanation is correct, is actually the end of global warming: Researchers from Tuebingen, Germany, reported evince from lab experiments that the GHG warming mostly hinges on the carbon isotope ratio and not CO2 concentration.: “The stagnating global temperatures of the past 16 years are an indication of the accuracy of these calculations. This stagnation is thus most likely a result of emission saturation of the saturated global warming gases. … Thus, due to this effect the global mean temperature on Earth does not rise anymore, provided that the methane and nitrous oxide levels are not increasing further.”
Global Warming Gas Balance in Response to Increasing Concentrations: Perspectives from a Laser Induced Ablation and Gas Evaporation
Blau, M. et al.
Journal of Geology & Geosciences 3:141, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2329-6755.1000141
Why not just admit imagination is the metric and be done with it.
“When the legend becomes a fact, print the legend”
At this point there is nothing which would convince a warmist-they are like Cargo Cultists. It wouldn’t be so aggravating if they are so agitated that YOU don’t believe too.
dccowboy, here are the pdfs related to the abstract you gave us. Thanks for the headsup! Great articles.
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pas.rochester.edu%2F~douglass%2Fpapers%2FPLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf&ei=UNKdU8qYC9auyASvgILYDQ&usg=AFQjCNG1YQR4xlzcFmtF84Vf1owFLRlLnw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pas.rochester.edu%2F~douglass%2Fpapers%2FKD_InPress_final.pdf&ei=UNKdU8qYC9auyASvgILYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGd8SuZwfh1SUEDtIZIzVaVG6bNVw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw
JimS says: June 15, 2014 at 6:51 am
“Well, I think scientific monitoring should keep a close eye on the Ungava Peninsula. Apparently this is where the Laurentide ice sheet begins to grow.”
Notice how the ice sheet’s edge seems similar to a loopy jet stream edge. Was the AO in negative territory for an extended length of time, causing Arctic air to invade mid-latitudes? It certainly follows the extreme cold pattern we have been seeing in the Northeast US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/NAO.html
Or…could it be an extended positive AO that dries up rivers and streams making it easier for them to freeze, leading to ice dams? That shape also has a dip in the Northeast US. hmmmmm.
In completely unrelated news, NOAA has just released its first decade of average US surface temperature data, from a network of new weather stations established specifically to avoid urban heat island effect and other effects that skewed previous data. Bottom line: US average surface temps DECLINED by 0.4 degrees F over the last decade.
Here’s how you can have fun with this: tell your globaloney-gourmet friends and relatives about this new data, but just say the average temps “changed” instead of “declined”. And be sure to mention that 0.4 degrees is:
1. Pretty insignificant
2. Probably within the margin of error
3. Cannot be projected out linearly with any confidence
After they scold you about how stupid you are, and how this conclusively means 4 degrees F hotter per century and we are all doomed to fry, casually mention that they must have misunderstood, because you never said “increase”… and in fact it is a 0.4 degree DECREASE.
My experiences with this little gambit revealed that I have some friends and family that are potential Tour de France champions… as long as they would be allowed to ride the bike facing backwards, and back-pedal!!
@Nicole Bresht
Ho! It’s a thread massacre over there! The ‘Grauniad’ censors have had to cut out whole comment threads, some of which which had been up & posted for over 24/24, in order to restore the AGW-order and calm their collective cognitive dissonances. Sad to see some of my best work go down the memory hole… appears the Wayback Machine doesn’t record Guardian comments.
No entity more censorious than an illiberal northern rag with an ideological axe to grind! What?
Pamela Gray says: June 15, 2014 at 10:22 am
… could it be an extended positive AO that dries up rivers and streams making it easier for them to freeze, leading to ice dams?
It often rains at the high altitudes but not always
rayvandune, do you have a link to your NOAA announcement?
So, measuring the Earth’s temperature is not an indication of it’s….. temperature..
I’m gob smacked. These people must be on some pretty bizarre medication!!
Day By Day says:
Insult to birds Eugene. Are you not keeping up with the research?
http://tinyurl.com/n5wqy4y
They are as smart as children which is more than I can say for the climate Scientists (at least the one ones in the mythical consensus)
DbD – You should be as skeptical about this Wonders of Animal Cognition stuff as I assume you are about (C)AGW. Think about it. Kids are talking by the age of 7; what kind of propositional knowledge do you think a crow has? Notice also that in the article they trot out the usual guff about tool using (a perennial favorite in this area) – but it’s just not true that a tool is a tool is a tool. Nor is it impossible for animals to learn to use “tools” by response-reinforcement learning.
