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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To Pamela Gray:
“….It’s also great open-fire pan fried in an elk camp setting. Oh my laaawwwwdddd good!”
Please stop it. You’ll have me destroying my keyboard by drooling all over it. I appreciate how tasty good beer bread is–I’ve had it on a number of occasions–but your mouth-watering
description must be toned down. Or else you will owe me for a replacement keyboard.
hanzo says:
It is difficult to reconcile the assertion that “global warming has stopped”…
You sound deluded. Global warming has stopped. Even the Washington Post ran a recent article, citing several government agencies that state global warming has stopped. And not for only a few years, but for close to two decades now. You are refusing to face reality.
That makes the rest of your comments nonsense. And your silly fixation with “ice” disregards the plain fact that changes in polar ice are normal, natural, and not influenced by human GHG’s.
Where do you get your misinformation, anyway?
Dbstealey said “You sound deluded. Even the Washington Post ran a recent article, citing several government agencies that state global warming has stopped.”
The global heat content of the ocean is rising
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.
“We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html
Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.
Antarctica ice mass is declining at an unprecedented rate.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/01/23/18749650.php
Feel free to send any citation indicating that arctic or antarctic ice mass is rising or any citation that compares the current rate with any known pre-industrial rates.
“That makes the rest of your comments nonsense. And your silly fixation with “ice” disregards the plain fact that changes in polar ice are normal, natural, and not influenced by human GHG’s.”
Ice melt is a clear uncomplicated indicator of the global energy trend. It’s simple and folks understand it intuitively. If global ice mass were steady or increasing over the past 17 years, then that would be powerful evidence of global warming cessation. Feel free to support your claim. Peer reviewed articles are especially persuasive.
katatetorihanzo says: Lots of stuff… much of which I’m “skeptical” of
//////////////////////
“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). ”
//////////////////////
No matter where the heat is, it should be reflected in the various measures of GLOBAL temperature. Sfc thermometers and satellite temps are flat to down for 5-10 years and roughly even for 10-17 years. All the “deep ocean heat” amount to 0.02 deg C in ten years which is simply too small to be statistically significant or strike fear.
//////////////////////
“The global heat content of the ocean is rising
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.”
//////////////////////
Yes. 0.02 deg since ARGO came on board. Am I right about that? I’m not certain.
//////////////////////
“Antarctica ice mass is declining at an unprecedented rate.”
//////////////////////
Sea ice area is increasing and near all time highs since satellite measurements began. Measurements of ice mass may show a decline but that is a more difficult and recent measurement that is contradicted by the easier to measure sea ice that has a consistent record since 1979. The vast majority of Antarctica is wildly below freezing and sea level rates are not accelerating at all so I’m highly skeptical of “unprecedented” ice loss in Antarctica.
//////////////////////////
“Ice melt is a clear uncomplicated indicator of the global energy trend.”
//////////////////////////
We agree on that. If the oceans are warming and ice melting at unprecedented rates, then why aren’t we seeing a thermal expansion of the oceans, rising SST’s and an acceleration in sea level rise? Why are we seeing very high level of sea ice extent ? (NH down but SH way up)
Hanzo, the Greenland ice mass is steady, with precipitation in the interior matching ablation at the edges. Sea levels are steady, despite the fabricated rise that you see at various sites, such as the U of Colorado. Antarctica is a frozen continent and there are no reliable measurements of its ice volume.
Your problem, Hanzo, is that you rely on dubious data, not yet having developed a proper skepticism about what you see offered as “science” and “data”.
When wisdom arrives, skepticism grows.
Please send peer reviewed citations supporting Greenland ice mass variations.
Please send peer reviewed citations supporting Greenland ice mass variations.
Please send peer reviewed citations supporting Greenland ice mass variations.
Oh, and you especially will learn not to believe what you read in publications such as WaPo.
katatetorihanzo says:
“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”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
We agree on that, too. The 163 temp trend is solidly up. But why? If we look for a sign of CO2 forcing, it’s not easy to see. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a firm believer in Greenhouse Theory and think that CO2 has almost definitely driven temps up and will continue to do so.
