Jason Samenow sends word of a new article in WaPo that does some of the same sort of surface temperature analyses we see right here on WUWT. Seeing what a good job Matt Rogers did in his defense against claims of cherry picking, statistical significance woes, and Trenberthian masking, it made me wonder; “How long before he gets called into the chief editors office at WaPo and reassigned to be the correspondent covering Botswana?”
Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated – Matt Rogers, Capital Weather Gang
The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.
Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).
An article in Nature earlier this year discusses some of the possible causes for what some have to referred to as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus”. Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity. Indeed, a peer-reviewed paper published in February estimates that about 15 percent of the pause can be attributed to increased volcanism. But some have questioned whether the pause or deceleration is even occurring at all.
Verifying the pause
You can see the pause (or deceleration in warming) yourself by simply grabbing the freely available data from NASA and NOAA. For the chart below, I took the annual global temperature difference from average (or anomaly) and calculated the change from the prior year. So the very first data point is the change from 2000 to 2001 and so on. One sign of data validation is that the trends are the same on both datasets. Both of these government sources show a slight downward slope since 2000:
You can see some of the spikes associated with El Niño events (when heat was released into the atmosphere from warmer than normal ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific) that occurred in 2004-05 and 2009-10. But the warm changes have generally been decreasing while cool changes have grown.
================================================================
Read it all here, well worth your time – Anthony
“Aphan said in part June 20, 2014 at 10:13 am:
“I have a question along those lines for anyone here with the knowledge/skills to give me the answer. Supposing that the inner workings of the core of our planet are at least basically understood, how much C02 and other gases are generated by the “burning fossil fuels” in there…and how much of that pent up gas would HAVE to “vent” to the surface in order to keep the planet from expanding…”
This won’t answer your question either, but it will give you more numbers to work with. From this 1967 book, “Introduction to Geochemistry”, by Konrad Krauskopf, I get the following:
Inventory of total carbon based on units of 10^20 grams of CO2
Atmosphere 0.023
Oceans and Fresh Water 1.3
Living Organisms 0.145
Carbonate Rock 670
Organic Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks 250
Coal, Oil, etc 0.27
If we were to TRY to convert all fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY to atmospheric CO2, the balance of
atmospheric CO2 would increase from 400 ppm to
0.27/0.023 = about 4700 ppm. Submarine crews routinely function at about 5000 ppm, which is considered the maximum safe threshold for humans. And of course we could never reach that 4700 ppm as a significant fraction went into the oceans and into plants. , In the oceans, the amount of CO2 is somewhat less than the atmosphere, but there’s roughly 50 times the atmosphere’s CO2 in calcium carbonates
The maimum the pH of the oceans could increase would be 1.07 units.
Of course our scare scenario applies only if we instantaneously convert all fossil fuel carbon to CO2- in real life we’ll only release a small fraction at a time, Rain will wash more CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean, Ocean life wil excrete calcium carbonates when the oceans become too acidic, and most ot that increased atmospheric CO2 would wind up in that
“Oceans and Fresh Water” factor of 1.3
My guess is that it’s mostly U238 and its offspring particles breaking down that causes earth’s core heat. The half life of U238 is about 5 billion years or so, so our earth has roughly half the heat it started with. Thanks to that heat, volcanoes release various elements into the atmosphere, like water and CO2. That release has been dropping along with earth’s heat, and volcanoes are maybe half as active as they were 4.6 billion yars ago. It’s that heat being release from the interior, rain, life, and their related chemical reactions that have resulted in the current balances of CO2 in atmosphere, biosphere, oceans, rock, and fossil fuels.
It’s one thing for the former EPA-crats to decline to agree with Obama’s pronouncements. But this article in the hometown paper at this time effectively uses facts to call him a liar . That’s a profile in courage. Watch out for the profile in payback.
policycritic says, June 20, 2014 at 6:51 pm:
“” Donald L. Klipstein says: June 20, 2014 at 5:42 pm””
(link to the Tyndall site for the global carbon budget)
“Why do they add fossil fuels and cement together in the Tyndall budget? Which one is larger?”
Fossil fuel combustion accounts for something like 94%, cement production accounts for something like 6%, of the sum of these two. My guess is that Tyndall is now lumping them together because they account for nearly all transfer of carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, aquasphere and biosphere.
Responding to HWR says:
June 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm
“Matt, since you are here responding to comments, I was wondering if you could shed some light on what it was like for you to propose this story and shepherd it through the editorial process to publication? Did you get support or resistance? Your article will be a difficult piece for many WaPo readers, but isn’t it also going to be a difficult piece for many WaPo editors and writers as well?”
