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.
Even Hansen agrees with the “hiatus”
Hansen et al stated
“The observed rate of ocean heat uptake since 2003 is less than in the preceding 10 years.”
“the slowdown in heat uptake since 2003 seems to be robust (Levitus et al., 2009; Lyman et al., 2010).”
Usually the climatologists specify the ocean layer above the thermocline (0-700 m) and below it (700-2000 m) or the integrated OHC (0-2000m). By not specifying the data source, one might confuse statements attributed exclusively to the 0-700 m layer with that attributed to the 0-2000 m OHC which shows no hiatus.
The warming of ARGO is ~ +0.02 deg C give or take. Is that in the ballpark ?
Mary asked: “The warming of ARGO is ~ +0.02 deg C give or take. Is that in the ballpark?”
Hmm, let me check:
Given:
Mass of the oceans = 1.4 E 21 Kg
Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml
The specific heat of water is 4.18 J/g °C = 4180 J / Kg °C
(The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of a substance by one degree Celsius is called the specific heat capacity of the substance.)
q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)
q = amount of heat energy gained or lost by substance
m = mass of sample
C = heat capacity
Tf = final temperature
Ti = initial temperature
Source: http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/Energy/SpecificHeat.htm
Estimated oceanic heat gain from 2000-2010, during which time global warming supposedly had ‘ceased’. Eyeballing it from graph: ~5E 22 J to ~15 E 22 J: gain of ~10 E 22 J
Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
“The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002 °C”
Source: http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Data_FAQ.html#accurate
Calculation:
q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)
q = 1.4 E 21 Kg * 4180 J / Kg °C * 0.02 °C
= 11.7 E 22 J (from calc)
vs ~10 E 22 J (from ARGO OHC graph 0-2000 m)
Answer: yup + 0.02 °C is in the ballpark
By the way, due to my sedentary lifestyle, I gained 10 lbs last month. Of course I tell folks that this is an infinitesimal weight gain since it is only 0.0045 metric tons.
Well, 0.02 deg C in ten years just doesn’t scare me much.
10 lbs in a month of weight is statistically significant no matter how crappy your scale.
But 0.02 dec C in ten years? And this includes model adjustments for adding and losing floats and their drift.
ARGO is a great addition to our data. Although buoys have an error or 0.1 deg C, with ~3000 of them, the overall error is much less. But it’s really hard to argue that 0.02 deg in ten years is statistically significant much less worrisome. Esp when you consider the other, longer term data sets (air temp, SST, ice, etc) are flat or unimpressive.
Bottom line…the warming quit. I expect it will resume to roughly 0.1 deg C per decade (sfc air). That’s a rate I find insignificant for humans. You guys can keep screeching through the next el Nino, but by 2020, the world will have hit the snooze button on global warming. By then, we might have another 0.01 on ARGO
The Argo bouys only started being deployed in 2003, and weren’t fully deployed until sometime in 2006. So half of the time frame 2000-2010 mentioned by katate has larger margins of error than now.
Also, each Argo bouy samples an area roughly the size of 13 Lake Superiors according to Willis E. (see link below)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/
“The world is unimaginably huge. In the real ocean, down to a kilometer and a half of depth, that’s one Argo thermometer for each 165,000 cubic kilometers of water … I’m not sure how to give an idea of just how big that is. Let’s try it this way. Lake Superior is the largest lake in the Americas, visible even on the world map above. How accurately could you measure the average monthly temperature of the entire volume of Lake Superior with one Argo float? Sure, you can let it bob up and down, and drift around the lake, it will take three vertical profiles a month. But even then, every measurement it will only cover a tiny part of the entire lake.
But it’s worse for Argo. Each of the Argo floats, each dot in Figure 3, is representing a volume as large as 13 Lake Superiors … with one lonely Argo thermometer …
Or we could look at it another way. There were about 2,500 Argo floats in operation over the period covered by SLT2011. The area of the ocean is about 360 million square km. So each Argo float represents an area of about 140,000 square kilometres, which is a square about 380 km (240 mi) on each side. One Argo float for all of that. Ten days for each dive cycle, wherein the float goes down to about 1000 metres and stays there for nine days. Then it either rises from there, or it descends to about 2,000 metres, then rises to the surface at about 10 cm (4″) per second over about six hours profiling the temperature and salinity as it rises. So we get three vertical temperature profiles from 0-1,000 or 0-1,500 or 0-2,000 metres each month depending on the particular float, to cover an area of 140,000 square kilometres … I’m sorry, but three vertical temperature profiles per month to cover an area of 60,000 square miles and a mile deep doesn’t scream “thousandths of a degree temperature accuracy” to me.”
There are many internal checks for accuracy. And the OHC matches closely with the radiation imbalance at TOA.
There are many internal checks for accuracy. And the OHC matches closely with the radiation imbalance at TOA.
When I get a chance, I’ll calculate for you how much ice 10 x 10^22 Joules of heat energy can melt. If you want to give it a stab: water ice has a heat of fusion of 333.55 KJ/Kg.
“When I get a chance, I’ll calculate for you how much ice 10 x 10^22 Joules of heat energy can melt. If you want to give it a stab: water ice has a heat of fusion of 333.55 KJ/Kg.”
Don’t bother. We don’t believe the heat is there. We don’t believe it’s there because the measurements from ARGO are not statistically significant and the other data we have referenced confirms that warming has been near zilch for a decade plus.
You can calculate theoretical melting from gazillions of Joules all day but it’s all make believe with the ARGO data stuck in the noise level, SSTs flat, sea level decelerating, temps flat, etc etc.
