From the University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST
“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year,” says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets.
“The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value (Figure 1a) and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands,” explains Timmermann.
He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat–heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.
“Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska (Figure 1b),” says Timmermann.
The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ‘ocean ate the heat’ angle seems to be the one that is getting the most traction with those trying to eliminate or discredit the ‘Pause’ (which in itself seems to me, a deliberately leading term – sort of like ‘denier’). Now I’m just a layman, and am willing to be corrected, but if you put a glass of cold water in a room, and don’t change the temperature, won’t the water eventually warm to room temperature even though the ambient temperature remains constant?
In any case, the entire argument seems to be an effort to move the goal posts.
Heat doesn’t move from the air to the deep ocean, thermo doesn’t allow it to flow that direction without help. Heat flows from the geothermal heat flux on the bottom of the ocean upward.
If air heats water how come the swimming pools in Phoenix need to be heated? Why aren’t they all 105 F in July and August?
See my HS science fair suggestion in the link.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Thanks for the link – and I get all that. I wasn’t suggesting that the heat actually CAME from the air – I was trying to illustrate that warming water does not mean an ambient temperature increase – that it’s reasonable to expect that water would warm AFTER the air – it doesn’t discredit the ‘pause.’ It’s more like adding the JV scores to the Varsity team’s total and claiming you won by two points.
I was also under the impression that these were generalized ocean temperatures – if they’re really looking to the deep oceans to find their temperature increases – and if they’re actually trying to sell that as a consequence of atmospheric C02 – honestly – talk about working backwards from a conclusion.
Using your pool analogy, for the water to be warmed and not the air, it would have to be a heat source coming from below – in the case of the pool, jets of heated water. In the case of the oceans, likely suspects for deep warming would seem to be things like geo-thermal activity, and that sort of thing. The idea that winds ‘forced the heat into the ocean’ – let alone the deep ocean – seems contrived.
It’s also worth mentioning that all this is simultaneous with the ‘melting of the polar caps’ – or at least the northern one, which seems to be where all the warming oceans are. I’ve spent time in Alaska, and if you’ve ever stood in a lake full of glacier melt – even on an eighty-plus degree, twenty-four-hour day that lasts for three months – it’s the sort of bone-biting cold that you simply can’t stand in without protection. If this were occurring, it seems to me that the winds would be mixing this super-chilled water into the system right along with the supposed ‘missing heat’.
So if the pause is coming to an end, can we have an update from all those who stated that (a) there would be no more warming – definitely – period – get over it, etc, and (b) those that have been regularly predicting cooling and mini ice ages, etc.
Also, if we get a record warm year for 2014, even by a small amount, what does that say about what would happen with a full blown El Nino ? – Er like 1998 ? Clearly, we are now at a higher base than in 1998 – about 0.15C :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2014_v5.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Also, NASA GISS LOTI just out for October – not good news for coolists – its +0.74C which gives us a very close to record warm 2014 to date of + 0.67 C with 2 months to go.
James Abbott. I fear you may well be right. If we were to get an El Nino from this temp level, like 98, the graph above would be saying goodbye to any hiatus. It would be nothing more than a step like we had in the 70’s and then late 80’s early 90’s. I will certainly watch with interest and think those here who dismiss the significance of the recent ocean temp records, may well have egg on their faces. And the great thing is we will be finding out sooner than later I think.
The pause has me worried too. The last thing we need is another LIA. –AGF
You actually imagine that Gavin-made GISS “data” bear any relation whatsoever to reality?
Interesting.
If you use the SAME BASE period (1981-2010) and compare the UAH anomalies with the GISS anomalies for 2014 you’ll find they are almost exactly the same. The reason UAH (and RSS) isn’t showing near “record” temepratures this year is because the temperature response to the 97/98 El Nino and, to a lesser extent, the 09/10 El Nino was more pronounced in the LT than it was at the surface.