I think that since it was in the blogs vs. the main news side, I believe there was more flexibility. My editor wanted to make sure to include counterbalancing research when he could; but it was my idea to serve up the most common rebuttals I hear in this discussion. But I agree with your first thoughts too that it needed to be a measured approach focused nearly exclusively on the deceleration aspect that shows up in all these global land/sea data sets. Thanks!
-Matt Rogers
“Donald L. Klipstein says:
June 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm
The way I see the graph of a 12-year linear trend of warming rate, the linear trend shows the warming rate being slow and decreasing, but not changing from positive to negative until about the beginning of 2011 – about 2.5 years before the graph ends.”
I agree- it seems like that is indeed the case- and folks will inevitably (fairly?) say that is too short of a time frame. So it was better to focus on the 2000s-long deceleration instead.
WxMatt says:
June 21, 2014 at 10:54 am
I want to congratulate and thank your for your efforts. The bottom line, I think, which is evident even to those who do not understand any of the scientific arguments, is that natural variation is enough to cancel out CO2 effects over at least a roughly two decade time period. The entire global warming alarm, however, is founded similarly on about a two decade run up in global averaged temperatures. And, if natural variation can cancel that trend over two decades, it could easily be the other way around, i.e., that natural variation was responsible for the previous two decade increase, and those factors causing that increase have subsided now for the past two decades.
There is no basis whatsoever to conclude that CO2 is playing any significant part at all, except for the faith-based assertion that increasing CO2 must increase surface temperatures. Advocates will insist that “greenhouse” gases are known to increase the surface temperatures beyond what they otherwise would be. But, accepting that as being the case, that does NOT imply that increasing concentrations will, at all times and all places, continue producing an increase in temperatures. There are such laws of diminishing returns everywhere in life. To give some widely recognizable examples, having a mixed drink loosens you up, and can make you the life of the party. Having six does not make you even more appealing, rather the opposite. Fertilizing your lawn will make it grow lush and green. Overfertilizing it will kill it.
There is absolutely no way to make the claim that CO2 was causing rapid warming before when it was at lower levels, and somehow it is not now when it is at higher levels. That claim should be ridiculed and scorned by anyone with a moiety of brainpower. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is broken, and the furious attempts to duct tape it back together are going nowhere. Thank you, again, for your efforts.
In light of my immediately previous input, one sentence could be interpreted wrongly. Let me rephrase.
There is absolutely no way to make the claim that CO2 was causing rapid warming before when it was at lower levels, and somehow it is not now when it is at higher levels, but will again at some undetermined time in the future.
Thanks Bart! Yes- the aspect that amazes me most is that this lull is occurring with the highest CO2 levels recorded so far. If the sensitivity is as high as claimed, then one would think this lull should at least be shorter-lived than the prior ones.
Two thoughts –
1) Since warmism has all the characteristics of a religion, we will never get them away from their religion if we offer no alternative. They have the theory of global warming, the other side needs a theory of something else. Bonus points if it can be fashioned in such a way that we can call warmists “Deniers.” And, please God, let it not be denial of cooling. I am not a warmist – unlike them, I love humanity – and cold kills, whereas warmth does exactly the opposite.
2) So often we hear that “If there is no warming, why are these the warmest years in forever.” I have found that a good analogy to use is – nobody denied the rescent warming, but it has stopped. It is as if we had been climbing a flight of stairs. We stopped, but we are still high up on this flight.”
“” emsnews says:
June 21, 2014 at 5:22 am
Claiming that ‘warming is slowing down’ is hogwash.””
Yes Sir, we can consistently rely on CAGW alarmism for pigs so clean you can eat (from) them. 😉
Help me with “deep ocean heat”
Over at Wash Post, it’s obvious I am a moron because the earth is warming “same as it ever was” but the heat is being stored in the deep ocean and the data shows it and it’s all peer reviewed. I didn’t realize it, but surface temps are now irrelevant and the models were right because all the heat is in the ocean and the warming in the oceans is “unprecedented”
Can anyone address my questions…
How is the deep ocean heat measured?
How long do we have quality data ?
How good is the data ?
Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)
Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global ice extent ?
If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
… wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?
… wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?
I have other questions and don’t know much about what seems obvious at Wash Post. Help appreciated.
– How is the deep ocean heat measured?