Let’s talk about statistical significance. For folks who have some statistics background, the following link is an intuitive demonstration in error analysis and shows how you can detect a change in a quantity that, for each measurement, is smaller than the uncertainty in each measurement
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/illustrating-error-analysis/
I think we can all agree that larger data sets reduce uncertainty. So when I see an uncertainty ± 0.1 W/m^2 and an ocean heat trend of +0.55 W/m^2 over only 5 years (2005-2010) of Argo collection timeframe, I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’.
“Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) also estimate the errors in global trends from the period analysed, and also future error uncertainty. For the 2005-2010 period the error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre; quite large considering the global trend over the period is 0.55 watts per square metre. However, after 15 years of observations the uncertainty drops considerably, down to ± 0.02 watts per square metre. This demonstrates how longer periods of observation, along with the complete ARGO network, are critical to derive more accurate long-term ocean trends.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/11/286636/sorry-deniers-the-ocean-is-still-warming/
Gravity via GRACE satellite results unambiguously show global ice mass declines in Arctic and Antarctica. Note i said ice MASS, not sea ice extent. I can spread a tablespoon of peanut butter pretty damn thin, maybe enough for a loaf of bread. But a tablespoon is a table spoon, no matter how many Antarctic sandwiches cited.
Elementary physics shows that the energy needed to raise an enormous mass like the Earth’s oceans 0.02 deg C is a correspondingly enormous amount of heat energy and more than enough to explain our global ice loss.
q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)
q = amount of heat energy gained or lost by substance
m = mass of sample
C = heat capacity
Tf = final temperature
Ti = initial temperature
Math, in the context of statistical error analysis, demonstrates the power of globally positioned >3000 Argo buoys and a small data set of 5 years of continuous data to show a statistically significant positive heat energy trend. Do you not think that Schuckmann & Le Traon forgot to perform the necessary analyses?
Even Photography is showing disappearing glaciers, calving ice the size of Manhattan.
This growing set of consistent data is persuasive to me.
hanzo says:
ARGO provides the direct observational evidence of heating at depths past the thermocline.
No, it doesn’t. I gave you the ARGO data. You replied with an assertion. The data shows net cooling.
But why bother? Your mind is colonized by confirmation bias. Your income is very likely dependent upon finding global warming. No credible scientist calls the end of global warming 17+ years ago a “hiatus”. Global warming has stopped. Only if and when it resumes can it be called a hiatus, or a pause. Right now those are wildly inappropriate, emotional terms.
Skeptics are dealing with reality. You are not. Global warming stopped a long time ago. There is no testable, measurable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree of global temperature rise putatively due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is simply too small to measure, if it exists. I happen to think that there is some small warming effect, but it is insignificant and should be completely disregarded for all practical and Policy decisions. It is a non-issue.
When you have no measurable evidence, your belief stops at the conjecture stage of the Scientific Method. Planet Earth is telling us very clearly that the “carbon” scare is nonsense. Look anywhere on the internet at reader comments. If they allow free opinion without censorship, you will see that the ‘consensus’ is on the side of scientific skeptics. And it is growing.
Nobody believes the scare anymore. Only those True Believers who treat it as their new religion still Believe. And note that all alarmist predictions of the past 25 years have failed miserably: accelerating sea level rise, disappearing Arctic ice, ocean “acidification”, Manhatten being submerged, and runaway global warming itself. They were all wrong. Further, not one GCM predicted the end of global warming. They all failed that prediction.
When 100% of one side’s predictions are flat wrong, rational folks will realize that the initial conjecture — that CO2 will cause serious global warming — was wrong. But when you’re hooked on a paycheck, and your next raise and/or promotion, and maybe even your continued employment depends on advancing the Narrative, that is what most people will do. But that is not science. That is political advocacy. You get no respect for that.
I say “ARGO provides the direct observational evidence of heating at depths past the thermocline.”
Dbstealey says “No, it doesn’t. I gave you the ARGO data. You replied with an assertion. The data shows net cooling.”
Would you show me the ARGO data to which you refer that shows there was cooling or no temperature change below 800 m? Thank you.
hanzo says:
Would you show me the ARGO data to which you refer that shows there was cooling or no temperature change below 800 m? Thank you.
You’re welcome: 0 – 1947.4 meters. And I believe your link shows a graph of a model, not empirical evidence.
Now, about my other points, a response would be good.
============================
[Also, please do not link to Skeptical Science, which is a propaganda blog, not a science blog. They have censored my comments. They are unreliable see sidebar blogroll. They have deleted words in my comments without acknowledging they did so, and it changed the entire meaning — which they then attacked as a strawman. They are thoroughly unethical and dishonest. I will be happy to debate, but not on those terms. Besides, the chart in the link is a construction by a paper’s authors. It is not empirical evidence. Scientific evidence is raw data and/or verifiable real world observations. Pal-reviewed papers and computer model output is not evidence. You should know that.]
From my street corner, a claim of global warming cessation would at least require the following supporting evidence: 1) no radiative imbalance at TOA (CERES); 2) no positive trend in ocean heat content including the bulk of the ocean below 800 m (ARGO 2005+); 3) no negative trend in global ice mass declines (GRACE).
With respect to ocean heat content, I’m trying to reconcile the negative trending data in your link below…
http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png
…with the clear positive trends graphically depicted in the following links depicted officially: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
…and conceded in a contrarian source: http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/
Would you share your source or citation so that I may confirm accuracy, completeness and uncertainty analysis?
If the wobbles in solar input, volcanic activity, etc. could override the “driver”, they are always in control, as they could do so at any time.
hanzo,
Assigning homework now? The source of the link is simple to locate. I provided exactly what you requested. I am not going to respond to endless requests. You lost the point, deal with it.