I’ll take your word for the surface v. LT difference, but since satellite observation began in 1979, I prefer to start then, too.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/how-giss-temperatures-are-diverging-from-rss/
The divergence between GISS & RSS is systematically to the warmer.
The divergence has been extreme over the past 5 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009.75/plot/rss/from:2009.75/to/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2009.75/normalise/offset:0.4/trend/plot/uah/from:2009.75/plot/uah/from:2009.75/trend
Which is all cyclical based on the phase of the PDO as clearly shown in the 1910 to 1945 rise (+). We can only hope for a 1945 to 1977 fall (-). So if we get a la nina next year and temps drop like they do after most el nino years will you admit that it is natural cycles that rule?
So James… are you now admitting the ‘pause’ existed? Despite the fact that a pause in CO2 didn’t happen?
Yes davefreer, there has been a pause, and as I have stated numerous times on this site, it started in about 2002.
James Abbott:
Something tells me that you would whoop for joy if this year was declared the hottest ever.
Sure , we need to destroy the world in order to save the world.
If it saves itself it’s no fun at all. We won’t be able to dictate what everyone does in life.
GISS is an organized, extortionist criminal conspiracy whose capos should be RICOed, tossed into Fed SuperMax and the keys thrown away. They are mass murderers who have ripped off trillions globally. They put every other organized crime syndicate on the planet to shame.
At the very least, the whole crooked operation needs to be shut down by the new Congress, as I hope will indeed happen. Same goes for NCAR. The British will have inflict suitable punishment on Hadley Centre themselves. Their people have died of exposure in the dark in much greater number than have Americans as a result of the Climate Mafia’s anti-human activities.
The Beloved CAGW theory is clear. CO2 in the atmosphere (not ocean) absorbs LWIR energy, thus warming AIR.
So, if sea surface temps rise, how is this related to the evil, magic trace gas IN THE ATMOSPHERE??
The Air hasn’t warmed.
If the seas warm, it’s not the air doing it.
[Snip. The pejorative “denialist” is not allowed here. ~mod.]
What will be your excuse when the warm blob is gone & the “pause” continues, or as is likely in reality if not in cooked book “data”, turns significantly down? Do you have one at the ready?
The average global temperature could increase by 5 degrees ten years in a row and you lot would still talk about natural variability, how the temperature records are rigged or some other whacked out conspiracy.
Sea temps are as hot as they’ve ever been, and we’ve had several months that have set surface temperature records according to satellite measurements.
All without an El Nino.
When it does eventually come round, as it surely will, temps will escalate rapidly before plateauing again for another “pause”. Just as it has done throughout the last century.
But I know none of this will change your mind- and I dont really care to be honest.
Personally, I can’t wait for that 3 billion of your tax dollars that Obama announced today to be used to combat climate change.
mmm… tax dollars and income redistribution… mmm
Straw man.
What makes you imagine that temperature will increase by five degrees even one year, let alone ten yin a row? If that happened, of course it would obviously be outside natural variability, so your blather is idiotic.
The fact is that nothing that has happened in the past century or fifty years is outside natural variability. When something does happen with the climate that hasn’t happened before in the Holocene or any prior interglacial, then I’ll look for a cause. But so far, ho-hum. More CO2 so far has been a boon for the planet & mankind.
There is simply zero evidence of man-made global warming or climate change, let alone anything to justify CACA, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. If you know of such evidence, by all means please trot it out. IPCC hasn’t because it can’t.
THanks, Sib, for clarifying that “denialist” is pejorative while the statement “GISS is an organized, extortionist criminal conspiracy whose capos should be RICOed, tossed into Fed SuperMax and the keys thrown away.” is in no way pejorative towards the reputation of GISS.
That GISS cooks the books is not a conspiracy theory but a fact. Thus IMO calling it an organized criminal activity is perfectly valid. Is a fact pejorative? I think not. GISS’ reputation is as a factory of faked data. When finally forced to reveal their secret Al-Gore-ithms for “adjusting” for the UHI effect, what was long suspected was shown true. Or in your opinion does it make good scientific sense for UHI adjustments all to make the “data” warmer rather than cooler?