Since about 2003, by the ARGO network of sea bouys. The problem with the ARGO measurements is that the bouys are, over time, becoming entrained by the ocean currents, and their spatial coverage is becoming less uniform over time. So, of course, a model has to be used to homogenize the data.
Prior to 2003, ships dropped buckets in the water and measured the temps. This activity was never originally intended to produce precise or accurate measurements, and was largely confined to sea lanes. It is anyone’s guess as to how representative they are.
– How long do we have quality data ?
Essentially a decade since ARGO became active.
– How good is the data ?
Nobody knows. It’s models all the way down.
– Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)
Magic.
– Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global ice extent ?
It is being reflected in the loss of Arctic Ice, and last year’s recovery is a fluke. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken. And, speaking of Oz, Antarctic ice is increasing, but who cares about the Southern Hemisphere? It’s only half the Earth, and what have they done for us lately?
– If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
… wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?
No, because shut up.
… wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?
Sea level is increasing at the same rate as it has for over a century because, again, shut up.
Thanks. I think I understand now. I’ll shut up.
Wow, some really vicious comments on the WaPo blog. Fairly decent assessment, good (honest) questions being asked by the blogger. Hope he’s not shipped off to some distant place.
I’d like to bring clarity to the distinction between “sea ice extent” and the declining global ice mass trend as measured gravimetrically by GRACE satellites. Sea ice extent is a measurement of area or ‘spread’. With respect to sea-level rise, increasing the ‘spread’ with ever thinning ice is less relevant than the clear reduction in mass, both in arctic and in Antarctica
Yellow represents mountain glaciers and ice caps
Blue represents areas losing ice mass
Red represents areas gaining ice mass
Can anyone explain how global ice mass is declining while global temperatures are presumably steady over 17 years?
katatetorihanzo:
At June 23, 2014 at 6:20 am you assert
NO! Global warming is an increase to global surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) discernible as a rise in linear trend which differs from zero trend with 95% confidence. Global warming existed over the 17 years prior to 1997.
Global warming stopped at least 17 years ago.
Richard
Your definition seems to omit heat content rise in the oceans.
If global warming stopped, then global ice mass declines would have stopped also. No pause seen.
“Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth’s climate system. Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans. Despite the oceans’ dominant role in energy storage, the term “global warming” is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at Earth’s surface.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
“A region’s climate is generated by the climate system, which has five components: atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land surface, and biosphere.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
The images are gone. Just little place marks where the graphs showing pause should be… The news is being manipulated! Or my browser settings need adjustment.
Another climate scandal! I click on WUWT to see “Watts up” and…cannot find any thing about this Telegraph article. Cooling since the 30’s! Now I am worried something is up with WUWT. Thinking maybe I am just not in the know and need to double down on my WUWT reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
REPLY: The premise of the article based on “Steven Goddard’s” claims, is simply wrong on some assumptions. That’s why we won’t carry it here – Anthony
katatetorihanzo:
re your post June 23, 2014 at 6:35 am.
Most of the world’s ice is in Antarctica and not on a few American mountains. Global ice is now above its long-term average as you can see here.
Ice growth and loss on land is a balance between precipitation and loss. Temperature has little to do with it except that the ice temperature has to be below freezing.
Richard
re: katatetorihanzo
1) CERES satellite evidence shows there is no pause in the radiative imbalance that is fundamentally causing Earth to gain heat energy,
2) GRACE satellite evidence shows an acceleration in arctic and antarctic ice mass decline,
3) ARGO evidence shows there has been no pause in the positive temperature trend in the deep ocean.
………………………………………………………………
This is interesting and relevant data. This is all new types of data. The “old school” stuff is stubbornly not showing such warming.
In light of the data you mention, can you address my questions ?
…Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)
…Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global sea ice areal extent ?
If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
… wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?
… wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?
Just seems to me that if there is actually growing heat being measured by these new and novel techniques, that some evidence of this would be apparent in the old standards of measurement… sfc temp and sea level and areal extent of ice coverage.
“This is interesting and relevant data. This is all new types of data. The “old school” stuff is stubbornly not showing such warming.”
“In light of the data you mention, can you address my questions ?”
“…Why is this heat not being reflected in sfc temps ? (My hot bath warms the bathroom)”
Thank you for your questions Mary. The short answer is heat transfer explains short term sfc temp ‘pauses’.
