From the University of New South Wales:
Small eddies produce global effects on climate change
The increasing strength of winds over the Southern Ocean has extended its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, effectively delaying the impacts of global warming.
New research published in the Journal of Physical Research found the intensifying wind over that ocean increased the speed and energy of eddies and jets, which are responsible in large part for the movement of nutrients, heat and salt across the ocean basin.
The increased movement and overturning of these eddies and jets has accelerated the carbon cycle and driven more heat into the deep ocean.
“Considering the Southern Ocean absorbs something like 60% of heat and anthropogenic CO2 that enters the ocean, this wind has a noticeable effect on global warming,” said lead author Dr Andy Hogg from the Australian National University Hub of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
“To put this in some kind of context, if those small scale eddies did not increase with wind stress then the saturation of carbon dioxide in the Southern Ocean sink would occur twice as rapidly and more heat would enter our atmosphere and sooner.”
Despite having one of the most powerful currents in the world in the form of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, eddies dominate the circulation of the Southern Ocean. Until this research, a major uncertainty around the future impacts of climate change was whether the eddy field would change with stronger winds or whether it would remain static.
Using satellite observations the study has given the first direct evidence that the Southern Ocean eddy field has increased in recent decades and that this increase can be attributed to the increase in winds around the Southern Ocean.
The intensification of winds in the Southern Ocean is a result of both the depletion of ozone and global warming’s affects on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The SAM is a measure of the position of a belt of westerly winds that circle Antarctica.
When climate scientists talk about a positive SAM it means that belt of westerlies has moved closer to the Antarctic. A negative SAM means the wind belt has moved closer to the equator. The position of the SAM can vary from year to year but the long-term trend has been for increasingly positive SAM events.
“Interestingly, we found the movement and strength of the SAM played the largest role in increasing the energy of the eddies in the Southern Ocean over periods of less than a decade but there were clear delays between the timing of the SAM and its effect on the eddies,” said Dr Hogg.
“The increase in kinetic energy of these eddies actually only became apparent a few years after a strong SAM event.”
Although the impact of SAM events over the short term was an interesting finding, it was the long-term trend over multiple decades of observations that gave a crucial indication of the changes occurring in the Southern Ocean.
“If the winds continue to increase as a result of global warming, then we will continue to see increased energy in eddies and jets that will have significant implications for the ability of the Southern Ocean to store carbon dioxide and heat,” said Dr Hogg.
“Remarkable as it seems these relatively small eddies and jets are doing the heavy lifting in the ocean driving heat into the Southern Ocean and slowing the impacts of global warming.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If the winds continue to increase as a result of global warming.”…..Said with stunning certainty.
Where’s the water vapor?
Global warming causes a pause in global warming. Is there anything carbon dioxide cannot do?
Laughing out loud!!!!!
Eugene WR Gallun
This could be the tagline on the masthead of this site.
It’s a negative feedback.
Quite believable. If Global Warming caused more warming we’d have burnt up millennia ago.
Logic is even worse than ” global warming causes eddies which cause no global warming”
Which is obviously bad enough,
But they are really saying that the reason global warming exists is computer models which are wrong. And the excuse in this paper is that eddies cause the models to be wrong thanks to global warming..
Which means logically that global warming causes the models to be wrong….
Talk about circular thinking!
It can do anything only as long as alarmists are able to keep inventing new and more complicated “epicycles” (or eddies in this case) to explain how carbon dioxide is at the center of the universe around which everything else revolves.
Nope. It’s puff the magic dragon.
Brilliant. You owe me a keyboard 😉
As far as I can tell, global warming has not benn able to make my coffee in the morning! Happy now?….
According to the models that should happen real soon now.
I am confused! I thought the majority of the predicted heating would be in far northern and southern latitudes, and with the decrease in the temp gradient, would not be a decrease in wind speed?
No, you are not confused. It is the AGW crowd who are confused. Just don’t pay any attention to their science, rather, their pseudo science.
The facts are that these eddies are the sorts of mechanism that the ‘models’ miss so no wonder these bozo’s find this all so ‘remarkable’ and ‘interesting’. Who would have thunk it that eddies might appear in a fluid system after a major fluid event!? Gosh you would have thought that the ‘models’ would have covered that wouldn’t you? I mean fluid dynamics… eddies… sort of go together don’t they in the real world?
SO it could be these eddies are a mechanism that do all sorts of things that these rent seeking climate bozos have not yet even dreamed about.