However, I think the sensitivity is way less than assumed. For example, compare two warming periods 1908-1941 vs 1978-2005. Both lasted roughly three decades. The first period was almost certainly “natural warming” since CO2 emissions were tiny by current standards. The second period was likely CO2 forced anthropogenic. The first period had roughly .64 deg C warming and the second roughly 0.62 deg C warming. (All back of envelope calcs so not perfect).
In last 15 years, the CO2 dumping has been extraordinary yet you need a microscope to find any warming. (not saying there is absolutely none…just that trying to find it occupied two articles in the Wash Post)
So, it is really hard to argue that current warming is “unprecedented” and impossible to blame the last 163 years on CO2. I you blame 10% of the warming before 1945 on CO2 and 80% of it after WWI on CO2, then the total “A” component of “AGW” amounts to about 0.45 deg C.
Considering the vast benefits derived from fossil fuels in the last 100 years, I think 0.45 deg C is a worthwhile tradeoff.
Mary Brown says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:49 am
Besides which the presumed rise in CO2 from ~280 ppm 150 years ago to ~400 ppm today has also been hugely beneficial so far, greening the earth, quite apart from the net positive effect of cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy.
katatetorihanzo:
Warming is rise in temperature.
Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.
Global warming is rise in global average surface temperature (GASTA).
Global warming is not rise in the heat content of the atmosphere, oceans and ice.
The thermal capacity of the oceans is so great that if heat enters the deep ocean then it is effectively lost for provision of significant global warming (cold water does not heat warmer air).
You say you are worried about global warming which stopped more than 17 years ago. If you are worried about it then you need to get a life.
Richard
To richardscourtney….
I wouldn’t be so flippant and nasty. Global Warming means the globe… that includes ice and water, too.
The atmosphere is very wispy with little heat content. Changes in global heat tend to be detected by air thermometers but most of the heat is not actually stored there.
“Warming is rise in temperature. Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.”
An experiment to try: heat an ice/water mixture and measure the temperature over time. You will observe that the temperature of the mixture doesn’t rise while the ice continually melts.
Since melting ice on the global scale impacts coastal infrastructure via sea level rise, and increased heat content can fuel severe weather, trade winds and ocean circulation patterns conducting heat from equator, heat content is a rather good measure to track.
“Warming is rise in temperature. Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.”
An experiment to try: heat an ice/water mixture and measure the temperature over time. You will observe that the temperature of the mixture doesn’t rise while the ice continually melts.
Since melting ice on the global scale impacts coastal infrastructure via sea level rise, and increased heat content can fuel severe weather, trade winds and ocean circulation patterns conducting heat from equator, heat content is a rather good measure to track.
katatetorihanzo says:
June 25, 2014 at 6:56 am
Antarctic ice mass is increasing, both on land & sea. The little bit of West Antarctica with which you are so concerned is heated by under ice volcanic activity & the PIG is calving ice into the sea because it’s moving faster, thanks to greater ice near its sources.
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of about half of the fresh water on earth, stopped receding over 3000 years ago. Since then, earth has been in a long-term cooling trend. The WAIS & EAIS together contain some 61% of the planet’s fresh water. The EAIS is currently gaining, not losing, mass. It has been around for tens of millions of years & formed when the planet was a lot hotter than now.
Your post sea inconsistent with this NASA graphic depicting the ice mass trends. Red indicates mass increases. All I see is blue and violet. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oGnM75T6iaE
Mary Brown says:
June 25, 2014 at 8:27 am
You might be interested in what Dr. Curry has to say about the reliability of heat content data or lack thereof:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/
Mary Brown:
re your post at June 25, 2014 at 8:27 am.
I was not “flippant” and I was not “nasty”. I was factual.
I am fully aware of the issues pertaining to what global warming is and is not.