PS: I agree that as a budget cutting measure alone, zeroing out GISS would be justified. I hope the new Congress does so, & if not this one, then the next. GISS is an anti-scientific, corrupt, criminal enterprise.
Respect to whom respect is due.
GISS rates none. It rates only contempt.
It is nothing but a gang of rent-seeking, con artist scamsters, cowards who refuse to confront their critics, who have all the evidence and reason on their side.
The sooner Gavin is sent packing back to his native island kingdom and Kevin to his, the better. Too bad we can’t save money and cut down on carbon dioxide emissions by putting both taxpayer rip off artists on the same plane.
This would be great if true. It means, in most oceans, I could resist fatal hypothermia in the water an extra second or two.
Oceans transferring heat to the atmosphere is not consistent with greenhouse gas heating. The heat would have to come from somewhere else.
According to NOAA’s sea surface temperature data set, there was much more ocean surface warming from 1908-’13 to 1940-‘5 period (+0.57 C) than there was from 1940-’45 to 2008-’13 (+0.29 C), despite only 10 ppm of CO2 loaded into the atmosphere during the early 20th century period (1908-’13 to 1940-’45), but 90 ppm of CO2 added between 1940 and 2013. So here’s what that looks like:
————————–
90 ppm = 0.29 C of warming over ∼70 years (0.04 C per decade)
10 ppm = 0.57 C of warming over ∼35 years (0.16 C per decade)
————————–
This 100-year trend doesn’t correlate with the presumption that CO2 is the primary driver of sea surface warming, or surface warming in general. Here are some graphs of sea surface temperatures that show these trends:
————————–
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/m/p/compare_datasets_hadsst3_logo_large3.png
——-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/ersst-1880-ann.png?itok=necBS6mU
—————————
Consistent with the deceleration of the sea surface warming in recent decades relative to the first half of the 20th century, glaciers also melted much more rapidly in the 1920s to 1940s than in recent decades, and sea levels rose more rapidly between the 1920s and 1940s than in recent decades as well. This occurred despite the much more rapid increase in CO2 levels in recent decades than during the 1920s-1940s period, once again establishing a non-correlation between CO2 buildup and a) rapid surface warming, b) faster glacier melt rates, and c) faster sea level rise rates.
—————————
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/659/2014/tc-8-659-2014.pdf
The data set contains the glacier length records for 471 [global] glaciers and it covers the period 1535–2011. There are glacier length records from all continents and at almost all latitudes. For the observed glaciers, the 20th century retreat was strongest in the first half of the 20th century.…. [T]he retreat is strongest in the period 1921–1960 rather than in the last period 1961–2000, with a median retreat rate of 12.5 m yr in 1921–1960 and 7.4 m yr in the period 1961–2000. [Globally, glaciers melted 69% more rapidly from 1921-1960 than from 1961-2000.]
—————————
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
[T]here was a warm period in the Arctic and Greenland in the 1920s and 1930s (Box 2002; Johannessen et al. 2004; Kobashi et al. 2011) at a time when anthropogenic global warming was relatively small (see, e.g., Fig. 9.5 ofHegerl et al. 2007). This promoted glacier mass loss at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Oerlemans et al. 2011) at a greater rate than the global mean. Although in L the difference is not striking in general (not shown; L includes 79 glaciers north of 60°N and 24 north of 70°N), it is pronounced in Greenland. Length records included in L indicatea greater rate of glacier retreat in the first than in the second half of the twentieth century in Greenland (Leclercq et al. 2012)
[Below is a graph pulled directly from the above paper (Figure A) showing much larger glacier melt rate contributions to sea level rise in the 1920s to 1950s compared to the present.]
http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/clim/2013/15200442-26.13/jcli-d-12-00319.1/20130821/images/large/jcli-d-12-00319.1-f2.jpeg
——————————-
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/59/2014/tc-8-59-2014.html
Even though the rise of global mean air temperature accelerated in the 20th century,the mass loss rate of glaciers during the second half of the 20th century was not higher thanduring the first half of the century (Leclercq et al., 2011; Marzeion et al., 2012).