And all brought to you by the very same outfit that brung us the Trapped in Antarctic Ice fiasco featuring Turney’s Zeros.
UoNSW should change its name to University of New East Anglia.
Or beter yet: SNoWU.
It’s all in the arrangement…
How about: SNoWUse.
Driving the heat into the Southern Ocean????
The Southern Ocean SST has fallen (IIRC). Thus its ability to keep dissolved gases like CO2 increases.
http://climate4you.com/images/ArgoGlobalSummaryGraph.gif
Southern Ocean SST trend has been flat to slightly negative. Dr Hogg appears to be making a counterfactual assertion.
Not unexpected behaviour from the home port of the Antarctic’s “ship of fools” truly these people are a ‘suitable case for treatment’..
Yes, but but… the drop in heat is a sign of increased heat being driven into unknown hidden depths. There is 100% certainty that the mechanism is not fully understood and more research is required although there is 96% that the warming is there, somewhere, which is evidenced by the increase in area of negative heat at the South Pole, and the extraordinary rise in sea level of 0.001 Metres. .
Listen to me carefully, you are asserting that there is no certainty, therefore I will require from you a $150million to supply you with the answer and with the certainty you require. But….. if you accept myword that thats whats happening it will only cost you $1million per year to maintain the status quo! Fair enough? Let me know what degree of certainty you require and I’ll give you a price…..
Sounds like a good reason for increased SH sea ice. It is the one I gave when the CAGW proponents made a dozen other excuses for the increase in SH sea ice.
The heat is being driven so deep into the ocean that it is actually driving through the crust and into the magma. This causes more rock to melt, meaning more magma and hence more volcanoes.
Ergo CO2 causes increased vulcanism. Or at least my computer model says so, no matter what is happening in the real world.
Now can I please have some more money to continue my research?
/sarc
They actually do (really they do!) postulate that CO2 causes more volcanic activity, and that it makes frogs bigger, and frogs smaller, and causes more snow, and causes less snow, etc. The magic molecule, bought by billions of taxpayer dollars, all so the poor could buy solar panels for the rich.
David
Speaking of which (I love telling this story):
In Oct of 2013, I paid $36,000 for 11,000kW of PV solar panels. Upon installation & government inspection, I received a $20,000 rebate from my local utility (FPL, I live in Florida); In addition, I qualified for a 2013 30% tax credit of ($10,800 credit – not deduction) on the $36,000 initial expense (rebate was in different tax year). My net cost was $5,200 and it saves me about $3,000/yr in electric bills.
Thank you poor people.
To Chip Javert:
You gave a lot of information except the most important one.
Do I have to ask you what is (was) your electric bill before and after? You told us how much you saved, but not how much you paid!
Can you be honest and tell us?
My excuse for the thermopause is that it causes hot flashes.
Actually, IMO the real reason for the plateau in warming and onset of cooling is that the effect of increasing CO2 from three to four molecules per 10,000 of dry air is negligible. So will be going from four to five, should earth be so lucky as to enjoy that much more plant food.
“Considering the Southern Ocean absorbs something like 60% of heat and anthropogenic CO2 that enters the ocean”
very clever of it to only absord the anthropogenic CO2!
I’m not sure if you are serious, but when “the ocean absorbs anthropogenic CO2”, this is meant to mean “absorbs semi-permanently the excess of CO2 created by humans”.
You can be joking on this but many people around don’t seem to make the difference between CO2 time of residency in the athmosphere and the time it takes for CO2 levels to drop based on CO2 being sunken into permanent sinks, like deep ocean waters.
Yes there are many people ‘on here’ who do not see the absorption of CO2 by natural systems to be a constant. It is likely that the rate of absorption by natural systems varies considerably and increases when there is more CO2 to absorb. This is why deserts ‘green’, jungle growth increases, and ocean diatoms ‘bloom’ and there are no doubt many other sinks that become more effective when CO2 reaches reasonable levels.
I don’t think I said it is a strict constant. You can assume it is a function of several variables, however it does not help much if Sahara is a little bit greening. It ain’t variable enough. The gain of carbon in biomass in nowhere near enough. Otherwise you could replace coal with some biomass.
Climate forums are interesting in the sense that lukewarmers are shot at sight from two, three directions.
It must be really, really cold down there if 60% of the heat gets sucked in the ocean….
Is this the press release? It seems extremely garbled and to conflate heat and carbon dioxide uptake. Is there some kind or pause in atmospheric CO2 that is linked to a pause in calculations of global temp anomalies? Is increased winds a given that alarmists have missed, or is this a new discovery?