And, “contrarian”? What does that mean? It is as vague a term as “climate change”.
Your belief is supported by nothing more than assertions. The alarmist clique proposed the conjecture that a rise in anthropogenic CO2 will lead to runaway global warming. That has obviously failed to occur. Now all you are doing is backing and filling, and hand-waving.
Unless you can provide testable, measurable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree warming resulting from the rise in human CO2 emissions, your conjecture fails.
An honest scientist would admit it.
“The source of the link is simple to locate.”
The reason I asked was that your link:
“http://tumetuestumefaisdubien1.sweb.cz/NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png”
provided two plots purportedly depicting “ARGO” mean ocean temperatures at “1947 m” at “northern hemisphere” latitudes “0-65N” and “50-65N” from a Czech republic domain.
Since I was interested in the global trend, I suspected that you inadvertently provided incomplete data. So I was hoping you could provide a source affording the missing data.
While I got no hits for your link using Bing & Yahoo searches, I did locate some trends using “NH-0-65N-v-50-65N-0-2000dBar-2004-2013max.png” as a search term on Google Images; but they all depicted positive trends.
“And, “contrarian”? What does that mean?”
It describes a data interpretation that diverges from that of the main stream.
“Your belief is supported by nothing more than assertions.”
I am influenced by the data interpretation of specialists who conclude that the climate system is increasing in heat energy as a consequence of radiative imbalance as measured by CERES. I’m satisfied that the isotopic, radiative signature evidence and the emission levels point to industrial sources of carbon dioxide as the probable culprit. I am satisfied that the magnitude of known natural forcings don’t explain the magnitude and rate of the temperature rise in this century.
I am satisfied that there are measurable consequences of this radiative imbalance (ice melt, sea level rise, ocean acidification). I realize that there are uncertainties related to measurement of planetary heat redistribution and this may be causing some confusion (like short term pauses).
In the spirit of avoiding confirmational bias, I am here at this contrarian site to harvest any alternative explanations, analyses and inconsistencies and to see how they stack up against the increasing main stream evidence. I had hoped you may be motivated to share the evidence & interpretation of the evidence that persuades you that the climate has, somehow, stopped warming or that CO2 is inconsequential.
“The alarmist clique proposed the conjecture that a rise in anthropogenic CO2 will lead to runaway global warming.”
Economic disruption of our coastal infrastructure is likely to act as an effective negative feedback so I am not so concerned about “runaway global warming” (not like Venus). Simply put, heat causes ice to melt and expand, which cause sea level rise, which will require human adaptation at some cost. CO2 causes ocean acidification which may impact food chains, which may impact us indirectly but significantly. Disrupted planetary redistribution patterns are likely to contribute to Increased frequency of drought, floods and enhanced weather severity.
“That has obviously failed to occured”
I am concerned most that the arctic ice mass declines (GRACE) are accelerating beyond model projections. This observation seems the least controversial (global mass loss, not sea ice extent); and it suggests to me that the impact of global heat redistribution mechanisms may be underestimated.
“Unless you can provide testable, measurable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree warming resulting from the rise in human CO2 emissions, your conjecture fails.”
Unless one disagrees with the physics of radiative imbalance and the 1st law of thermodynamics, the increased heat exists and must be accounted for. The question is only where is it and how does it flow.
The uncertainty surrounding a current oceanic trend of 0.02 deg / decade temperature increase is fair game for discussion and may resolve itself with continued measurement. But simple physics suggests that a small temperature change of a substance with a large heat capacity and large mass is equivalent to a significant amount of heat energy that is easily sufficient to melt Gt of ice.
q = m x C x (Tf – Ti)
q = amount of heat energy gained or lost by substance
m = mass of sample
C = heat capacity
Tf = final temperature
Ti = initial temperature
That’s why understanding the mechanisms and rate of planetary heat redistribution is perhaps our most important challenge.
In a developing forest fire, the precise size of the match is much less important than a thorough understanding of how fire propagates through the forest.
The only evidence you’ve presented of any mounting heat is statistically insignificant ARGO data and Grace data which is contradicted by the satellite areal extent much more easily measured.
The more traditional data that has been around for a longer time such as satellite temperatures surface temperatures sea surface temperatures and areal ice extent all contradict your position. So we are supposed to drop everything because of a .02° rise in Argo data
Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming catastrophe looms. We see little or no gaining heat in the last decade and a half. It’s an interesting argument “the ocean has warmed .02° we’re all going to die”.
The only evidence you’ve presented of any mounting heat is statistically insignificant ARGO data and Grace data which is contradicted by the satellite areal extent much more easily measured.
The more traditional data that has been around for a longer time such as satellite temperatures surface temperatures sea surface temperatures and areal ice extent all contradict your position. So we are supposed to drop everything because of a .02° rise in Argo data
Remember the burden of proof is on those claiming catastrophe looms. We see little or no gaining heat in the last decade and a half. It’s an interesting argument “the ocean has warmed .02° we’re all going to die”.
“The only evidence you’ve presented of any mounting heat is statistically insignificant ARGO data.”
Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) estimated the errors in global trends For the 2005-2010 analysis period. The error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre. From this statement I infer that the error analysis was completed as is customary for peer-reviewed articles and that the heat content data is statistically significant.
When I see an uncertainty ± 0.1 W/m^2 and an ocean heat trend of +0.55 W/m^2 over the short 2005-2010 Argo collection timeframe, I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’.
“Grace data which is contradicted by the satellite areal extent much more easily measured.”
