Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
SonicsGuy says:
Richardscourtney wrote:
“The Antarctic contains 90% of all the ice on Earth which continues to grow; see here.”
Sorry, but no.
Sorry, but yes:
The Antarctic contains about 90% of the planet’s ice. The Arctic and Greenland have almost all of the rest.
Are you wrong about almost everything, sonicguy? So far, that’s what it looks like.
But don’t feel bad, Edward Richardson has you beat hands down. Edward has yet to be right about anything.
Edward Richardson says he posted a chart showing that CO2 has increased.
NO ONE disputes that. It still does not show causation. My charts do.
And thanx for finally admitting that ∆T causes ∆CO2. You’re coming around.
SonicsGuy
It seems that you have decided to copy the ludicrous Edward Richardson by posting blatant falsehood in response to being shown to be wrong.
At August 26, 2014 at 10:59 am you write
I know very well that you are deliberately presenting falsehood.
See Section 1 of this item by Werner Brozek
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/midyear-prognosis-for-records-in-2014-now-includes-june-data/
It lists all the trends which negative, their duration, and provides graphical plots. Indeed, it links to the usaed data sets so you can repeat the analysis yourself.
So, why are you presenting such easily refuted falsehoods?
Richard
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 11:48 am
I do believe that even if Mr. Richardson wanted to understand, he could not, at whatever present level of education he has achieved. Best to just let it go. You can’t teach a dog to play the trumpet. It lacks the necessary basic equipment.
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 11:48 am
“You’re coming around.”
…
Why don’t you explain to all of us what has caused the increase in CO2 in the past 17 years, because there has been no increase in T in the past 17 years.
Bart,
I don’t respond to teach Edward anything. He is unteachable. I respond so other readers who may be new here, and maybe not up to speed on the subject don’t get bamboozled by Edward’s anti-science nonsense. That’s all.
But you’re right. Teaching Edward the basics is like trying to teach a dog algebra.
Edward says:
Why don’t you explain to all of us what has caused the increase in CO2 in the past 17 years, because there has been no increase in T in the past 17 years.
I see you are moving the goal posts again, as usual. OK. Part of what has caused the rise in CO2 is the outgassing of the oceans. There is a lag time in that, as we thashed out in excruciating detail with the site pest “chuck” a month ago. I certainly do not feel like teaching you again, especially since a) you are unteachable, and b) you will argue incessantly no matter how solid the facts are.
The other source of CO2 — a minor cause — is human emissions. Since CO2 is beneficial, and harmless, it’s all good.
Now, it’s about time you admitted that you were wrong about your assertion that there is no evidence over the past 17 years that ∆T causes ∆CO2. Because I posted real world, empirical evidsence that you have never refuted.
Be a stand-up guy and admit it, Edward. No one will hold it against you if you admit you were wrong.
Bart
August 26, 2014 at 11:56 am
“You can’t teach a dog to play the trumpet”
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 12:05 pm
.
“is human emissions”
..
Thank you for admitting it
Edward Richardson,
It has never been a secret that human emissions are a small part of the total [about 3%]:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
See, I’m a stand-up kinda guy [although I have posted that table here for at least five years].
But what about you, Edward? You falsely claimed that I didn’t show that CO2 followed temperature for the past 17 years, when I posted a chart ending in 2014, and showed exactly that.
So, what about that, Edward? Are you a stand-up guy? Or are you a typical alarmist, who cannot admit that you were wrong no matter how decisively it is proven?
The credibility ball is in your court, Edward.
dbstealey says:
“Next, you claim that “88%” of the data shows no warming. That is simply false.”
Your graphs are a wonderful illustration of a cherry pick — picking the starting point to give you the result you want. Perfect.
BTW, HadSST2 has been replaced by a newer version.
So has HadCRUT3.
Why did you leave off UAH LT? Because it shows warming?
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 1:14 pm
“CO2 followed temperature for the past 17 years”
…
It didn’t
According to you temps have not increased in the past 17 years. ( ∆T = 0)
CO2 has risen from 365 ppm to 400 ppm. ∆C = 35 ppm
CO2 is not following T at all.
Here is UAH LT:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2014/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2014/trend
and sea surface temperatures:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to:2014/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to:2014/trend
and the surface:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2014/trend
and note that the UAH data used by the site is out of date (UAH is on v5.6, not v5.4).
The best surface dataset, Cowtan & Way, shows 0.16 C of warning in 17 years.
Note that you are using short intervals that aren’t climatologically meaningful — they’re heavily influenced by natural variability, such as ENSO and volcanoes.
And……. doesn’t everyone here dispute the data because they’re “adjusted?” Then how can you use that same data to draw any conclusions? Hmm?
dbstealey says:
“It has never been a secret that human emissions are a small part of the total [about 3%]”
Strange, isn’t it, that you only showed half of the carbon cycle? Where is the other half — the carbon sinks.
dbstealey says: “Part of what has caused the rise in CO2 is the outgassing of the oceans.”
Where is that data?
Last time I looked, the land and the oceans were absorbing *more* CO2 than they emit:
“Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years,”
A. P. Ballantyne et al, Nature 488, 70–72 (02 August 2012)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/abs/nature11299.html
Richardscourtney wrote:
“It lists all the trends which negative, their duration, and provides graphical plots.”
Mere numerology. Purposely picking starting dates to give the result you want is called “cherry picking.”
Pretending that such short intervals are indicative of climate shows you doesn’t understand the difference between weather (especially in the ocean) and climate.
Pretending that CO2 is the only factor that determines short-term surface temperature trends is a gross misunderstanding of the science.