The answer to your question is no.
You can check the CO2 concentrations in air at the Mauna Loa Observatory site up to January 2015
CO2 has been increasing every year nonstop.
Since CO2 concentrations have been increasing every year and we have the monthly seasonal variations, monthly annual or monthly CO2 concentrations can be used instead of years on the X axis to determine the relationship between CO2 and temperature anomalies.
This has been done (data from climate4you.com) as shown in the graph below.
As you can see, there is no pause in atmospheric CO2.
You will get the same displayed relationship if using the annual values for CO2, the only difference is a slight increase in the R squared value since the monthly variations will be eliminated. However, I prefer using the monthly values. This way, we can check every month instead of every year.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20VersusCO2.gif
CO2 has been increasing every year since _when_ precisely? The Eemian? The Cretacious?
Are the proxy quantifications from stomata the same as the proxies from ice cores? If not why not?
If it was as high as several multiples of the current level in the past – why is it such a cataclysmic issue now just rising to an order of magnitude or two less than it has been?
RD50,
Again I object to the plot of monthly pCO2 vs monthly temp anomaly, where a second line above the x axis shows time (1958 – 2015).
On a monthly basis Mauna Loa pCO2 readings increase (currently) about 8.7 (+/-0.3) ppm in the 7 months from October thru April. pCO2 readings then fall by 6.6 (+/- 0.3) ppm from May thru late September.
Time does not run backwards, but on that graph it does.
To Ian W:
The claim of the IPCC is that WE are responsible for the CO2 increase due to burning fossil fuels and the result is temperature increase. So we must stop burning fossil fuels.
So ask yourself, when did we start burning fossil fuels? The Eemian? No. The idea that CO2 would have the same effect on temperature during the Eemian or any time period is simply not legitimate, many things have changed over time.
I look at the increase in CO2 in current time. Is it an important element, among all other current elements responsible for temperature?
We are lucky to have extremely reliable measurements of CO2 concentrations starting in 1958, just about the time CO2 started to increase yearly in a linear fashion above previous (read 1900) current levels.
So, this is what I am interested in. Is there a relationship? Look at the graph is all I am asking.
To joelobryan:
Time does not run backward. This is not what the graph is showing. CO2 is going up with time from 1958 to 2015.
And indeed CO2 at Mauna Loa should go up and down due to photosynthesis periods in NH.
The IPCC is blaming CO2 increases for temperature anomalies increases. True for a while as shown in the graph.
rd50
March 10, 2015 at 8:39 am
I really am not interested in who claimed something – their authority is not relevant to the facts.
In the past the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been hugely greater. The Earth is still here and has got cooler since the Eemian.
The claim that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide has been continually rising is also false it has not been rising from a previously low level, except that AGW proponents have used cherry picked proxies to claim that it has been. Like flattening the temperature peaks of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, the claim that CO2 has ‘never been higher’ is essential for the AGW hypothesis. As is the claim that atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing solely because the rate of re absorption of CO2 by Nature is a ‘constant’
To Ian W:
It is perfectly OK with me for you to state that the IPCC is not relevant to the facts.
This will cost you some money, replacing fossil fuels by….whatever.
The facts are, the politicians are listening to the IPCC and they really do not care about periods before 1940 or any scientific arguments about such.
So, if you know of something else more direct than showing them that temperature is no longer increasing at the same rate, within a period of time they can understand, please post it.
They only understand two variables: CO2 and temperature. Nothing else.
Some countries will vote against the IPCC and they need some ammunitions.
In case AJB missed this comment, I will direct you to his comment March 6, 2015 at 5:31 am http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/06/it-would-not-matter-if-trenberth-was-correct-now-includes-january-data/#comment-1876593
“In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.”
But you have the wrong relationship of CO2 to temperature.
Try: dCO2/dt = ?T
i.e. relate the rate of change of CO2 concentration to temperature. Like this.
http://postimg.org/image/a153d8xan/full/
It shouldn’t need pointing out that despite consumption of fossil fuels accelerating, the rate of change of CO2 has remained static (i.e. has not accelerated) over the hiatus period either. But there are some who must believe that the Mt Pinatubo and Mt Hudson eruptions sequestered CO2. Or the Amazon basin, etc. held its breath for a couple of years. Maybe all SUVs, planes and powerplants were mothballed but I can’t say I noticed that 🙂
Your graph does not show the increasing amounts of CO2 being released and the lag for the system to absorb it.
Seems like you’re confusing causation with correlation; since we’re in a 20-year pause, there isn’t even correlation.