——————————-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).
——————————-
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
Yup. Most glaciologists agree: we’re still recovering from the LIA. –AGF
Well, evaporation from the oceans move a whole bunch of heat into the atmosphere. Heat from the atmosphere to ocean as required by climate change theory is relatively trivial.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
““This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic (measuring started) eradication of the 30s/40s highs.”
There, fixed the quote.
Is it just me or does the RH end of the graph in figure a) in the article ( i.e. in the ‘hiatus’ zone ) have a vague resemblance to an ice hockey stick?
There are really two issues in play here. The first is the data itself and what you might make of it taking it at face value. The second but which must be addressed before arriving at any judgement is the crdibility of the data. The ‘credit’ of the witnesses who present this data as a lawyer might put it. And that is really where the problems start. This paper has a real whiff of the cops rounding up the usual suspects, planting evidence and beating/threatening a confession out of someone. i.e. No credibility.
Yes, the Great Global Waming “Hiatus”, now in its 19th year was only ever about SST’s, and had nothing to do with atmospheric temps. Atmospheric Global Warming (AGW) is so last-century anyway. Welcome to the new, Global Ocean Warming (GOW). CO2 has simply shifted its focus from warming the air to warming the oceans. Simples!
Bruce Cobb can say how you get to a “19th year” of the pause. Its a length of time recycled around the internet, but where does it come from ? Lord Monckton’s analysis of one satellite data set that shows the longest pause ?
Maybe here:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49307#.VGafWmcXKot
Favorably analyzed here:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-started-in-1995-says-statistics-paper.html
Yep, that particular statistical analysis, which chooses some of the data sets but not others, produces that particular result.
You don’t like RSS, used by Monckton. You don’t like HadCRU, used in the statistical analysis linked above.
What data sets do you find acceptable, and why. What is wrong with the others?
Thanks.
Discussion of a lack of warming actually began around 2008 when there was a 10 year period that could be seen without warming. This led to the 2008 NOAA SOTC and 2009 Knight et al paper which claimed a period of 15 years without warming would be necessary to reach 95% confidence that current modeling was in error. These papers were followed by Santer et al in 2011 which extended that period to 17 years.
This ended the discussion for many years until we recent first reached 15 years and then surpassed 17 years. The term “the pause” started to get traction over the last couple of years when alarmists could no longer deny reality. It really has little to do with RSS since it is evident in all the data (no statistical warming). However, RSS data shows the situation most graphically. On top of that it is kind of ironic since RSS is run by a supporter of AGW (Dr. Mears) who was a co-author on the Santer paper.
It really has nothing to do with Monckton.
Are we supposed to believe that these temperatures are warmer by 1:1000ths of a degree compared to those measurements made by chucking a bucket over the side of a boat?
How come we had to wait fifteen+ years to establish there has been no warming, but hey, overnight, warming and we’re off again. Even if this is the case, then it’s official recognition of the pause, which they denied. The same pause they and their models never saw coming. This was the significant point about the pause. If they got the last eighteen years wrong, why should they have any authority about the next? It poses a big credibility issue for them. They shouldn’t have been looking for explanations for where the heat had gone, they needed to explain why they missed such a huge feature of our climate. But I think we already know the reasons for that.
Eamon.
One spike does not signify anything other than noise. Let’s see what the data trend looks like in a couple of years. Also, could someone explain where data from sea surface temperatures a hundred years ago comes from and how you can compare that to temperatures measured with better instruments( and more data points?) today?
Catherine Ronconi I never said I “do not like” any data set. I merely pointed out that the analysis being quoted uses some data sets, not others and applies a particular statistical analysis to produce the long pause quoted.