“GRACE” are two satellites that detect mass changes by measuring the pull of Earth gravity and how it changes over time. It measures ice build up and ice mass declines. It does not contradict the area extent data which is unambiguously declining for the arctic and, due to strong trade winds, is increasing in the Antarctic. Simply put, the winds are spreading the antarctic sea ice and the spaces are freezing in between (see polynyas in Wikipedia). This thin ice diasappears in the summer and so does not even constitute a trend. The mass data is unambiguous with respect to amount of ice that is declining especially in the WAIS.
Yellow represents mountain glaciers and ice caps
Blue represents areas losing ice mass
Red represents areas gaining ice mass
I’d like to bring clarity to the distinction between “sea ice extent” and the declining 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 the Arctic and in Antarctica.
“The more traditional data that has been around for a longer time such as satellite temperatures surface temperatures sea surface temperatures and areal ice extent all contradict your position.”
The “traditional” data does not contradict the mainstream conclusion that greenhouse forcing is still in progress. It shows the long term positive trend in surface temperatures (sea and air) with periodic “hiatuses” that represent the short term cooling effect of natural processes of heat redistribution.
“So we are supposed to drop everything because of a .02° C rise in Argo data”.
The accelerated ice decline in the arctic is the clarion call. Where is the ocean heat coming from during this so called hiatus? We need to prepare especially in coastal regions (adaptation). We need to establish a sustainable energy infrastructure along side the current fossil fuels one (mitigation).
When the grid green energy (solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, etc) is competitive economically we need to be able to make the transition smoothly. Different areas will require a different mix, but no one cares how we get our electricity. Leveraging this free energy has a built in ROI and the first country to do this will be least impacted by climate change.
I reject the idea that ARGO warming is statistcally significant. Doesnt pass the sniff test regardless of what the peer-reviewed says. Keep in mind when you refer to the “main stream” that you are swimming in a different stream than many of us are.
I think we have beat this dead horse. Although I am a proponent of AGW, the recent flatlining of the data is remarkably un-scary. You obviously feel different and somehow think that adopting green energy will save us. We will just have to agree to disagree
“I reject the idea that ARGO warming is statistcally significant.”
Statistical significance and error bars are calculated quantities derived from many measurements over years of data collection and it would be hard to imagine a peer reviewed paper without this typical analysis. The stakes are too high to rely on a “sniff” test that would be biased by our human preference for everyday interpretations of quantities. 0.02 deg seems small but is equivalent to a large heat content due to the mass and heat capacity of the oceans. 400 ppmv is equivalent to Gt of carbon dioxide and is enough to lower the pH of an ocean while supporting planetary photosynthesis. And its enough to change the radiative balance over a century. Oxygen is soluble in water up to 8 ppm, yet this is enough for all the fishes. Let’s trust the physics.
hanzo says:
Let’s trust the physics.
No, let’s trust empirical evidence.
And:
Statistical significance and error bars are calculated quantities derived from…
That is not evidence. Let me remind you:
Measurable scientific evidence involves quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming resulting from the rise in human CO2 emissions. Peer reviewed papers are not evidence, nor are adjusted, or homogenized, or averaged ‘data’. Evidence is raw data, and/or verifiable empirical observations.
Next, hanzo says:
The stakes are too high to rely on a “sniff” test that would be biased by our human preference for everyday interpretations…
No, the stakes are far too high to continue spending $Billions every year on a completely unproven conjecture that has no scientific evidence or measurements to support it. The army of people living off the taxpaying public by continuing to promote the “carbon” scare should be promptly made redundant. Enough! CAGW is an evidence-free hoax. After 30+ years, there is still no empirical measurement of AGW, much less CAGW. Occam’s Razor says that it is either too minuscule to bother with, or it simply doesn’t exist. In either case, more public spending on “climate change” is a waste of money.
hanzo says:
The “traditional” data does not contradict the mainstream conclusion that greenhouse forcing is still in progress.
Wrong again. The “mainstream” consists of more than 31,000 professional engineers and scientists with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], who have stated unequivacally, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. There are not nearly as many in the “mainstream” who claim the opposite. Thus, you are simply part of a minor but self-serving clique, riding on the grant and government gravy trains. Prove me wrong: name even 10,000 professionals with degrees in the hard sciences who will put in writing that CO2 causes global harm. I will save you time: there are fewer than one-tenth that number. So much for your ‘consensus’, and so much for “contrarians”. You refuse to accept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us: there is no runaway global warming, as you contrarians incessantly predicted.
Next, hanzo says:
I am concerned most that the arctic ice mass declines…
Cherry-picking as usual. The discussion is over global warming. Arctic ice extent is meaningless, because the Arctic has been ice-free during the Holocene, before any human industrial emissions. Global ice is normal. So is an ice-free Arctic. It has happened before, and it will happen again — with or without humans.
All the wild-eyed hand waving over Arctic ice is due to the plain fact that the Antarctic is gaining ice, while the Arctic is not: the polar see-saw effect. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2. If it did, then Antarctica would also be losing ice, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.
Finally, we are not the typical uneducated lemmings here that you see commenting on alarmist blogs. We know that if it were not for the mountains of taxpayer loot being shoveled into the “carbon” scare every year, climatology would be a small, sleepy backwater in science. Only big money keeps it on the front pages. But Planet Earth is busy debunking your alarmist anti-science, and the public is finally catching on. On the bright side, unemployment insurance is now 99 weeks.
Let’s trust the physics.
“No, let’s trust empirical evidence.”
It’s not either or. Its both. The empirical evidence is interpreted in the context of Physics and there should be a consistency with that framework. For example there is an inconsistency between ceased global warming and accelerated arctic ice mass declines. The measured magnitude of geothermal sources do not explain the heat which would be required to melt that amount of ice. This is explanable through Physics.