There really should be at least one skeptical Website devoted to this nonsense (er, business) just as there are sites that play this role for AGW.
steverichards1984 says:
June 15, 2014 at 1:02 am
///////////////
The oceanic crust is also much thiner to its continental crust counterpart, but of course, it is made of different material with different heat transfer properties.
I have several times posed the question ‘what if the planet’s oceans were drained, how warm would it be if one were standing on the floor of the dry sea bed?’
Richard Verney. Do you mean the air pressure increase to make up for the loss of water or the temperature of the sea bed?
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 14, 2014 at 1:23 pm
The sun supplies 340 W/m2 to the earth at top-of-atmosphere, which is about 5.5E+24 joules/year. This is no less than 10,000 times the human-produced energy. Of this, about 240 W/m2 actually makes it into the system, with the rest reflected into space.
///////////////////////////////////
Willis
Is the 100 W/m2 of solar reflected at TOA, or is it reflected at cloud height and/or off the surface?
Since if this is reflected below TOA, then some of the 100 W/m2 of reflected solar finds its way into the system since the atmosphere is not 100% transparent, nor are the underside of clouds (consider solar reflected from the surface hiting the underside of clouds where the clouds will absorp much of it).
The atmosphere gets warmed not solely by the absorption of incoming solar, but also by the absorption of reflected solar. In my view K&T err in this regard.
K & T suggest that 23 W/m2 of solar is reflected from the surface, but does not suggest that any of that reflected solar is absorbed by the atmosphere on its way out.
K & T suggest that 79 W/m2 of solar is reflected from the upper surface of the clouds but does not suggest that any of that reflected solar is absorbed by the atmosphere on its way out.
I would suggest that some part of this reflected solar is absorbed on its way out, and is therefore within the system. Percentagewise less will be absorbed of the solar reflected from the top of clouds but it will depend upon cloud formation and cloud height etc.
Overall, it is likely that we are talking of about 6 to 9 W/m2 of reflected solar additionally absorbed by the atmosphere. Not a huge amount, but then again, not insignificant either.
Andyj says:
June 15, 2014 at 1:11 p
//////////////////////
I am postulating only upon thermal energy from the Earth.
Of course, if there were no oceans the world would be a very different place. I am ignoring the effects of this, ie., the effect on the hydrological cycle etc. Likewise, I am ignoring the effect of atmospheric pressure (average depth of the ocean circa 4,500m and deepest nearly 12,000 metres) which of course would be significant.
Essentially, if you could stand on the sea bed (free of the sea), would it be like going down a coal mine, or not? When going down a coal mine, the additional air pressure explains only a very small part of the additional heat.
If it would be, are the oceans effectively sitting on a hotplate which help prevents the deep ocean from freezing and helps powering the thermohaline circulation?
oceans can’t freeze at the bottom. It’s because seawater is at its densest at about 1.2 °C (2000 m). It can only freeze at the surface, about -2.5 °C.
Richard, you said: “the additional air pressure explains only a very small part of the additional heat.”.
Really?
Adding pressure is fairy linear to the temperature increase below the troposphere.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/atmprofile.gif
Actually, it would be damned hot!!!
The pressure of the oceans do many strange things down there. Lakes of methane and rivers of CO2. Sea creatures wading through temperatures of 500C water that does not boil and yes, I do expect heat retention with occasional releases… What does Bob call it? lol
For what its worth. Look at the troubles with another so called science where things have really gotten bad with replication due to hidden methods and data.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jun/10/physics-envy-do-hard-sciences-hold-the-solution-to-the-replication-crisis-in-psychology
If someone is accused of murder could they be found guilty on proxy evidence such as ‘models’/animations or real evidence such a photos or DNA? This is of course rhetorical..How would the prosecution sound if they said we have a clear signal that the defendant is guilty but there are still some uncertainties. Would that be a safe conviction?
Matt
1) “If it is true that 90% of the ocean’s volume is below 3000 feet, then isn’t most of the ocean below 4C, the temperature at which water shrinks in volume when heated? If so, how does a rising ocean indicate climate change in the deep ocean?”