Please read Appendix B of this http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
Richard
The “get a life” comment was indeed true 🙂
I stand corrected!
katatetorihanzo:
re your post at June 25, 2014 at 10:46 am.
I repeat, the following facts which you seem to have been unable to understand.
Warming is rise in temperature.
Warming is not rise in the heat content of an ice/water mixture.
Global warming is rise in global average surface temperature (GASTA).
Global warming is not rise in the heat content of the atmosphere, oceans and ice.
Please explain what you fail to understand about those facts and I will try to help you.
And I add that global ice is above its 30-year average and is increasing.
Richard
It does sound like you recognize that the energy of the climate system is rising, including the deep ocean. We know there are convection currents driven by salinity differences that can bring heat to the surface (and vice versa). Do we have agreement?
If the ice was melting at an increasing rate and the deep ocean was warming at a significant rate, we would have an increasing rate of sea level rise from added water and thermal expansion. Yet, the sea level and SST and sfc temps all confirm the flat trend lines for this century. So do the ARGO temps…which are warmer but barely and of very questionable statistical significance.
With any robust review of available data, any rational mind would conclude that the warming has either ended or is tiny this century. This says nothing about the future, but the longer this goes on, the more the models bust and the harder it is to sell the idea of CAGW.
katatetorihanzo:
At June 25, 2014 at 11:50 am you write in total
It is not clear to whom your question is addressed and what you are asking to be agreed.
If you are asking me if I agree the following, then yes, I do.
(a) Global warming has stopped.
(b) There is no evidence of any man-made global warming,
(c) Global ice is increasing,
(d) Heat in the oceans cannot cause significant global warming,
and
(e) There is no reason to suppose that global warming is a foreseeable problem prior to the next ice age.
Richard
hanzo says:
Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling. And other similar strawman arguments. Global sea level rise is not accelerating. That deconstructs all of your assertions.
Next, your cherry-picking is too obvious. From your ‘peer reviewed’ source: Meanwhile in Watts Up With That land climate sceptics saw fit to compare my article… That is so far from impartial that the entire source should be rejected as biased. Like the author, you yourself are far too emotionally involved to make rational judgements. Eight replies to my one comment shows that to be the case. You need to chill out, or your head is in danger of exploding.
Next, you say:
Feel free to send any citation indicating that ocean heat content is falling.
The ARGO buoy array shows that OHC is falling. There is your citation.
The same government agencies that pulled the ARGO data are the same ones that claim OHC is rising. You are credulous to accept their self-serving assertion. You may be many things, but a scientific skeptic you are not.
The ARGO data is by far the most accurate. It does not support your belief. Also, Antarctica is a big continent. Only a small part of it — the WAIS — is warming, and that is due to volcanic activity, and changes in wind and ocean currents. If it was due to CO2, the entire continent would be warming.
When you become a religious convert, you naturally cherry-pick only those arguments that support your belief system. That is what you are doing. However, you are disregarding the bigger picture: global warming has stopped. It has not “paused” — that can only be said in retrospect, if and when warming resumes. As of now, global warming has been stopped for close to two decades. Yet you look at that fact, and conclude just the opposite. That is crazy.
A crazy person would post “Please send peer reviewed citations supporting Greenland ice mass variations” three times, hoping that by repeating that nonsense it means something. It doesn’t.
As we saw in the Climategate email dump, the climate peer review system is hopelessly corrupted. People have been fired for having a slightly different opinion. Careers have been derailed. Editors have been removed for simply allowing another point of view! If you don’t see the corruption endemic to climate peer review, then you are blind.
Climate peer review is hopelessly broken. It is not credible. Yet you accept it as fact. You are no scientist, you are a True Believer; an Algore lemming.
On the other side of the fence are the 31,000+ scientists and engineers who co-signed the OISM statement, saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. I challenge you to find one-tenth that number of professionals with degrees in the hard sciences, who contradict that statement. Like OISM, you need to name names. You will find that the ‘consensus’ is solidly on the side of those who think that the “carbon” scare is nonsense. Really, you are part of a small clique riding the grant gravy train, and all your pseudo-science arguments amount to assertions.