In other words, different forms of analysis using different data sets produce differing results.
A bit obvious really, but there you go.
In the case of Monckton’s choice of RSS, it could be said its because its the one that on its own produces the longest pause. He is clearly not an independent voice when it comes to climate science. He has an agenda.
Anyway, let see. In the real physical world, there are strong indications that warming is continuing, as expected, and its over the longer term that any analysis will be more meaningful.
And you don’t have an agenda James? Now the ‘pause’ is undeniable, you’re quibbling for the shortest possible. Well, whatever length, the point you’re evading – here and above, is CO2 has continued to increase year on year… and yet the temperatures didn’t. You tell us it’s ALL about man-made CO2, there could never be any other factors affecting temperature. Natural factors could never affect temperature, only man and his CO2… So: if there was a pause – which you admit, then you’re wrong, and natural factors can have major effects, and actually, no the science is not ‘settled’. Good Science never is.
Despite your obvious prejudice, the atmosphere has not continued to warm. In fact, it has obviously been cooling over the past decade. We were told for years by alarmists that the best data set was RSS. Now you want to disown it. Sorry, but you can’t change your stripes now.
The pause actually consists of the end of the +PDO driven warming followed by the start of -PDO driven cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.66/plot/rss/from:1996.66/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:2005/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.66/to/trend
So, James says the “pause” didn’t start until 2004 (still waiting to see upon which data he bases that assertion), yet RSS shows cooling since 2005 and flat since 1996. HadCRU shows flat since 1995.
I’d really like to see James’ preferred data set and the reasons why it is to be preferred. Will pleasantly surprised when and if that ever happens.
And you don’t have an agenda?
There are no indications, weak or otherwise that the “warming” is continuing. If you imagine that there are, please present them here.
You took issue with a 19 year trend. You have been shown data sets in which there has been no statistically significant warming for that period and longer.
Please state what objections you have to the data set which produces the longest “pause”. Or for that matter the RSS used by Monckton. Why do you favor one which apparently you suppose shows the “pause” beginning only in 2004? Which one is that? Why should it be preferred to another?
Your agenda is on display, since you prefer the shortest “pause” but are apparently unable to defend why whatever data set produces that length is better than any other.
I take issue with the claimed Hadcru trend. The trend since 1995 is not flat. While it may not be significantly different to ZERO (at the arbitrary 95% level), it’s also true that it’s not significantly different to a trend of a 0.19 deg per decade.
In fact, the probability that the trend since 1995 is below ZERO is about the same as the probability that the trend is above 0.18 deg per decade.
It’s also true that Hadley makes no attempt to sample much of the arctic regions and whatever disagreements there are with the GISS methods, it’s clear that there has been significant recent warming in the regions above 60N.
A question a lot of sceptics should be asking is not what’s happened to the warming – but why isn’t there more cooling. We have low solar activity and a cool phase of the PDO (note the temperature dip in the 1940s) but now in 2014, a non El Nino year, global temperatures in at least 3 of the main 4 datasets are at record highs or close to record highs.
NOTE: Using a base period of 1981-2010 the mean anomalies for UAH and GISS are virtually identical.
The reason UAH won’t record a new record high is because of the relatively high temperature spikes in 1998 in particular and to a lesser extent 2010. The LT response to ENSO events is generally more dramatic that the surface response.
I am sceptical of Catastrophic AGW but it’s too early to make a definite call. A previous trend of ~0.2 per decade now appears to be offset by natural variability. If this continues for another decade then this increases the likelihood that climate sensitivity is low.
Don’t be ridiculous. The trend over the last decade+ is not even close to 0.19 deg/decade, even using the obviously manufactured GISSTEMP.
The long term trend is about 0.75 deg/century, or 0.075 deg/decade. It’s been there for far longer than CO2 could be responsible for it. Take it away, and all you’ve got is about a +/- 0.2 deg swing with a ~60 year period, also not due to CO2, which alternately adds or subtracts about 0.2 deg/decade peak to the trend.