“The “mainstream” consists of more than 31,000 professional engineers and scientists with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], who have stated unequivacally, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere”
They are free to submit their analyses in peer reviewed journals. If they bring clarity to the issues folks will build on their work. Feel free to send citations from any of the 31,000. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
The Holocene had different forcings. Now it’s CO2 from fossil fuel combustion according to carbon isotopic analysis.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Milankovitch_cycles
“All the wild-eyed hand waving over Arctic ice is due to the plain fact that the Antarctic is gaining ice, while the Arctic is not: the polar see-saw effect. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2. If it did, then Antarctica would also be losing ice, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.”
GRACE says Antarctic ice mass is declining due to contact with warmer ocean. Maybe it’s wrong. What is the Antarctic mass of ice gain from your data sources? Is it comparable in magnitude with arctic ice loss? Please provide mass, not area extent. And explain why GRACE is wrong. And send peer reviewed literature describing the mechanism of how the polar see-saw effect is melting arctic ice.
CO2 with water vapor feedback causes the radiative imbalance that reduces the cooling efficiency of the planet. The heat is absorbed in the oceans due to its heat capacity and area extent. The heat content of the warmed oceans is conveyed through natural ocean circulation mechanisms to the ice.
Grace is not necessarily wrong but it is a complex measurement vs a simple areal photograph data series that is 25 years running. If the ice is melting at an “unprecented ” rate and deep ocean heat is building, then why is there no accelerating in sea level?
ARGO is not necessarily wrong but i’ve pointed out my suspicions there in great detail
Most importantly, the older, more established data such as sst sfc temp and sea level are flatlining
And also, you seem to clueless to the fact that the burden is on the warmists. Skeptics are not making claims…merely casting doubt on yours. We don’t need to prove anything
As for the “sniff test”, that has served me quite well over the years. It is exactly what is missing in climate science.
And peer review… Its broken in climate. It means little.
BTW… What is your fix ? To counter your .02 deg rise in ARGO would cost what? A trillion or so? Whats the cost benefit analysis? Why do you even want a colder world with less CO2?
“Grace is not necessarily wrong but it is a complex measurement vs a simple areal photograph data series that is 25 years running.”
If GRACE is not wrong, then global ice mass is diminishing and this contradicts cessation of global warming.
“If the ice is melting at an “unprecented ” rate and deep ocean heat is building, then why is there no accelerating in sea level?”
“The measured sea levels reflect a variety of processes operating at different time scales,” says co-author Dr Francisco Calafat, from the National Oceanography Centre. He adds, “One of the main difficulties in detecting sea level accelerations is the presence of decadal and multi-decadal variations.. For example, processes associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation have a strong influence on the sea levels around the UK over multi-decadal periods. Such processes introduce a large amount of ‘noise’ into the record, masking any underlying acceleration in the rate of rise. Our study shows, that by adequately understanding these processes and removing their influence, we can detect accelerations much earlier.” Source: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-sea.html
“ARGO is not necessarily wrong but i’ve pointed out my suspicions there in great detail.”
I would much rather read a peer-reviewed citation showing that ARGO data are not statistically significant than to conduct subjective sniff tests. Ultimately, we need data to be statistically significant.
“Most importantly, the older, more established data such as sst sfc temp and sea level are flatlining”
Natural heat redistribution process dampen SST, SAT in short (<30 year) intervals. The long term trend is unambiguous. As for sea level, Cazenave uses ARGO and GRACE to tease out confounding effect of precipitation associated with La Nina /El Niño on sea level rise. No pause seen when precipitation (mass effects) are removed. I say again, apparent pauses in short term data are governed by short term natural variation.
Source: scroll to time point 20:35 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hin_rt3KqSI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The link below illustrates the quality of the correspondence short term weather-related events and the last ~30 years of sfc temps:
"And also, you seem to clueless to the fact that the burden is on the warmists. Skeptics are not making claims…merely casting doubt on yours. We don’t need to prove anything"
We make progress whenever there is conflicting data that explains the observations better. I'lll leave burden-of-proof arguments to the lawyers. Show me yours and Ill show you mine. Scientists endeavor to reduce doubt through evidence, not merely create doubt for its own sake. A skeptic may discover a systemic error or a hitherto unknown natural source of CO2 that dwarfs the anthropogenic variety. Then I'd be persuaded.
"As for the “sniff test”, that has served me quite well over the years. It is exactly what is missing in climate science."
All tests need to be validated.
"And peer review… Its broken in climate. It means little."
The alternative is no quality control…just a lot of angry blogs. I'll keep peer review for now.
"BTW… What is your fix ? To counter your .02 deg rise in ARGO would cost what? A trillion or so? Whats the cost benefit analysis?
Free energy has a nice ROI, no pollution, no wars for oil. Let's set up parallel infrastructure for sustainable energy alternatives so that they can become economically feasible, and then make an orderly transition.
"Why do you even want a colder world with less CO2?"
Our responses to Katrina and Sandy revealed that we are woefully unprepared and a lot of the world's infrastructure are coastal. Science has given us an early warning. Let's minimize economic disruption where we can.
Dbstealey said this:
“All the wild-eyed hand waving over Arctic ice is due to the plain fact that the Antarctic is gaining ice, while the Arctic is not: the polar see-saw effect. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2. If it did, then Antarctica would also be losing ice, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.”
Please reply if you find any flaw in the following data.
This is what happened in the Arctic during the ‘global warming pause’.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
This is what happened in Antarctica during the ‘global warming pause’.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
ABSTRACT: “We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009.
We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time.
In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.”
hanzo says:
It’s not either or. Its both.