Hello. Dbstealey. I read all of the replies carefully, but due to time constraints I can only select a few items for discussion.
You said: “Also, Antarctica is a big continent. Only a small part of it — the WAIS — is warming, and that is due to volcanic activity, and changes in wind and ocean currents. If it was due to CO2, the entire continent would be warming.”
The short answer is that the CO2 causes the radiative imbalance, which increases global heat energy, which warms the oceans, which melts the ice that it contacts. You’ll see melting from the ‘edges’ first. Geothermal sources barely contribute.
Localized heat fluxes from known volcanic activity in the WAIS are measurable and are too small to explain the observed glacial melt rates.
Here is a great example of the importance of thinking about global warming in terms of heat energy.
For the Thwaites, one can calculate how much ice could possibly be melted from a given amount of heat.
Geothermal fluxes from have been quoted for the rapidly melting Thwaites Glacier as 100 milliwatts per square meter with hotspots over 200 mW/m^2.
This has been quoted in the WUPT article about the Thwaites.
The Thwaites catchment has an area of ~189,000 km^2
Water ice has a heat of fusion of 333.55 KJ/Kg
In a yr, the amount of thermal energy (KJ) released by geothermal is
200 mW = 0.2 W = 0.2 J/s
0.2*3600*24*365 = 6307200 J/yr = 6307 KJ/yr
Thus this flux would melt:
(6307 KJ/yr) / 333.55 KJ/Kg = 18.9 Kg of ice per year
In the worse case scenario that the heat flux is distributed over the entire catchment, we get:
18.9 Kg/m^2/yr
Thus the melt rate for the entire Thwaites catchment (189,000 Km^2) due to geothermal sources (worst case) would be:
Converting to m^2: 189,000 Km^2 * 10^6m^2 / Km^2 = 1.89 *10^11m^2
1.89 *10^11m^2 * 18.9 Kg/m^2/yr = 3.6 * 10 ^12 Kg/yr
(1 Kg = 10^-12 Gt)
=3.6 Gt / yr
The actual melt rate for Thwaites ~70 Gt/yr, see Fig 1 in citation below
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~lenae101/pubs/Depoorter2013.pdf
Thus, geothermal flux contributes at most 100* 3.6 / 70 = 5 % of Thwaites melt water.
Need more heat…comes from oceans.
milodonharlani says:
Antarctic ice mass is increasing, both on land & sea. The little bit of West Antarctica with which you are so concerned is heated by under ice volcanic activity & the PIG is calving ice into the sea because it’s moving faster, thanks to greater ice near its sources.
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of about half of the fresh water on earth, stopped receding over 3000 years ago. Since then, earth has been in a long-term cooling trend….
That fact trumps a cherry-picked fluctuation. The long term trend is clear: Antarctica is gaining ice.
============================
Mary Brown says:
If the ice was melting at an increasing rate and the deep ocean was warming at a significant rate, we would have an increasing rate of sea level rise from added water and thermal expansion. Yet, the sea level and SST and sfc temps all confirm the flat trend lines for this century. So do the ARGO temps…which are warmer but barely and of very questionable statistical significance.
With any robust review of available data, any rational mind would conclude that the warming has either ended or is tiny this century. This says nothing about the future, but the longer this goes on, the more the models bust and the harder it is to sell the idea of CAGW.
Yes, and the ARGO buoys confirm that. There is only one small data set that shows warming. All the others show ocean cooling.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Richard Courtney says:
(a) Global warming has stopped.
(b) There is no evidence of any man-made global warming,
(c) Global ice is increasing,
(d) Heat in the oceans cannot cause significant global warming,
and
(e) There is no reason to suppose that global warming is a foreseeable problem prior to the next ice age.
a) and b) are evidence-based facts. The rest can only be argued with empirical evidence, which I have never seen posted. Maybe hanzo can post verifiable observations supporting his belief in catastrophic AGW. I would be interested.