And claiming that Pielke Sr et al are “stupid” for advancing a far better metric for global warming shows you don’t understand conservation of energy.
SonicsGuy
Now you have overstepped the mark.
Your series of disingenuous posts has culminated in your outrage at August 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm that only consists of falsehoods.
Of especial note is your lie that I accused Pielke Sr et al of being stupid when I specifically refuted that at August 26, 2014 at 11:31 am in response to your first presentation of that lie. Clearly, the repetition of the falsehood can only be a lie when the accusation was rebutted when first made.
Withdraw and apologise.
Richard
richardscourtney wrote:
“It is too stupid to deserve a reply…”
The post you impolitely labeled “stupid” was one that (a) pointed out you missed relavant journal references and (b) quoted from Pielke Sr’s article in Physics Today:
:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717630
Neither of those are “stupid” — they’re both right on point — and the clear implication is that Pielke Sr. was “stupid” for writing that that changes in ocean heat content are a better measure of global warming and a planetary energy imbalance.
It is you who should apologize, for your constant name-calling on this forum. (And for being wrong about Antarctic ice.)
By the way, Richard, the IPCC has always recognized the importance of ocean warming:
“The large warming of the ocean in high latitudes is propagated downwards to the ocean floor, where it spreads to all latitudes. The warming of the deep oceans is consistent with paleo-oceanographic data for a warmer climate….”
– IPCC AR1 WG1 (1990) pg 151
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml
“However, when greenhouse gas concentrations are changing continuously, the thermal capacity of the oceans will delay and effectively reduce the observed climatic response At a given time, the realized global average temperature will reflect only part of the equilibrium change for the corresponding instantaneous value of the forcing Of the remainder, part is delayed by storage in the stably stratified layers of the upper ocean and is realized within a few decades or perhaps a century, but another part is effectively invisible for many centuries or longer, until the heating of the deep ocean begins to influence surface temperature.”
– IPCC AR1 WG1 (1990) pg 179
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml
Troll posting as SonicsGuy:
Your posts consist of a series of falsehoods. Perhaps some result from your ignorance.
But everybody can see your claim I called Pielke Snr et al stupid is a lie.
Withdraw and apologise.
Richard
Troll posting as SonicsGuy:
By the way troll, your quotation from the IPCC was already trumped by my reference, quotation and explanation of the IPCC’s “committed warming” which was addressed to you and is at August 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm. this klink jumps to it.
I assume that you were unaware of this because it was in discussion with somebody else posting as SonicsGuy.
Richard
richardscourtney:
This is the comment you called “stupid”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717630
That comment, by me, merely shows that, besides myself, at least three notable scientists think OHC is a better metric by which to assess global warming.
Clearly, that means you are calling these three scientists “stupid.” They are not.
You can think what you want about global warming metrics. We will think what we want. But you can’t squirm out of rudely calling people “stupid.”
PS: And you’re still badly wrong about Antarctic ice.
Mr Courtney.
…
In scanning this thread from top to bottom, the first use of the word “stupid” occurs in your post ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717437 )
…
Could you please try and be more adult-like in these threads and refrain from issuing insults and using derogatory adjectives ?
soniucsguy says:
Your graphs are a wonderful illustration of a cherry pick — picking the starting point to give you the result you want. Perfect…
heh. …as you cherry-pick your own carefully constructed charts.
Look, you can argue all you want that global warming is continuing, but the more you do, the more wacked-out you sound. Because just about every authority now, including the professional alarmist crowd, is desperately trying to explain the “pause”, or the “hiatus”.
By those inappropriate terms they are trying to explain why global warming has stopped. At last count, your side is up to about 38 excuses, trying to explain why global warming has stopped:
Who are you, to be arguing with all the keepers of temperature records? You are just a nameless, faceless, anonymous internet commenter. So go argue with them if you don't like their conclusions. They freely admit that global warming stopped, many years ago. You, whoever you are, don’t agree, based on a carefully constructed, cherry-picked chart or two. Who should folks listen to? You? Or everyone else?
Better trot back to your thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs now. You need some new talking points. Yours are out of date — and you are out of your league here.
Next, you say:
Strange, isn’t it, that
youthe UN/IPCC only showed half of the carbon cycle? Where is the other half — the carbon sinks.Go ask the UN/IPCC. And note that the U.S. is a net “carbon” sink. [By “carbon” they mean CO2: a beneficial and harmless trace gas. But “carbon” sounds scarier, because your HE-RO, the Rev. Algore, has demonized ‘carbon’.] And it is the hydrologic cycle that matters, not the “carbon” cycle.
Next:
Last time I looked, the land and the oceans were absorbing *more* CO2 than they emit
Which should reduce your false alarm panic. And if the oceans — 71% of the planet’s surface — are absorbing CO2, that means they are cooling, because that’s what cooling oceans do. What does that do to your runaway global warming scare? You have self-debunked.
Finally, you never responded to the fact that Antarctica has almost 90% of the ice on the planet. You wrongly claimed it is less. Antarctica is increasing its polar ice, which easily makes up for the Arctic — which was the last desperate prediction of the alarmist clique; every other prediction they made has failed.
Why should anyone listen to a gang that has been consistently wrong about everything? One by one, every alarmist prediction has been debunked. Got any new ones? Let us at ’em. Because you guys are on the ropes, and you’re going down for the count.
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 4:55 pm
“if the oceans — 71% of the planet’s surface — are absorbing CO2, that means they are cooling”
…
No, it means that the phytoplankton are eating well.
dbstealey:
Until you explain why you are using RSS data instead of UAH’s, and why you’re using old versions of datasets (HadCRUT3, HadSST2) instead of the most recent ones, I stand by my criticism.