But if the physics is not in agreement with empirical evidence, then you are either misunderstanding the physics, or you don’t know enough of the physics. The fact is that empirical evidence is contrary to your ‘physics’. You are clearly missing a lot.
Next:
They are free to submit their analyses in peer reviewed journals.
Apparently you never read Climatefgate I, II and III emails. Your pal reviewers candidly stated that they would keep skeptics out of the journals, even if the meaning of peer review had to be redefined.
Climate peer review is hopelessly corrupted. It operates on the assumption that ‘the science is settled’, then rejects anything outside of the alarmist clique’s preconceived beliefs. Those same reprobates have gotten journal editors disciplined, and fired, for daring to allow a skeptic scientist access. They have gotten university proffessors fired for expressing skepticism. They have gotten tax supported organization fellows fired for the same thing.
I do not understand how you can be a part of that corruption. It is nothing but the appeal to authority fallacy. The only relevant Authority is Planet Earth, and the planet is busy debunking all your pal reviewed papers. Please stop referring to them, and please stop constantly posting that Grace video. Repetition does not make you right. Only agreement with the real world makes you right. That agreement is found in raw data and empirical observations.
The 31,000+ OISM co-signers were not submitting a paper to a journal. They were informing the government, pre-Kyoto, that the runaway global warming Narrative was wrong. Subsequent events have shown them to be absolutely correct. I also note that you cannot seem to find comparable alarmist scientists and engineers who will dispute the OISM Petition. Thus, the ‘consensus’ is on the side of skeptics. In fact, you alarmists are the contrarians. Prove me wrong. Produce your counterweight petition to the OISM co-signers.
Next:
The Holocene had different forcings.
That is just one more baseless assertion, which is why I insist on evidence: raw data, and empirical observations. Evidence will show what is happening. But you avoid that, because the planet is proving you to be wrong. So you fall back on your appeals to corrupt authorities. And if you read the WUWT archives, you will see that there is widespread disagreement regarding carbon isotopes.
Human CO2 emissions have risen. They contribute ≈40% to atmospheric CO2. That being the case, it is obvious that the central conjecture — that CO2 will cause runaway global warming — is false on the face of it. Despite the rise in CO2, global warming stopped many years ago.
Furthermore, there is no verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature. The only empirical evidence of causality between the two shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice versa. That causality is seen on all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia.
The alarmist crowd has causality backward. They started with the wrong premise in their initial conjecture, so naturally they arrived at a wrong conclusion. CO2 simply does not have the claimed effect. That is what the planet is clearly telling us.
So who should we believe?
You? Or Planet Earth?
Because you cannot both be right.
“But if the physics is not in agreement with empirical evidence, then you are either misunderstanding the physics, or you don’t know enough of the physics. The fact is that empirical evidence is contrary to your ‘physics’. You are clearly missing a lot.”
Show me, Give one specific example. List inconsistencies from your POV. Focus on Physics only.
CO2 causes radiative imbalance —> heats air but mostly oceans—> melts ice/thermal expansion—> raises sea level—>severe coastal disruption
Source of confusion—>heat redistribution giving appearance of surface pause
“Furthermore, there is no verifiable evidence showing that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature. The only empirical evidence of causality between the two shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice versa. That causality is seen on all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia.”
Radiative imbalance means incoming solar flux not equal to outgoing IR flux. Planets cool radiatively via outgoing IR flux which is measurable by satellite. If outgoing IR is absorbed by GHG, then system will heat until radiative balance is again reached.
Mechanism 1: Natural forcing (solar, Milankovitch) causes increase in ocean temp, which reduces solubility of CO2 in oceans. Oceans release CO2 and CO2 in air increases radiative imbalance with water feedback. this causes climate to heat. Heat—>CO2—>more heat
Mechanism 2: An anomalous CO2 flux exceeds natural CO2 sinks and increases radiative imbalance and contributes to heating climate. Oceans absorb CO2. Evidence: ocean pH trend is negative (more acidic).
Mechanism 2 is consistent with contemporary observations: pH trend is negative.
Mary Brown says:
July 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Radionuclides in the soil around the edges of the EAIS show that this massive repository of most of the planet’s fresh water stopped receding over 3000 years ago, as all the proxy data confirm. The Holocene has been in a cooling trend since at least that time, with minor ups (eg the Roman, Medieval & Modern Warm Periods) & downs (eg. the Greek Dark Ages, Dark Ages & Little Ice Age Cold Periods) along the downward trend line.
katatetorihanzo says:
July 2, 2014 at 9:08 pm
Man-made GHG hypothesis as primary driver of warming since 1945, if any, would require that the air warmed first & faster than the surface. Instead, exactly the opposite has occurred.
How could a “radiative imbalance” from one more GHG molecule out of 403 molecules (400 water vapor plus three CO2 in AD 1850 up to four now) in the tropics possibly cause heating of the oceans before the air? (Tropical average H2O content is 40,000 ppm, or about 30,000 globally, since the dry air over the poles is so low in water vapor content.)
The physics is all on the skeptics’ side. If the atmosphere is like a lab, then doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm might heat the earth about one degree C. But the air is not like a lab experiment. IPCC GIGO models higher heating only by making assumptions about positive H2O feedbacks not in evidence.
hanzo says:
[In response to my pointing out that he is missing a lot in his understanding of physics]:
Show me, Give one specific example. List inconsistencies from your POV. Focus on Physics only.
I have already pointed out that 1) your ‘physics’ is inadequate. Whatever you’re missing, it gives you results that do not conform to the real world. And 2) As repeatedly stated, when there are glaring inconsistencies between your physics and the real world, the real world trumps your ‘physics’. That is why physics follows empirical evidence; not vice-versa.