It’s true the ocean’s ave. temperature is 3.5 C but if heated its density is almost constant until 10 C. The ocean’s thermocline is from surface to 700 m deep in the tropics. This is where most thermal expansion occurs.
2) “Why is the tropical deep ocean cold, anyway? Don’t tell me it is because the sun isn’t warming it, dig a 10000 foot deep hole in Sri Lanka and tell me how cold it is. Perhaps it is because the effects of the global currents past ice exceed the effects of top down diffusion? Wouldn’t you have to allege that surface waters were themselves heating in order to diffuse more heat to the depths?”
Because below the thermocline, heat transfers mainly by conduction and thermohaline circulation. Very slow processes compared to convection.
3) “Even if it was true that the deep ocean is warming, isn’t a more plausible explanation warmer water that was at the surface 800 years ago being carried to the depths by those currents and diffusing horizontally and up.”
No accurate direct measurements of deep ocean temperature changes. The changes are too small and hardly detectable. Speculations abound in the absence of observations. Like tales of sea monsters hiding in the deep.
Very poorly expressed! How on earth can the models “lack the skill”? Models cannot possess skill, but they can, and in all cases they do, lack accuracy, suitability, etc.
It’s the modellers which lack the skill, and also they lack the common sense to recognise their ineptitude!
Andyj says:
June 15, 2014 at 2:25 pm
////////////////////////
Atmospheric Lapse Rate is often taken to be about 6.4degC per km. The Geothermal Gradiaent of the Continental Crust is often taken to be 25degC per km. I am sure you will accept that that is quite a difference, and therefore borehole temperatures are not explained mainly by atmospheric temperature. In short, the rock at 2 km depth is hot to touch.
The question being posed is if the ocean was drained, would the sea bed be hot to touch?
If one were to make a borehole in Continental Crust to a depth of 4,500 metres (average depth of the ocean), the borehole temperature (and the rock) would be more than 100degC warmer than the surface (not bathed in sunlight) rock.
So the question being posed is would the floor of the sea bed be similarly warm, and if not why not?.
sorry but I don’t know how to do proper links. Scroll up to the top of this tread and look at a comment by Bill Illis. His comment is extraordinary and at the same time “basic”. Humanity itself is changing the signature of the planet, that is “our own biomass”. Blessed Be The L-rd.
My (DEVELOPING) personal belief is that quite contrary to the Sun, the Stars, the Galactic Cosmic Gamma Bursts having an effect on US, it is quite contrary that we ALL TOGETHER are in fact influencing our Environment, to wit WE are influencing Solar Cycles, the occurence of SEP’s, Solar Flares, CME’s and a host of events that are now shown clearly to be DIRECTLY effecting our own weather.
I know this is a stretch, guys, and I can’t stick around for the debate (if anyone cares) but as said, I believe maybe, prayer, on the local and global level, might be influencing the outcomes here.
OK? Do you get it?
We are individually insignificant against even the smallest measure of electromagnetic disturbances of our biosphere…yet that same biosphere seems incredibly sensitive to exactly the same influences, at the same frequency levels in which we live and have consciousness. We MAY be more “powerful”, in the day-to-day, than we know.
Just sayin’
oh yes, also: –
“the sheep look up”…
when we look at a Star, are we seeing it, Right Now? In which Time?
The speed of an electron, the magnetic spin of an electron, stretched out ‘linearly’, would put it in Andromeda (our closest neighboring galaxy, in about one second, far above ‘light speed’.) That’s a fact. So much for that thing…”light speed”.
I believe in the Big Picture, we’ll accept the Stars talk, and Influence Us, and more…and far more important, We INFLUENCE THEM.
The Universe, (ultimately), is a Moral Creation. We’re just ‘doing our best’…………. 🙁
The models are fake but accurate.
@richard
“So the question being posed is would the floor of the sea bed be similarly warm, and if not why not?”
Sea floor is cold at 3 C. Remove the water and it will be warmed by sunlight. The surface is warmed by solar radiation. Geothermal heat is negligible at surface, except in volcanic regions, but increases with depth.
Bit of a typo in the article
“The Models didn’t have the skill we thought they had…”
Should that not be “Modlers”?
