El Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Remarkably, the El Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.
Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).
The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to June 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and –0.1 Cº/century real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the three terrestrial surface temperature anomaly datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC) and the two satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly datasets (RSS and UAH).
In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.
On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.
Why RSS? Well, it’s the first of the five datasets to report each month, so it’s topical. Also, it correctly shows how much bigger the el Niño of 1998 was than any of its successors. It was the only event of its kind in 150 years that caused widespread coral bleaching. Other temperature records do not distinguish so clearly between the 1998 el Niño and the rest. It is carefully calibrated to correct for orbital degradation in the old NOAA satellite on which it relies. The other satellite record, UAH, which has been running rather hotter than the rest, is about to be revised in the direction of showing less warming. As for the terrestrial records, read the Climategate emails and weep.
Updated key facts about global temperature
Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record.
Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
Ø The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Ø Since 1 March 2001, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.
Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014 – more than half the 427-month satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.
In this post
You wrote
Let’s just repeat that last sentence in BOLD
Reconstructions before 1700 were done in good faith by a real scientist, Dr. Lamb, without an agenda.
Knowing that Lamb had very little to do with CET reconstructions, I responded with
Instead of issuing an embarrassed apology as you should have, you then imply that the error was mine. It’s like arguing with a 5 year old.
Gordon Manley reconstructed the CET record, by the way. I know exactly who Hubert Lamb was and what he wrote about the LIA.
John Finn . You seem to have missed or disregarded my previous comments on OHC.Here are some excerpts,
Justaskin There is a variable delay ( 12 – 20 years) between the solar activity driver and the ocean SSTs and Total OHC response. For the total OHC see Fig 18 from Wunsch et al at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/deep-oceans-are-cooling-amidst-a-sea-of-modeling-uncertainty-new-research-on-ocean-heat-content/
This shows OHC peaked about 2009.
SSTs peaked about 2003 see FIg 17 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Here’s a quote from the same post – check Figs 13 and 14.
” Lockwood et al 2014 in press say in their abstract at http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2009/Lockwood_ApJ_openflux_F1.pdf
“Cosmogenic isotope data reveal that this constitutes a grand maximum of solar
activity which began in 1920, using the definition that such grand maxima are when
25-year averages of the heliospheric modulation potential exceeds 600 MV.”
Be sure to check the Global OHC in the Wunsch Fig 18
Second quote:
August 2, 2014 at 2:35 pm
John Finn Re Oceans – see my 12:36pm post above also note the excellent work of Lyman and Johnson. Their latest compilation of the trends in OHC shows that the oceans are cooling from the top down as we might expect on a world which is just entering a cooling trend. see table 1 at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Quote
“Table 1.
Warming reported as heat flux applied to Earth’s entire surface area (in W m-2) corresponding to trends in annual REP OHCA estimates from unweighted linear fits from benchmark years through 2011 for different depths of integration (left column).
A benchmark year is defined as the year in which sampling coverage all layers being considered first exceeds 50%, and remains > 50% thereafter. Layer warming trends over time periods during which coverage in a layer is < 50% in any year, indicated here by a dash, are not reported.
Time Period 1956–2011 1967–2011 1983–2011 2004–2011
Depth Layer 0–100 m 0.06 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.08 W m-2 0.01 W m-2
0–300 m 0.18 W m-2 0.24 W m-2 0.19 W m-2
0–700 m – – 0.46 W m-2 0.30 W m-2
0–1800 m – – – 0.56 W m-2
You will note that the heat flux in the 0-100 m level declined almost 90% when the period 1983-2011 is compared with 2004-11
Large declines between these periods are also seen when the same time periods are compared for 0-300 and 0-700m.
These numbers show that Trenberth's idea of the missing heat going into the oceans is fanciful.
It is time to recognize that the output of the IPCC models is useless for forecasting purposes.
For forecasts of the possible coming cooling based on the natural quasi periodicities seen in the temperature data see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpg.blogspot.com
John Finn says:
August 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Lamb used CET reconstructions to demonstrate the LIA & MWP, so how is it that you claim there is no sign of those periods in the CET data?
I can’t argue with a serial liar who keeps changing his position & refuses to recognize reality.
John The Wusch table1 won’t format properly – Just check the original.