Next:
CO2 causes radiative imbalance —> heats air but mostly oceans—> melts ice/thermal expansion—> raises sea level—>severe coastal disruption
Since that has clearly not happened, it means you do not understand what is happening.
Planet Earth is telling us that the CO2=cAGW conjecture is wrong. Again, who should we believe? You? Or the real world?
Next, the alarmist clique’s desperate fixation on Arctic ice is due to the fact that they incessantly predicted that the ice would disappear; it would be ‘a thing of the past’. While it naturally declined, it is still present — and rising. Your point about mass vs extent/area is easily explained by the fact that mass lags area and extent: as the ice recovers, second- and third-year ice accumulates. Arctic ice recovered sharply this year. Expect mass to follow.
Finally, you write:
Our responses to Katrina and Sandy revealed that we are woefully unprepared and a lot of the world’s infrastructure are coastal. Science has given us an early warning. Let’s minimize economic disruption where we can.
That is emotion speaking. It indicates a strongly held belief, not reality. Human activity had nothing to do with those natural storms. But I do agree with your statement: Let’s minimize economic disruption where we can. The first place to start is by eliminating all government spending on ‘climate studies’. That would save many $Billions. It is tax money that both history and reality shows us has been completely wasted.
Thank you. I’m looking for any scientific data that may refute the current framework of evidence that supports AGW. I invite anyone reading this thread to post. Thank you Mary for your concerns about statistical significance. I’ve added that in my review. Take care all.
katatetorihanzo:
Your post at July 3, 2014 at 5:16 am says in total
It is not possible to disprove the existence of something which does not exist.
There is no evidence that “supports AGW”: none, zilch, nada.
Three decades of research at a cost of more than US$5 billion per year has failed to find any such evidence for AGW. In the 1990s Ben Santer claimed to have found such evidence but that was almost immediately exposed as being a result of his having selected a few data from the middle of a data set.
Your question has equal merit with someone saying
“I’m looking for any scientific data that may refute the current framework of evidence that supports Santa Claus”.
It cannot be done because it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. Indeed, this is the importance of an alibi in a legal case: it is not possible to find evidence that an accused did not do something but it is possible to prove the accused was somewhere else where he could not have done it.
Richard
hanzo,
Please see Richard Courtney’s explanation re: ‘evidence’. It appears that you still do not understand what evidence means. I won’t bother posting the definition again; I’ve posted it many times already.
And as I’ve also said repeatedly: when there is a discrepancy between peer reviewed papers and the real world, you choose to accept the papers over empirical evidence — while skeptics think that empirical evidence trumps your peer reviewed papers. Any honest scientist would accept the real world over opinion.
Next, your chart of the Arctic vs your peer reviewed assertion is incongrous. You need to use charts of empirical data for both poles, such as this and this.
Those two charts answer your request for: scientific data that may refute… AGW. Note that the Antarctic has 10x the volume of ice that the Arctic has, and that the gain in Antarctic ice is more than double the Arctic’s loss. Global ice is increasing. Also as previously noted: the amount of global ice means nothing, because CO2 has nothing to do with it. If it did, then it would affect the Antarctic the same way. The Warmist crowd only makes ice an issue because for a short time, Arctic ice was in decline, and they thought it was because of CO2-induced runaway global warming. This year, however, the ice has recovered substantially. Polar ice has also declined in the past, before human industrial activity. Thus, the current cyclical fluctuation is natural. Just ask Bill Ockham.
No evidence supports AGW. None at all. [As I have said many times: I personally think that AGW exists to some small degree. But that is not based on evidence, because there is no such evidence.] Any putative global warming due to human CO2 emissions is too small to measure.
I have repeatedly asked you, and many others, to post verifiable measurements quantifying the fraction of a degree of global warming due specifically to AGW. But neither you, nor anyone else has ever responded with such measurements. That is because there are no such measurements.
If you were honest you would admit that AGW is no more than a conjecture. It is not an hypothesis, or a theory. If it were, then it would be able to make repeated, consistent, and accurate predictions. But as we know, the AGW conjecture has totally failed at predicting. The AGW conjecture certainly failed to predict that global warming would stop for the past decade and a half.
Being able to make accurate predictions does not by itself make a theory or hypothesis correct. The Ptolemaic theory of crystal spheres explaining the movement of planets repeatedly and consistently made accurate predictions. But as we know now, that theory was falsified by Kepler.
AGW has not been able to predict anything accurately. Yet, you still believe. Why?
Are you refuting accelerated ice mass loss in the Arctic and Antarctic? If yes, provide evidence. If no, provide explanation how this could occur in absence of global warming.
???
1. There has been no measured global temperature increase for 17 years – 10 months. Therefore, YES, this ominous steady seven year increase of Antarctic sea ice extents since 2007 is very definitely NOT due to “global warming”. It IS occurring in the absence of “global warming” since it HAS occurred, and regional “global warming” (the Antarctic area is cooling) has NOT occurred.
The Antarctic region has been steadily cooling since the satellite era began, and that colder region temperature is sufficient to explain increased ice mass. Increased ice area at all times of the year over a 7 year period.
2. The supposed Antarctic ice loss is conjecture based on assumptions about (1) Antarctic continental ice levels and (2) Antarctic continental rock level movements that are needed by the GRACE satellite approximations. Such assumptions have NOT been verified by in-place measurements over a wide area. For example, only two drill holes have been made to bedrock in Greenland: Those two drill sites were made in the shallow ice in the mountains on both sides of the ice field itself. It is equivalent to deciding on the rate of increase in the depth of the Mississippi River based on two measurements of mountain height in the Appalachians and in Denver.