WHat about this ?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
Baart Says:
WHat about this ?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
////////////////////////
This brings up so many issues I don’t know where to start.
(1) If our measurement of observed temps are so faulty and the margin of error many times greater than we thought, then how can we possibly trust the climate models ? We don’t even know the starting point and we have no rational basis to retrofit.
(2) I’ve recently been lectured that the error on deep ocean heat measurements are just .004 deg C and that ocean heat is increasing at an “unprecedented rate”. So, I’m supposed to believe that we are wildly wrong about surface temps but know the deep ocean temps to astonishing accuracy? I think not.
(3) Amazingly, in the world of RealClimate.jnk, all the models forecast too warm and all the recent data is always adjusted upward and all the old data is adjusted downward. As a stats gal, I like my errors randomly falling around the mean. Otherwise, I get suspicious.
(4) the Wood For Trees Index may have a weird name, but it is very robust measure of global temperatures and difficult to manipulate. It shows a slight cooling trend since 2001…more significant cooling more recently.
Trying to claim, as this article does, that the Wood For Trees Index is completely wrong, is a serious stretch.
About the index
http://woodfortrees.org/notes#wti
The temps since 2001
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2014
katatetorihanzo says:
“Need more heat…comes from oceans.”
But I don’t see more heat. Where is it?
The heat is here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract;jsessionid=F192AF41A86919640534E3677437B5E0.f02t02
Abstract: “Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry shows that presently, sea level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr−1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt.”
I’m unimpressed by ocean heat data. ARGO data is flat within the limits of the data. SST’s have flattened in recent years. Global ice extent has been growing in the south and recovering in the north. Sea level has been rising for centuries. I think there was an acceleration of sea level rise suggesting a 50mm human contribution in latter 20th century. But recent data has a hard time finding any acceleration.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
Bottom line for me… this century…the bulk of relevant data shows very little change upon a robust review of relevant data. I do think warming will resume, but for over a decade, it has been absent or very minor.
Please excuse the brevity of my responses.
“I’m unimpressed by ocean heat data. ARGO data is flat within the limits of the data. SST’s have flattened in recent years”
Take a look at deep ocean ARGO data and integrated OHC from 0-2000m. Don’t be fooled by short term La Niña dominated data.
“Global ice extent has been growing in the south”
But ice mass is declining according to GRACE
“and recovering in the north.”
No, it isn’t.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/extent_min.jpg
Sea level has been rising for centuries.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter13.pdf
I think there was an acceleration of sea level rise suggesting a 50mm human contribution in latter 20th century. But recent data has a hard time finding any acceleration.
“Recent data” = short-term & weather-dominated.
Please excuse the brevity of my responses.
“I’m unimpressed by ocean heat data. ARGO data is flat within the limits of the data. SST’s have flattened in recent years”
Take a look at deep ocean ARGO data and integrated OHC from 0-2000m. Don’t be fooled by short term La Niña dominated data.
“Global ice extent has been growing in the south”
But ice mass is declining according to GRACE
“and recovering in the north.”
No, it isn’t.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/extent_min.jpg
Sea level has been rising for centuries.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter13.pdf
I think there was an acceleration of sea level rise suggesting a 50mm human contribution in latter 20th century. But recent data has a hard time finding any acceleration.
“Recent data” = short-term & weather-dominated.
hanzo says:
The short answer is that the CO2 causes the radiative imbalance, which increases global heat energy, which warms the oceans, which melts the ice that it contacts.
Don’t be silly. Nothing is occurring now that has not occurred in the past, before CO2 began to rise. You need a course on Occam’s Razor and the climate Null Hypothesis. By far the simplest and most likely explanation is that polar ice is behaving exactly as it has in the past, and human activity has nothing to do with it.
The planet has been emerging from the LIA for hundreds of years. That is the explanation for global warming, and you don’t need a magic trace gas.