‘that warming is continuing, as expected,’ true if you follow the ‘heads I win tails you lose ‘ method seen in climate ‘science’ has everything can be claimed to be ‘expected ‘ and no increase is the same has an increase.
Still if they every find themselves out of work climate ‘scientists’ can perhaps look forward to careers in astrology, reading tea leaves or contacting the dead , has areas where you do not need actual ‘prove ‘ your claims , becasue you cannot , and ones where strength of belief is far more important that strength of data , they are already well qualified , although sadly in these more ecology friendly times snake oils salesman is a dying career due to perceived the cruelty to snakes.
[Snip. Fake email address. ~mod.]
The hidden boogeyman heat has come out of the closet. Quick hide under the covers.
Figure b) indicates the Northern oceans venting heat. I think the system is working as intended. And they were right, the heat is coming out of the oceans. Probably to soon find the TOA.
Obviously two-hundredths of a degree in increased ocean temperature across the planet is really bad. We know this because two-hundredths of a degree is 1 hundreth of a degree higher than one-hundredth of a degree. Ok can I get my grant now?
While I am waiting for the check to arrive, and assuming these suddenly important ocean temperatures are correct, how is this increase in ocean temperature indicate the pause in atmospheric temperature is over? Apparently according to the idiots handbook of logic, if the atmosphere flatlines, and the oceans grow warmer, certain areas of ocean surface is absorbing the heat from the CO2 inflamed atmosphere, meaning surface temperatures have remained the same, which we already knew. It’s good that climate science has recently figured out that something that covers most of the earth might have some effect on climate and Ok it does sound good for a plot to a science fiction movie, but where is the evidence that surface temperatures continued to increase but oceans absorbed it? Do we just assume it’s true, before understanding how it works, like everything else in climate science?
Climate science has in fact spawned a new scientific method, called Assumptive Science; if you can say it, assume it, and you don’t have to prove it.
I dont think that rising sea surface temeratures mean that we must have global warming,it would be possible for the next glaciation to occur with rising sst .The atmosphere cools down faster than the oceans as we observe in winter in the mid latitdess, that we have winter in the mid lattitudes indicates that we are in a mild period of an ice age.
Why does this NOAA map [look] so un-alarming??
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html-
Better link here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/14/claim-warmest-oceans-ever-recorded/#comment-1788648
“This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started.”
When did this “systematic measuring” start? And when it started did it measure all points across the entire globe?
milodonharlani November 14, 2014 at 10:50 am
milodon, do you have a link to the study by Meehl? I’m not sure what study you’re talking about. The last time I looked at a Meehl study at your request, he was citing tree rings. Here was my comment at the time about Meehl’s citation which so impressed you:
As you can imagine … that didn’t endear me to Meehl. Since Meehl proudly presents the rings of one Chilean tree as some kind of evidence of solar effects on the earth, I fear my esteem for him as a scientist is gone.
But heck, milodon, break out your “evidence”, present for us the next Chilean tree study …
Thanks,
w.
Willis – can you substantiate your ipse dixit assertion that, quote:
==================
Although there is an 11-year cycle visible in the 14C data, it only represents about 5% of the swing of the 14C data.
=================
My search for relevant research indicated that, quote, “fluctuations in atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations have been caused mostly by variations in the solar magnetic field.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/01/splicing-clouds/#comment-1778025
Heck, WIllis, when are you going to break out your “evidence”?
Break out my “evidence” in scare quotes? Well, at some point I’m planning to write a post on it. And although I could just put up my graph showing the weakness of the 11-year cycle in the 14C data, your nasty attitude indicates that I should wait rather than provide half a loaf for you to snark about.
So you’re just gonna have to wait, Mr. Algorithm. A polite request might have gotten you something. An ugly request gets you nothing for now.
w.
Khwarizmi,
As you can see, “evidence” is something for Willis to demand of other people, and _not_ the other way around. How dare you think otherwise, you ____, you.