Therefore, there is no “science” to refute: I do not know the relative ice loss (or gain!) in the Antarctic, and that ice loss (or gain) has NOTHING to do with sea ice expansion 500 – 800 kilometers away from the continental edge. And 2000 kilometers from the continental center.
There is no established physical link between reducing sea ice extent in the arctic and increased sea ice extent in the Antarctic. Other than that, in both regions, current trends increase heat loss from the planet. In the Antarctic, all year round. In the Arctic, increased ice loss from today’s extents after late and mid-August leads to increased heat loss through 24 hours of increased evaporation, convection, conduction, and radiation losses that are NOT made up by the slight increase in IR gained into the ocean waters during the midday.
Not true. The continental rock isolates very effectively the 14 Mkm^2 continental ice mass from the supposed warming ocean – which has NOT ever been measured under the 500 km wide sea ice. The 3.5 Mkm^2 shelf ice (not a part of the sea ice) has not been changing the past 3 years as sea ice expands. Any assumed ice mass melting does not affect today’s very wide 13 Mkm^2 areas of the sea ice 500 – 1000 kilometers away from the edge of the continental rock and ice.
RACookPE1978 says:
…Therefore, there is no “science” to refute…
That is exactly right. Hanzo is trying to paint skeptics into a no-win corner, in which they are expected to try to prove a negative. That is not science; that is desperation.
The CO2=cAGW conjecture was put forth by the alarmist crowd. They own that conjecture. Now that it has decisively failed, they want to place skeptics in the position of having to prove something. But science doesn’t work that way:
Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. As to the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming recent spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so.
Hanzo has failed to demonstrate that his CO2=cAGW conjecture [or even the CO2=AGW conjecture] can make consistent, accurate predictions — a necessary element in supporting any hypothesis or theory. So like Kevin Trenberth, he now wants to put the onus of negative proof on scientific skeptics.
An honest scientist would admit that his conjecture has failed, then try to find out why. If hanzo did that, skeptics would sincerely try to help him find out why rising CO2 does not cause any measurable AGW. But there are very few honest scientists in the alarmist clique. Hanzo is only looking for cherry picked items that support his confirmation bias. We can’t help him there.
…Therefore, there is no “science” to refute…
The statement : Global warming is not happening due to a 17 year period of steady surface air and surface ocean temperatures during 1998 to 2013.
Is inconsistent with…
“In Greenland, the ice mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
In Antarctica the ice mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”
“That is exactly right. Hanzo is trying to paint skeptics into a no-win corner, in which they are expected to try to prove a negative. That is not science; that is desperation.”
“A Kid takes the chocolate cookie from the cookie jar and eats it periodically.” says the AGW theorist. The AGW theorist presents supporting evidence:
1) Cookie residue on fingers and mouth
2) Fingerprints on the cookie jar matching the Kid’s
3) traces of chocolate metabolizes in kid’s blood
4) Gravimetric measurements of the cookie jar shows a negative trend.
And evidence of rejection of the following null hypotheses:
1) there are other (non-jar) sources for cookie residue.
2) kid had contact with the jar, but did not take the cookie.
3) there are other (non-cookie) sources for chocolate metabolites.
4) There are natural sources for cookie jar weight variation.
An AGW skeptic might question the robustness of the supporting evidence and evidence of null hypothesis rejection: comparing evidence and looking for inconsistencies. For example:
Discourse with an AGW skeptic:
1) “Supporting evidence #4 is weak because water loss may explain the negative trend more than the Kid’s cookie removal”
2) Why do you think so? “Because peer reviewed study says water loss is negligible” or “a water loss study has not been conducted, therefore there is uncertainty” etc
Discourse with an AGW denialist:
1) “The Kid is not taking the chocolate cookie from the cookie jar and he is not eating it.”
2) Why do you think so? Because “Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit.”
Friends:
Please stop feeding the troll.
There is no possibility of rational discourse halting the troll’s presentation of illogical twaddle.
Onlookers can see for themselves that the troll is only providing illogical twaddle so let it stand.
Richard
Richard Courtney,
You are right, only a troll would argue incessantly over the fact that the real world debunks the “carbon” scare. As I keep asking, who should we believe? The always-wrong alarmist? Or Planet Earth, which flatly contradicts him?
I don’t comment to convince someone with a mind that is closed tighter than a submarine hatch. Hanzo is as fanatic as any Jehovah’s Witness. Glacier ice a mile thick could once again cover Chicago, and hanzo would still be peddling his pseudo-scientific nonsense. He is riding the government/grant gravy train, obviously posting on blogs during working hours, and he will never admit what is apparent to everyone else here: global warming stopped many years ago.
Rather, I comment to show any new readers that we are dealing with taxpayer-funded anti-science propagandists who ignore the Scientific Method, and the climate Null Hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor, and common sense. Readers can decide for themselves if every legitimate temperature record shows that global warming has been stopped for many years now, or if the deluded hanzo is right, when he tries to claim, contrary to all empirical evidence, that global warming is continuing.
Dbstealey says that Hanzo is “a troll”, “always-wrong alarmist”, “fanatic”, “anti-science propagandist”, “deluded”
Dbstealey may be correct in his characterization of Hanzo.
But the key question before us is: how could there be a pause in global warming if global ice mass loss has accelerated? Can anyone explain this discrepancy?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.U7dclmt5mSM
“In a landmark study published… in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years.”
hanzo says:
…the key question before us is: how could there be a pause in global warming if global ice mass loss has accelerated? Can anyone explain this discrepancy?
Planet Earth can explain. hanzo just refuses to listen.
It would be great if “wood for trees” plotted ARGO mean ocean temps @ur momisugly depths >700 m or OHC 0-2000 m.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/