Werner Brozek says:
August 4, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Good to know. Thanks.
The differences between RSS & UAH have often been noted here.
Maybe the failed El Niño will move UAH down to join RSS in showing global cooling for this century.
Mr Finn is not doing himself or his cause any favors. Best to accept that global warming is not happening at the predicted rate, and that in any event two-thirds of the past 11,400 years were warmer than the present. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about today’s temperatures, or about the rate of change at the end of the past century.
The correct deduction from these facts is that our adding CO2 to the air is not making much difference. Theory suggests that it will have made some difference, but on balance probably not very much. The models were wrong.They exaggerated. They are still exaggerating. Few now believe them.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm
At least two of the past four interglacials were also warmer than even the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which ended about 5000 years ago. The Modern Warm Period still hasn’t produced a 50 year interval warmer than the Medieval Warm Period’s hottest century or two, & probably won’t, even with benefit of more CO2, since the Roman WP was warmer than the Medieval, the Minoan warmer than the Roman & the Optimum warmer than the Minoan. Mr. Finn would also be well advised to recognize the reality of the LIA, the Medieval WP, the Dark Ages Cold Period, Roman WP, the Greek Dark Ages CP, the Minoan & other WPs, other CPs & the HCO in the proxy data records for this interglacial & similar cycles in previous ones.
The long-term trend at least for the past 3300 years, if not 5000, is down, to which line earth’s climate will regress after the current warm period ends. The 30 years after the mid-1970s are truly nothing about which to write home, let alone over which to worry.
He couldn’t possibly use the CET to demonstrate the MWP. But in any case, I’ve already calculated the century trends for you. They are FLAT. That’s what the CET data says.
Why don’t you get your friend, the ‘CET expert’, Tony Brown to calculate the 1700-1800 and 1800-1900 temperature trends and confirm them for you.
Here’s a graph of CET from 1772
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Take a good look at it. There are periodic fluctuations (i.e. peaks and troughs) but no trend up to about 1940. The fluctuations are probably the result of Atlantic oscillations – there’s certainly no obvious solar signal. There is not a significant departure from the general pattern until the second half of the 20th century.
Hang on a minute. There is a difference between “not happening” and “not happening at the predicted rate”. I’ve stated a number of times that I don’t think global warming will be a problem but I’m not going to deny it’s still happening when the evidence says otherwise.
John Finn (August 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm) “Hang on a minute. There is a difference between “not happening” and “not happening at the predicted rate”…”
It is only trolls that claim manmade global warming is not happening and they are of two types: one that will come out and say that in threads like this and the second type who will quote the first type or put words in the mouth of people who never said it.
You can stop arguing your incorrect point about ocean warming when the ocean warming is natural (solar). Perhaps you meant to say less ocean heat transfer to the atmosphere due to a warmer atmosphere. But that would also be incorrect since ocean heat transfer to the atmosphere is a function of average weather including long time scale oceanic weather, and not a function of the slight warming of the atmosphere from CO2.
In short, we don’t need to hear your red herrings about the “difference” when nobody except trolls said “not happening”.
John Finn says:
August 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm
I’ve repeatedly showed you that the century trends mask the 30 year fluctuations.
I’ve also repeatedly showed you that Lamb used the CET reconstructions back to 850 IIRC to demonstrate the MWP & the LIA, for which he also of course had thermometer data.
There most certainly is a solar signal. It was colder during the Spoerer, Maunder & Dalton Minima than during the intervals between them. If you don’t want to recognize reality, that’s your problem.
There is no point in continuing to mud wrestle a pig. I get dirty & the pig enjoys it.
But wait a minute. I just realized I made the mistake of not recalling that you’re a blatant liar.
In fact, the century data do show the LIA. Using your own years: average for 1700 in CET was 8.57 degrees C, 1800 was 9.23 C & 1900 9.56. But you still haven’t bothered to check the more meaningful intervals, which are the 30 & 60 year averages during the LIA & the Modern Warm Period, which are dispositive, as I repeatedly showed you. Of course you then claimed that the pre-1700 data weren’t good enough & ignored my demonstration using the ’90s of each century.
You’re a hopeless case.