Next, you seem to want to scare yourself with melting ice scenarios. This should help:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Finally, you prefer pal reviewed papers over empirical evidence — the sure sign of a pseudo-scientist. You need to listen to what the real world is telling you, and disregard self-serving papers like that. They are nothing but assertions. Reality trumps assertions. Always.
Dbstealey said: “Finally, you prefer pal reviewed papers over empirical evidence — a sure sign of a pseudo-scientist. You need to listen to what the real world is telling you, and disregard self-serving papers like that. They are nothing but assertions. Reality trumps assertions. Always.”
I prefer peer reviewed citations because they provide an overview, context, they are cross referenced to other work, and they provide empirical data with explanation. For example, the short term ARGO data of sea surface temps you provided are influenced by the same short term natural variations seen in the surface air temps at a time dominated by La Niña weather ( cool ocean surface). But what’s missing is the ARGO Data from the deep ocean which shows that the deep ocean is still accumulating heat with no pause. If you integrate the total heat content from 0 to 2000m you see this:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000mwerrpent.png
0.77 W/m^2 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC005237/full)
If part of the ARGO data is cited uncritically, then it is reasonable to assume that the deep ocean ARGO data would be fair game as well. If not, I look forward to a scientific rationale why the full integration of the 0-2000m ocean column should be disregarded. This evidence makes me skeptical of the claim that global warming has stopped, especially in the absence of a reason why it should, considering that the Earth is still absorbing more solar energy than it is emitting longwave radiation into space, according to satellites.
That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy.
hanzo says:
But what’s missing is the ARGO Data from the deep ocean which shows that the deep ocean is still accumulating heat with no pause.
That contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. If there is heat building up in the deep ocean, it will rise, no? It MUST rise. But there is no indication that ttere is heating of the deep ocean, or that heat is rising to the surface. No evidence at all.
The ‘explanations’ by the alarmist crowd are becoming more and more preposterous. The very simplest explanation is that global warming has stopped. And of course, it has. You cannot accept that, because if you do your entire reason for being is truncated.
Science requires that we accept reality, whether we like it or not. The reality of ‘climate change’ is that human emissions have no measurable effect. That reality steps on a lot of toes, because there is immense money riding on whether or not human emissions matter. Empirical evidence says that CO2 emissions do not matter. That is the truth. So sorry if it affects your income.
[PS: Please do not link to tamino. He is not credible. Thanks.]
Dbstealey says: “If there is heat building up in the deep ocean, it will rise, no? It MUST rise.”
Yes, but not necessarily immediately if current mechanisms for ocean convection are a guide (THC and MOC )(http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/ocean_heat_storage_transfer.html)
“But there is no indication that ttere is heating of the deep ocean”
ARGO provides the direct observational evidence of heating at depths past the thermocline. The question is what is the source of the influx (from above or below)? If from above, it explains why the surface trend is diminished.
“or that heat is rising to the surface. No evidence at all.”
We’re rapidly losing ice mass through ocean contact during an SST hiatus and it can’t be explained through volcanic heat flux (just 100 mW/m^2). Doesn’t that peak you’re curiosity?
“I look forward to a scientific rationale why the full integration of the 0-2000m ocean column should be disregarded.”
(1) it’s not statistically significant
(2) the data is new (~10 years) and adjusted by models
(3) SST, sea level, sfc temps, ice extent all verify the flat trend,
(4) storing heat deep in the oceans contradicts the laws of thermodynamics
So, the empirical evidence and the laws of thermodynamics suggest the ARGO 0-2000m ocean column is of highly questionable relevance.
Mary says ”
3) SST:
short trend governed by La Niña (where does the heat go?)
sea level,
Rising according to Cazenave, corrected for precipitation
sfc temps,
Follows ocean SSTs
ice extent
GRACE says global ice mass declines and accelerated decline in the arctic. Antarctic extent (area) increase is wind driven. WAIS IS MELTING AND CALVING
(4) storing heat deep in the oceans contradicts the laws of thermodynamics”
just heat transfer from surface to deep via convection mechanisms driven by wind and salinity (density).