•Keith Willshaw
“History indicates that the onset of cold periods is more disruptive. The end of the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods produced catastrophic upheavals and famines as did the lttle ice age of the 17th century”
A report done for the Pentagon back in 2003 seemed to agree
By 2020, after a decade of cooling, Europe’s climate becomes “more like Siberia’s.”
•“Mega-droughts” hit southern China and northern Europe around 2010 and last 10 years.
•In the United States, agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher winds and drier climate, but the country survives the economic disruption without catastrophic losses.
•Widespread famine in China triggers chaos, and “a cold and hungry China peers jealously” at Russia’s energy resources.
If the alarmists are looking for better metrics to prove that only warming lies ahead , their black swan will come when temperatures are only going down . Winter temperatures have been cooling since 1998 both globally and regionally and these colder winters are bringing the spring and summer temperatures down as well, causing the annual temperatures to pause for17 years. The next 20-30years ahead will be a major embarrassment for the warmists as the winter continue to cool.
“Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.”
So, it is about picking and choosing metrics and maintaining narratives. I thought it was about science.
Stunning admission.
Temperature is good enough to measure past climatic events, see the 8.2 k event, or Younger Dryas, not to talk about LIA and MWP but is not good enough for CAGW which should be a warming much more rapid then past climate variations?
I am confused. Was not this fast global warming the reason why all those species would die not having time to adapt?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
What is that global warming without warming?
How can atmospheric CO2 ‘acidify’ the Oceans, when there’s 140 times more CO2 in the Ocean than the atmosphere? It’s such a rich resource, the America Navy is going to make jet fuel out of it (so you can pretty much guarantee that the 140 times more CO2 than the atmosphere is accurate), ALL of the CO2 in the atmosphere could go into the Oceans, and they wouldn’t miss a beat.
Just about everything on land would die though.
This sea level rise? How many vulnerable coastal sand dunes that exist close to the high tide mark, have disappeared in the last 300 years? A few inches extra on a spring tide, with any sort of reasonable storm surge (storms tend to coincide with spring tides), and those dunes are gone (build sand castles on the beach and observe what happens when the tide comes in, and what just a couple of inches of wave action rapidly does to them). Locally, vulnerable sand dunes have been in place for over 300 years (in one place maybe even 600+ years).
‘Level’ in ‘sea level’ is like a builders level, or the type of surveying water ‘level’ used by the Egyptians to set out the construction of the pyramids.
The warmists don’t seem to be able to grasp what ‘level’ actually means, and some of them even think all this ‘surplus’ massive increase in water, is somehow stacked up, ‘over there,somewhere over the horizon’, biding its time until it decides to kick butt or something.
Yes there are variations in sea level due to gravity anomolies or whatever, but the amount of water even at an inch a decade, over even 30 decades, would add up to humungous volumes of water, with nowhere to hide.
So where is it?
Something else too. If sea temperatures were a lot colder during the LIA, and other very cold periods, the gas content of the water would increase quite significantly with reduced temperature. Once it has sunk to the depths at the Poles, it will carry that gas payload to the tropics, and when it gets there and warms up, before heading back to the Poles at the surface, it should be offloading rather large amounts of gases as it rises from the depths.
How much of that plays into atmospheric CO2 content?
A little off topic, I thought it was funny though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yis7GzlXNM&feature=inp-tw-paq-3914
Thankfully however, climate scientists have not yet run out of metrics which show an upward trend. The new measure of global warming is to be sea level rise – presumably because it is still moving in the right direction, and because it ties in nicely with the “deep ocean heating” narrative.
__________
Sea levels are not rising, at least according to the world’s foremost expert and the only one who has actually gone and measured the sea levels.
Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’
“The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker…”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
Snake oil can be a tough sell.
Edited for accuracy.
“””””…..Greg says:
June 15, 2014 at 1:41 am
george e. smith says:
June 14, 2014 at 8:16 pm
“””””…..sunshinehours1 says:
June 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm
MikeB: “Compared to the Sun’s energy input, 342 watts per square metre (at Top of Atmosphere), human produced ‘waste heat’ is negligible.”……”””””
The suns rate of energy input (to earth) is 1366 W / m^2., not 342.
And the units of energy are Joules, not Watts.