Do you think it is possible that a person could choose an end point and crawl backward in time to about the same start time as used in the 17 year 10 month chart to demonstrate a positive trend of some significance also exists? The method would be identical, but the result sought would be to reveal a positive trend equal to or longer than the zero trend. If a person were to publish that chart do you not think it would be appropriate to suspect cherry picking? Could that chart be used in any important way relevant to Lord Monckton’s chart? Using the same approximate data range, is one chart showing a positive (or negative) trend more or less valuable than the one showing a zero trend for that matter?
I will just add here that I am a big fan of Monckton of Brenchley and have been for years. I’m not criticizing his work – I am trying to resolve the conflict I have that comes from a non-trivial look at several examples of zero trend charts and how they have been presented. By example, a recent chart provided a zero trend for 17 years 9 months. We now have 17 years 10 months, and a non-critical observer may/will presume the latter is a continuation of the former when in fact they have no relationship to one another as a result of having different end points. I understand completely what the stated objective is but it is the serial presentation of new charts that imply a relationship with earlier charts where there is none, and where the zero trend line can and will fall on very different anomaly values as new charts are created. It is therefore a mistake to attempt to compare these charts over time, and, to think that within the data set only one exploitable trend exists.
To those for whom it matters, my name is Dennis and has been for 68 years. My on-line signature “dp” is about half that age (just did the math and it is now 40 years old) and has been used consistently and reliably in all that time. Owing to the industry I am self-employed in it is of value to me and my customers that I tread carefully with my full ID. Anthony has my blessing to provide privately my email address to Lord Monckton or any other guest author who seeks to communicate with me off line. I am, however, remarkably unremarkable.
dp says:
August 4, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Do you think it is possible that a person could choose an end point and crawl backward in time to about the same start time as used in the 17 year 10 month chart to demonstrate a positive trend of some significance also exists?
You say “of some significance”. If I take this to mean statistically significant at the 95% level that climate scientists like, then we would have to go back to November 1992 or 21 years and 9 months according to:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
A different calculation here pushes this date even further back a few more years:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
But having said this, any time greater than 17 years and 10 months gives a positive slope, although it would be extremely small, especially if the time is not much larger.
However the point in giving these numbers is to show that the models are wrong if the time for a slope of zero is more than 15 years (Jones) or 17 years (Santer). So the greater the time for a slope of zero, the worse the climate models look.
And of course 21 years and 9 months is more than 15 years (NOAA), so that would be another way to show the climate models are wrong.
It is therefore a mistake to attempt to compare these charts over time,
I do not see it as a mistake. If the time increases, the models look worse. And should the time decrease, the models still look bad providing there is no statistically significant warming for less than 15 years. And keep in mind that WUWT gets many new readers each day, so there could be many who see these monthly updates for the first time each month.
Regarding:
“Ø The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.”
_________________________________
I suspect that ‘factoid’ may be a little out of date. In the Central England Temperature series (CET), the 100 year period 1663-1762 warmed at a rate of 0.86C/century. The warmest 100 year periods in CET were slightly higher; both 1908-2007 and 1909-2008 warmed at a rate of 0.87C/century: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/index.html
There’s a chance this joint record could be beaten in 2014. CET Jan-Jul 2014 is the warmest ‘year-to-date’ on record since 1659. If monthly temperatures in CET between August and December remain around the 1961-90 average, then the warming rate over the 100 year period 1915-2014 will be +0.91; setting a new record for CET.
The 19th century fluctuations are cyclical. They effectively return to the origin. The 19th century temperatures are trendless over time. Let me repeat that for you. in bold type.
The 19th century temperature trend was flat. It was as close to ZERO as makes no difference
Now email Tony Brown.and let him know what I’ve written. If he wants to argue the case then – fine I’ll respond to him, but you are simply too ill-equipped to grasp the basics.
There are no CET reconstructions back to 850. You have no idea what you’re on about.
Oh, for crying out loud, you’ve used the mean values for just ONE year. You really don’ have a clue do you? Why don’t you include the 2010 average of 8.83 degrees and we can conclude that it’s colder now than during the LIA.
Look – you need to familiarise yourself with Least Squares Linear Regression. The author of this post (Christopher Monckton) makes a mention of this. It is the well-recognised procedure for determining temperature trends over given periods.