We could also correlate temp anomaly with chocolate ice cream production, and I suspect the graph would look very similar.
I like chocolate ice cream.
To DD More:
This is what you wrote:
“Your graph does not show the increasing amounts of CO2 being released and the lag for the system to absorb it.”
Yes, we have calculated estimates of how much CO2 can be released/year from the amount of fossil fuels used.
I don’t need to show the amount of CO2 being released from fossil fuels or any other sources. The amount release is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much is in the atmosphere. I don’t care if WE (read fossil fuels burning) are responsible for the increase atmospheric concentration or if somewhere methane is emanating from the bottom of the ocean and being oxidized to CO2 while going up and being release in the air. The graph presented makes no distinction about the origin of the CO2.
The claim of the IPCC is clear: Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of more and more burning of fossil fuels. Can you deny this? I don’t think so. Some of the CO2 in the atmosphere must be coming from burning fossil fuels. No? And this increase must be occurring past 1940 or so. No?
Look at the data about CO2 concentrations from 1900 to 1940. Increasing? I would say a little bit despite not great reliability, but sure, I think increasing a little.
Look at the data after 1959, the absolute best and reliable atmospheric CO2 concentration we have, I wish we could have such from 1940, but the best we have is from 1959. Do you see now how nicely, almost linear, increase in CO2. For a better look, go toward the end of this post for a graph of CO2 vs. years from 1959 to now.
So, go back to the IPCC claim. Has the IPCC ever provided us with a graph showing the relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase. Never.
I am providing you something that the IPCC has never provided you. The IPCC has never provided you with any evidence of a relationship between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature.
I have tried to find such from the IPCC, but I have not been able to find such. Maybe you can help me find such or give me other evidence provided to you from the IPCC that CO2 increases during our time of increasing fossil fuels burning is responsible for temperature increase. It has to start with a plot of CO2 vs. temperature or something else concrete, not words.
You want to raise a lag for the system to absorb it? Let me know what the IPCC lag time is and I will try to take it from there.
To Chip Javert:
You wrote: “Seems like you’re confusing causation with correlation; since we’re in a 20-year pause, there isn’t even correlation.”
Did I write anything about causation?
Can’t you see what the graph is showing?
Never Mind!
Anecdotally speaking both this winter and last we had a noticable decrease in the typical NE trade winds here on Oahu. Whatever the cause, it makes me wonder. Last winter was just stagnant, this winter however has had a markedly atypical shift to winds out of the south and west. How do the CO2 data collectors at Mauna Loa account for the variance in fumes released at Kilauea and the variance in winds as well?
Ah, science masquerading as a “good news, bad news” joke.
We’ve got some good news and some bad news The bad news is we’ve documented a negative feedback which might derail some of our carefully inculcated panic. The good news, we’ve tendentiously blamed AGW for the bad news.
Now that was funny. Indeed I think the consensus is that a scientist shall try to always somehow blame AGW for the results, even if the results are positive (i.e. mean that we’re not gonna boil in a jiffy).
Amazing all the effects they’re finding that aren’t in the models. Yet the models are touted as reliable predictors of future climate.
But what do I know. I’m just one of those (insert D-word here).
With all these natural effects conspiring to cause global cooling, aren’t we lucky that we cranked up the heating at just the right time – otherwise we surely should have plunged into a new ice age by now.
Well, who would have thought that all these models on which the world has been urged to rely should somehow now be discovered not have considered the effect of eddies in a fluid system. Makes one ask (again!) just what else these costly models produced from even more costly research might possibly have overlooked… Maybe now we might even see them attempt to forecast the effects of the worst greenhouse gas? Namely water vapour…?
Its seems you assume that hundreds of PhD Scientists wouldn’t know the simple fact that water vapor represents the largest single component of the greenhouse effect. It seems you do, but don’t understand the important implication — that water vapor’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is nearly constant — only increasing slowly as planetary warming from the CO2-caused increased greenhouse effect increases the water vapor carrying capacity of the atmosphere.
NASA says not!
This is just basic science. If you want to pursue this, I suggest you post what NASA says that you mistakenly thinks contradicts my post.
warrenlb says:
Now it’s “hundreds of PhD scientists”! Ooh. That’s a big number.
Whatever would warrenlb do without his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy?
Why, he might have to think for himself!
warren says:
CO2 goes up steadily, heat content of the planetary system goes up steadily…
…and then warren has to back and fill. Because the planet just isn’t doing what his pals predicted incessantly — until it didn’t happen.