====
Hint 342 * 4 = 1368 😉
MikeB’s figure correctly gives the average of the solar flux over entire Earth’s surface. Compare surface of sphere ( 4 pi r^2 ) to the circular cross-section intercepting solar rad. ( pi.r^2 ) at 1366 W / m^2
Joules and Watts are surnames, the scientific units are joule and watt, neither capitalised nor pluralised. The “rate of energy input” would be W not W / m^2, the latter being a unit of flux. If you’re going be pendantic, you need to get it right. ;)…..”””””
Well thanks Greg for the arithmetic lesson. I’m sure I knew my “4 times table” by age four.
“”..And the units of energy are Joules, not Watts…”””
And the UNIT”S” of energy ARE (j)oules, not (w)atts.
Oh I missed the conversion.
Plural of “joule” is “julies” and plural of watt is watties; just follow the henry to henries rule.
If you and your disciples don’t know that power is an instantaneous quantity, and that AVERAGE POWER is quite irrelevant to the understanding of any physical process, then I’m not going to try and change your mind.
Try explaining to the people of Hiroshima, that a good thunderstorm carries a lot more destructive ENERGY, than the little bomb that was dropped on them; on average of course.
342 W/m^2 on each and every point on earth continually would result in a snowball earth.
UHIs would never get above freezing , at 250 W/m^2 applied forever. But they actually get around 1,000 when in direct sunlight (do I actually have to tell you to measure in the direction of the sun.)
Power is not averaged by ANY physical process; they all respond to the instantaneous value, even in the first attosecond.
So we can argue whether to actually use the guy’s name or let the French tell us what to do.
When, I went to school, many units were named after prominent scientists, using their actual real names. I’m not going to change now, but you can all do what you are told, if that is how you are able to communicate any ideas at all.
If I were writing a paper for a peer reviewed journal (which I absolutely never do), I’d probably see that I used the official spellings.
Only peer reviewed papers I ever wrote are all stored and available from the US (and foreign) patent office. Yes they care about words; not so fussy about incidental spelling conventions.
And my difference with what I cited, was not with the conventions of spelling and units (or should that be unit that is not pluralized either)
My complaint was the far less important (than mere spelling) use of completely incorrect units.
We don’t simply interchange the units, “farad” and “henry”, as if the physical attributes don’t matter.
Energy and power are not interchangeable units, and pointing out that one of them involves time but the other does not, is not particularly helpful.
In fact much of physics instruction is just about how various quantities may be related. Such relationships do not license interchangeability.
So Greg, if you and Mike B get your jollies out of your juvenile snide remarks; have at it.
I was studying real physics before you guys were knee high to a grass hopper; with commensurate mental faculties
So get over it; power is not energy
Crashing into a brick wall at 50 km/hr is not the same as doing it four times at 25 km/hr.
Hint : 4 = 2^2
Okay, so TEMPERATURE is not the best measure of how warm it is? Makes no sense. Climate change is all about warmth, and the one direct, objective measurement of warmth available to us, temperature, is to be ignored? Instead we are to replace it with other, less direct proxies for temperature, proxies that are influenced by a multitude of factors OTHER than warmth.
Suppose you wanted to determine the weight of a penny. You COULD simply put it on a scale and look at the dial to determine its weight. OR you could determine the VOLUME of the penny by submerging it in a glass of water and recording the difference in the water level before and after the penny was dropped in, then mutliplying that by the horizontal area at the surface of the water (or if the sides of the glass are not quite vertical, the average surface area of before and after the penny was dropped). Noting that volume is one of the three factors that determine the weight of an object (the other two being mass and gravity), you claim that volume is actually a BETTER indication of weight than weight itself, and report the weight of the penny as 0.463 cubic centimeter. After all, the weight of an object is a lousy measurement of how heavy something is.
If you wanted to determine the height of your child, you COULD stand him against a wall (making sure he is standing flat on his bare feet), mark the wall even with the top of his head, then use a tape measure to measure the height of the mark. OR, noting that the height of a human is a (partially) inherited trait, you could wait until he grows up, marries, and has kids of his own, then wait until your grandchildren reach your child’s current age. At that point, you could stand your grandchild on a flat surface x meters away from you and, using a sextant, determine the vertical angle between the center of your eye and the top of your grandchild’s head. You could then use trigonometric identities to determine the height of your grandchild from the value of that angle, the height of your eye, and the distance between your grandchild and yourself, but why bother? Simply report your child’s height, on a specific date 20+ years ago, as -3 degrees. After all, the height of a person is a lousy measurement of how tall that person is.