PS can you point me in the direction of those CET Reconstructions back to 850 AD. I could do with a laugh.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:31 am
“Claptrap” says I am wrong to insist that those who deny that there is a greenhouse effect are not welcome here. However, for good reason, those are indeed the site rules. “Claptrap” says it does not like calling the greenhouse effect the greenhouse effect because it is not a greenhouse effect. Well, that is what it is called, rightly or wrongly, and I am not interested in semantic quibbling.
Was that what I said? I think not Lord Monckton, you have paraphrased my remarks in such a way as to create a straw man fallacy. It is easy for readers to check what I actually stated in the posting, but let me just quote the relevant passage.
quote —–
What I have consistently argued in these pages in this article, is that
there may be some effect of warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, caused
by the effect you and others have described, but I said that
1. it is trivial, and
2. it is NOT a “greenhouse effect”, because the Earth’s
atmosphere is not comparable to a greenhouse.
I further assert that the moniker “Greenhouse Effect”, continues to
be used erroneously in that regard, and deliberately to confuse the
real issue here. which might be described as for instance molecular
Quantum transfer warming, or a host of other less befuddling terms.
The thing is you see, that there is a real thing called the “Greenhouse
Effect”, and it relates to actual greenhouses, and similar constructions,
like an automobile, or a tramcar, or even a glass fronted office block.
The use of the term in a slang fashion, to describe the actions of the
Earth’s atmosphere is entirely inappropriate, and the cause of very
many specious arguments and false dichotomies among debaters
who essentially hold the same point of view.
That’s fairly clear then isn’t it?
again, in case anybody missed it —–
The thing is you see, that there is a real thing called the “Greenhouse
Effect”, and it relates to actual greenhouses, and similar constructions
How that can be construed as a denial of the greenhouse effect is baffling.
Lord Monckton admits that —–
that is what it is called, rightly or wrongly,
Well at least that is some progress then, Lord Monckton recognises that the term “greenhouse effect” may not be correctly applied to these atmospheric phenomena which we do see, can measure, and that I do not deny such effects may exist. What I say is that they are trivial, and that they are not due to the blockage of heat transference via convection.
Lord Monckton continues ——
I am not interested in semantic quibbling
Well semantics is the study of language, but quibbling, really? Quibbling is defined as, “Evading the truth of a point or question by raising irrelevant objections”. So then lest get this straight, because it is important. Language is all that we have to describe and communicate ideas and hypotheses.
What I have stated is that there is a Real Greenhouse Effect as it applies to actual greenhouses and similar constructions, but that this isn’t what is going on in the atmosphere. Furthermore I point out the dangers in using this same nomenclature for a quite different effect which we have observed in the atmosphere of the planet Earth. I suggest that this confusion causes a false dichotomy among supporters of Lord Monckton, and his otherwise laudable hypotheses on the long pause, hiatus, lack of warming, during the last two decades or so. I suggest that we out to use proper scientific terms to describe the effects we see, and can empirically measure.
For instance, if a photon had by some method, involving quantum physics, been absorbed by a molecule of CO2, or indeed CH4, or even H2O, which then caused it to rise in temperature, and then re-radiated to describe that for that. It is lazy semantics to use a slang term like “greenhouse effect” for that process, and it saves an author of a piece having to do the actual research to use the proper scientific terms. As a result it then makes it difficult for others to repeat those measurements, if indeed any were carried out, because we do not know what precise mechanism is claimed for this process, as it is not adequately described by the slang term and misnomer “greenhouse effect”.
How would it be if a nuclear physicist in describing the construction of a new electricity power station, when applying for funding, or reassuring the public stated merely that, for example.
“We have a big lead box which we will throw in some uranium, and then it heats up, so we put a big boiler on the top, just like in your house and then the steam drives an electric turbine, so there’s no danger in that then, and by the way can we have eleven billion of your pounds sterling please, oh and it will take ten years to build it, if you want details that’s just semantic quibbling.”
Whilst that description is essentially true, it isn’t quite precise enough is it?
Semantics, is not a dirty word.
“Quibbling” is a pejorative accusative, which again
is I think, beneath your dignity, Lord Monckton.