As usual, mpainter, you’ve missed the point. I didn’t say I wouldn’t provide evidence. I said I wasn’t going to do it in some quick, halfassed manner. I said I wouldn’t provide half a loaf in order to satisfy some unpleasant, antagonistic random internet popup.
As a result, I told him he’ll have to wait, and I tell you the same … so sue me. When I get around to writing a post on the subject, we’ll talk about it, and I’ll provide all of the data and code as is my custom. Until then, sorry, all of your whining will do nothing.
However, as you and Algorithm both know, all of the data on this question is out there. So how about you guys provide us with some evidence that my statement is wrong? Rather than wait for me to write a post on the subject, how about you do the math, you run the numbers, and you write a post on the subject?
w.
I’m not hiding anything. You OTOH steadfastly refuse to look at the dozens of studies on the climatic effects of solar activity.
A number of Meehl’s papers are relevant & easily found.
Here’s a recent one from AGU’s Geophysical Research Letters:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058670/abstract
Interactions between externally forced climate signals from sunspot peaks and the internally generated Pacific Decadal and North Atlantic Oscillations
Harry van Loon1,2 and
Gerald A. Meehl1,*
Article first published online: 15 JAN 2014
DOI: 10.1002/2013GL058670
Abstract
When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is in phase with the 11 year sunspot cycle, there are positive sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies in the Gulf of Alaska, nearly no anomalous zonal SLP gradient across the equatorial Pacific, and a mix of small positive and negative sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies there. When the two indices are out of phase, positive SLP anomalies extend farther south in the Gulf of Alaska and west into eastern Russia, with a strengthened anomalous zonal equatorial Pacific SLP gradient and larger magnitude and more extensive negative SST anomalies along the equatorial Pacific. In the North Atlantic, when the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is in phase with the sunspot peaks, there is an intensified positive NAO SLP pattern. When the NAO is out of phase with the peaks, there is the opposite pattern (negative NAO). The relationships are physically consistent with previously identified processes and mechanisms and point the way to further research.
Here’s another one by the same authors:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051977/full
The Indian summer monsoon during peaks in the 11 year sunspot cycle
Harry van Loon1,2 and
Gerald A. Meehl1,*
Article first published online: 3 JUL 2012
DOI: 10.1029/2012GL051977
Abstract
[1] An analysis of sea-level pressure anomalies at 14 sunspot peaks in the 11 year solar cycle in the Indian region in summer shows that the mean sea level pressure anomalies consist of relatively high pressure over land surrounded by low pressure anomalies over the sea. This signal is robust enough to appear when the data are divided into two segments. The accompanying mean rainfall anomalies, with anomalies as high as 20% above normal, have maxima on the coasts and over water and are an enhancement of the mean Indian monsoon rainfall. In the sunspot peaks the Findlater Jet appears to shift east and strengthen somewhat, consistent with the lower sea level pressure and stronger monsoon rainfall.
The article I posted is based upon this, which I’ve shown you before:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
The full report:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519
Andrew- RSS is air temp. Why do you prefer air temp over surface temp?
‘This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. ‘
remind me again how many actual measurements they have for what is 70 % of the planet , as we go once again down the rabbit whole that claims that one grain of sand form one beach can tells us about all grains on sand on all beaches , because we cam ‘smear’ values from one place across others?
And I would love to see the 1880 measurement tools that allowed sea temperature measurements with an accuracy to three decimal places , or are we seeing a little ‘statistical smearing’ here to?
Good question, knr. The Reynolds OI dataset is the one that is most used. It is a combination of ARGO float data, other in-situ measurements, and satellite data. So there is no number of “actual” measurements, since they include continuous satellite coverage.
The ARGO fleet these days is around 3500 floats, each of which makes three measurements per month. That’s 10,500 measurements per month, which sounds like a lot, but in fact is one measurement per 220 kilometer gridcell.
w.