Not all parts of the climate heat uniformly since our spinning globe does not heat uniformly. There are many ways for the heat accumulated at the equatorial regions to be transferred to other parts of the globe via convections within air and oceans and between the air and ocean (El Nino/ La Nina).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
Evidence that the rising global heat content is reflected in sfc temps is seen unambiguously in the 163 year instrumental record. The trend is clearly up and the rate of increase is historically unusual. In this record, there are ‘hiatuses’ or apparent ‘pauses’ that occur when short term events either reduce incoming solar radiation (aerosols from volcanic eruptions), or when heat is transferred to various climate heat sinks (deep ocean, ice melting).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
Short term variations tend to offset each other leaving the longer term trend governed by greenhouse gas emission. But trends over shorter intervals (< 30 yr) tend to be governed by the relative magnitude of heating and cooling effects of short term natural variations (volcanoes, El Niño, La Nina, solar) present in the selected interval. The link below illustrates the quality of the correspondence short term weather-related events and the last ~30 years of sfc temps:
"…Why is this heat not causing a reduction is global sea ice areal extent ?"
Heat is indeed causing a reduction in global sea ice extent. The effect is more marked in the northern than in the southern hemisphere. Specifically, the sea ice area extent, volume and mass in the northern hemisphere (arctic) are declining and at an accelerating rate.
http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/interdisciplinary_science/cae/images/theme1_fig1_lg.jpg
In the southern hemisphere, the overall ice mass is also declining (as measured by GRACE), but the thinning sea ice AREA EXTENT (spread) is moderately increasing due to enhanced trade winds. Since the impact to the arctic offsets the impact to the antarctic impact, the global ice mass overall is declining.
If there is lots of deep ocean heat…
… wouldn’t this be apparent in the SST trends?
Due to heat capacity difference between air and water, it doesnt take much heat removal to impact short term SST trends. The deep ocean heat becomes apparent in SST trends when convection and ocean circulation allows the heat to rise to the surface. This heat is normally released from the ocean to the air during El Niños and sfc temp data reflect those short term spikes. The 1998 El Nino was an example of a very strong heat release from ocean to atmosphere. However, the reverse also happens during the La Nina phase (where the heat is transferred back into the ocean) resulting in a corresponding short term cooling effect.
… wouldn’t this cause significant thermal expansion and thus sea level acceleration ?
Not necessarily, although temperature trends are positive for the deep ocean (ARGO), thermal expansion is governed by temperature and it is still pretty cold in the ocean depths. For any given quantity of heat, the temperature fluctuation would be more easily observed in air than in water.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
WxMatt:
I appreciate your problems but you are still tippy-toeing around the truth of the matter when you characterize the last 17 years as a “pause” or “deceleration of warming”. After years of spouting alarmist propaganda, the wapo is in a rather embarrassing position, is it not? All those youngsters that now have to be de-indoctrinated, if the wapo is to step away from AGW fantasy to square itself with the real world. This is called “getting your tit caught in the wringer”. I do not envy your job but I do not have any respect for any journalist who caters to the alarmist line.
“Shaka, when the walls fell.” – (Dathon and Picard)
Understood, and from a qualified authority on surface temperatures! Thanks Anthony. Reasonable peoples just take care of the earth, not fun being beat down with manipulated data telling me do that…If there was any weight behind the 97% figure, since manipulation goes both ways, looks like 97% will take $$$ to warm the data. With the media bombardment side effect, important to know Watts Up with That.
katatetorihanzo says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:35 am
There are and always have been normal natural fluctuations in ice mass over decades, centuries, millennia, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years (and longer). What has happened in the satellite era is totally within normal bounds.
The fact is that where it matters most, ie Antarctica, land ice mass & sea ice extent are increasing. Air temperature there remains below freezing, so that factor has very little affect on global ice mass, as long as it stays within normal limits. Precipitation is more important. Sea ice extent depends upon ocean currents much more than air temperature as well.
Antarctic land ice mass stopped retreating over 3000 years ago. Global climate has been headed downward at least since that time, with minor fluctuations up and down such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.
katatetorihanzo says:
June 23, 2014 at 6:20 am
These are all rationalizations. Feeble attempts to deny what the surface temperature data are telling us, which is that the world is unequivocally NOT heating up as expected.
actuator says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:05 pm
—–
Those who write the models claim that they don’t have to account for the cycles, because they are cycles. That is, over a long enough time period the positive portion of the cycle will cancel out the negative portion.
There is some truth to such a belief.
The biggest problem with such a belief is that until you understand the cycles, you can’t subtract the impact of these cycles on the historical data that is used to calibrate the models.
For example, 100% of the warming from the the 1970’s to the 2000’s is being blamed on CO2, completely ignoring the role the PDO and the sun played in that warming.