Still I support Lord Monckton’s hypotheses about the models disagreeing with observations, and this is the important point of this article, the digression into the semantics of the descriptions of molecular quantum energy transfer effects, was interesting, but diversionary, and perhaps that should have had a separate article. May we look forward to such a discussion in these pages?
Who among us in these pages feels qualified to write such an article, and can we please use appropriate scientific terms, and steer away from slang and other perplexing befuddlement.
Really it isn’t a question of what I’d like or not, instead
it is a question of what’s transparently correct or not.
Thank you.
You’ll need to elaborate. Ocean heating is almost entirely due to Solar energy. However for the oceans to retain more heat one of 3 things must be happening.
(i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
(ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
(iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.
Between 2005 and 2012 ARGO reports a 7×10^22 joules per decade increase. Which of the the 3 scenarios above are you suggesting is responsible?
John Finn says:
August 5, 2014 at 7:03 am
(i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
(ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
(iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.
i) possibly
ii) possibly
iii) possibly some effect (leaving aside my well known views on the semantics)
but you miss out
iv) increased tectonic / volcanic activity
eg:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/08/study-plate-tectonics-modulates-volcanic-activity-which-in-turn-modulates-climate-forcings/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/the-eruption-over-the-ipcc-ar5/
There are many more such discussions at this blog here (WUWT),
let alone the scores of papers in the peer reviewed literature.
We cannot ignore the role of the fact that the vast mass of this planet
is still very hot, and that this heat penetrates most where the Earth’s
crust is thinnest, ie. the floor of the oceans.
John Finn says
How in gods name can a increase in greenhouse effect reduce the rate of ocean cooling without the atmosphere warming? Over and over again you make the point, the oceans warming has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. It is the oceans warming that caused the atmospheric warming not the other way around and you are providing the evidence of this every time you post!
Wake up
John Finn
Go into your bathroom and fill your tub, check the temperature in the room. Then add hot water to your tub and check the temperature again.
Now fill your tub again and check its temperature
, then raise the heat in the room by 5 degrees and check your tubs temperature again. Wait as long as you want on this on.
John Finn (August 5, 2014 at 7:03 am) “You’ll need to elaborate. Ocean heating is almost entirely due to Solar energy. However for the oceans to retain more heat one of 3 things must be happening.
(i) The Sun’s output is increasing.
(ii) The oceans are receiving more solar energy due to e.g.reduced cloud cover.
(iii) An enhanced greenhouse effect is reducing the rate of ocean cooling.
Between 2005 and 2012 ARGO reports a 7×10^22 joules per decade increase. Which of the the 3 scenarios above are you suggesting is responsible?”
#1: not a factor, solar decreased over that interval.
#2: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
#3 is also a factor but not the dominant one since there are other global variables involved. The rate of cooling (heat transfer to the atmosphere) is dependent on wind and waves at the water surface. Also ocean currents will sequester more or less heat deeper in the oceans.
You might also consider that you are comparing ARGO in 2005 with almost zero coverage of the deep oceans with 2012 which had barely adequate coverage. Thus the trend results from infilling data using a climate model, not from actual measurements.
Bob Boder says:
August 5, 2014 at 7:55 am
………..bathroom analogy
___________________________
I say Now fill your (metal) bathtub, and then stick a dirty great
gas burner underneath it (volcano simulator), and bubble the exhaust
gasses through the water. Then measure the water and air temperature
after a while. Both will have heated. Measure the CO2, and it will have
increased too, in the water and the air. There will be more CO2 in the
water, than is in the air. Throw in some volcanic rocks to buffer the
ph of the bathwater. It’s a reasonable model. Can I have a few
million dollars “CO2 research grant” please?
I mean political significance. There is nothing important about science in the political debate around climate change. The question of how this isn’t cherry picking is yet artfully unanswered. The very method is a demonstration of seeking ideal endpoints to create a desired trend. When this is done to show warming it is soundly ridiculed for what it is. In the case of identifying the longest possible span of time that reveals a zero trend it is clearly necessary allow the method to determine one end point. The result is a useful political tool, in fact. But if a warmist asks me if the zero trend is an example of cherry picking I will have to agree it is. And I can also explain why it can’t be helped. The zero trend is a useful tool with a regrettable means of generation. I would also argue that the zero trend is a necessary tool in the blood sport of climate debate.