“only increasing slowly as planetary warming from the CO2-caused increased greenhouse effect increases the water vapor carrying capacity of the atmosphere”
The problem with that theory is that total water vapour in the atmosphere is actually slowly decreasing, as shown by both NOAA and ISCCP.
@tty. You have it wrong., NASA has it right. Over multi decades, the trend is upwards, about 2.5% per decade.
No.
The ghost of Tim Flanery’s funding strikes again!
……absorbs something like 60% of heat …….
…. put this in some kind of context …..
Sounds like something a high school student would write, not a PHD!
I call Bulltish on this, Yes there are winds, but increasing? another go at science weirding by UNSW – in the any excuse is o.k. when common sense fails!!
But they have decades of observations! Of what? I don’t know, but they have been observing by-golly.
The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science has proven the existence of God, and that It is CO2.
The point being missed by Mr Watts is that the annual increase in thermal energy (heat) being absorbed by the Earth is readily determined by calculation of the difference between outgoing IR vs incoming suns rays. So the comments about ‘hidden heat’ or ‘another excuse for the pause is eddies;’ are misplaced: The heat addition to Earth’s system is well known –the challenge is to accurately allocate the distribution of that heat addition to the planetary system — to the oceans, atmosphere, land and rivers. The oceans are a particularly difficult problem, because of their size, depth, thermal layers, and the relatively small change in water temperature caused by a given increase in heat content. Much of the ocean research, so criticized by Mr Watts, is done to get better estimates of the ocean’s share of the known planetary heat uptake.
NASA says not!
NASA says not what?
This is great stuff!!! The alarmists are now refuting their own posts. Way to go, warrenlb!!
Oh, and where pray tell is that?
See if you can figure it out. I very much doubt you can.
CO2 is not heat. That you, like the article, conflate the two, is very wrong. Increased winds are indeed movers of heat, and they acceleration of convecting air over water moves heat more quickly to space, not into the oceans.
The cause of the claimed increase in air speed is not CO2 related.
‘CO2 is not heat” well, duh!’ ‘Increases in air speed’?? What on earth are you talking about?
warrenlb March 10, 2015 at 8:00 am
‘CO2 is not heat” well, duh!’ ‘Increases in air speed’?? What on earth are you talking about?
———————————–
Do you not think it could be an allusion to “intensifying wind”?
Warren, mebbe has the correct easy answer You said, ” get better estimates of the ocean’s share of the known planetary heat uptake.” The post makes the same mistake. This is about cooler oceans absorbing more CO2 not heat.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
How much incoming solar radiation is absorbed by net primary production? It’s not a negligible number but the warmists studying Earth’s energy budget seem to think “For Earth’s temperature to be stable over long periods of time, incoming energy and outgoing energy have to be equal.” -http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/
So once the cultists learn basic science and then learn to apply logic we will all start taking them seriously. And until there are tighter constraints on the estimation for total NPP on land and in the oceans all ToA energy balance talk is hand waving.
And to drive my point home, here is an example of a published discussion on energy imbalance:
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/GEO2200%20Readings/Readings/Radiation%20balance/An%20update%20on%20Earth%27s%20energy%20balance%20in%20light%20of%20latest%20global%20observations.pdf
Notice how many times photosynthesis is mentioned in the paper? Zero. If they fail to even realize photosynthesis should be factored into Earth’s energy budget then they have epically failed.
It’s currently estimated that 190 zettajoules of energy is used in NPP each year. By my back of the napkin calculations (someone may want to check) that comes to 11.8 W/m^2 of solar radiation absorbed every second on the surface of the planet by NPP. That’s far more than the estimated energy imbalance at the ToA but is not factoring in decomposition and possible combustion of terrestrial producers. It is likely that the net energy imbalance of the Earth is very close to zero when factoring in the entire biosphere. And isn’t it ironic that they fail to factor in the biosphere’s sequestration of solar energy when it’s the release of prehistoric biosphere’s sequestered solar energy (fossil fuels) that is the primary target of climate alarmists?
Oh, really!?
They do not factor in photosynthesis?
I am floored. Have ALL of those chuckleheads have neglected photosynthesis? Surely not all.
With a quick search, here is a list of a few Earth energy budget papers without the word photosynthesis appearing even once in the paper:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.210.2513&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~rpa/PAPERS/wielickietal2002.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html
Oh there is a major error in the numbers used in the equation, 3 zettajoules of energy are absorbed by NPP, not 190. That explains why the number is so large.
Now it comes to 0.19 W/m^2 absorbed by NPP (much more reasonable) which accounts for 31% of the radiative imbalance at ToA. Still, something accounting for over a quarter of the energy imbalance should probably be mentioned in any publication studying Earth’s energy budget.
Unfortunately the heat addition is far too small to be measured. The results do not significantly differ from zero.
But CO2 keeps going up while temperature does not. Kind of counterintuitive to their theory.
Nope. CO2 goes up steadily, heat content of the planetary system goes up steadily, and the climate warms unevenly over multi-decades as weather patterns, ENSO and other oscillations of earth’s system carry on as always, while the long term climate trend is warming, clear to anyone looking at multi -decade trends.
The temperature isn’t rising but we are sure the “heat content of the planetary system goes up steadily” as CO2 goes up steadily. So where is this heat hiding? It must be where we can’t measure it, right? It’s fun to watch alarmists make up excuses for the pause. They keep inventing new and more complicated “epicycles” to defend their dogma that CO2 is the center of the universe.
You can see it here:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20VersusCO2.gif
The T plot on that is the fabricated surface record where a .4 to .6 degree drop was changed to a .2 degree drop. It also should run from 1940, the peak of the warming before the drop to 1979, the ice age scare, and the satellite data should IMV be used from 1978 on.
To David A:
You can call anything you want about the Tenperature plot, I don’t care dropping it by 0.2 degree, you will get the same trend presented in this graph.
I also used the GISS data (annual) and I get the same pattern.
Try it with any temperature time series you want, after 1959, the first year, actually monthly started in March of 1958, for which we have very reliable monthly/yearly CO2 concentrations and more than this, the monthly data showing us photosynthesis effect during the growing season in NH. Can you find a more reliable CO2 time series? The answer I know is a flat NO.
Nothing can start before 1959 for CO2 covering the modern period of fossil fuels burning, I would prefer a start in about 1940 but we don’t have such. We have NO reliable annual average global yearly data for CO2 before 1959 except from Mauna Loa starting in March 1958. If you have some, post it. I posted the Mauna Loa data on a post below.
I can’t believe you still believe in the “ice age scare”. Nonsense.
I would like to use the RSS temperature data time series and do the same analysis. I can’t, it started only in 1979. Too late for our “modern time” of observing an increase in atmospheric CO2 (absolutely undeniable reliable measurements at Mauna Loa), at least I believe in part but I really don’t know the percentage, of our burning fossil fuels.
RD, I understand what you are saying. I agree fundamentally with it. However, while I do not accept the “Ice Age scare” I accept the drop in T from 1940 to 1979 as being accurate, and I accept that the CAGW crowd did all possible to remove the blip, in the surface record you do use.. What I am suggesting is the correlation between T and CO2, is far worse then your graphic presents using surface T and Mauna Loa CO2. If you use the IPCC CO2 from 1940, and the 1990 global T drop, and the satellites mean of RSS and UAH from 1978 on, you will be showing a more accurate T to follow PPM CO2 ratios. IMHO
“I can’t believe you still believe in the “ice age scare”. Nonsense.”
I believe in it because I was there, I presume you are too young to remember it. Try googlin “instantaneous glacierization”
Jim G1,
This is warrenlb’s new Narrative:
…the climate warms unevenly over multi-decades as…&etc.
See, the climate warms “unevenly” now. warrenlb has to throw in that “unevenly” word to fix the problem that everyone has noticed: global warming has stopped. It stopped unevenly.
That pesky planet! Upsetting his carbon scare. Doesn’t it understand that climatologists have to make a living, too??
You didn’t know that climate change proceeds unevenly over multi-decades? No wonder you’re still lost in your own world of linear thinking, Stealey.
As usual warrenlb doesn’t understand:
Global warming has stopped. It stopped many years ago. So quit changing the subject, warrenlb, and explain why you are unable to accept that recent new information.
When the facts change, skeptics change their minds if warrented. But alarmists fabricate excuses. That’s the difference between skeptical scientists and climate alarmists. Big difference.
The only honest kind of scientist is a skeptical scientist. That leaves out warrenlb and his ilk. Doesn’t it?
See Claude’s post, below.
To David A at 3:43 PM
Not quite sure if this will be posted under your comments but I am trying!
I agree with your suggestions of trying the IPCC……etc.
I am just scared of doing this with temperature and posting it. I will try any T time series, as long as I can get it from 1959. Otherwise I will be accused of the typical “cherry-picking”, you know very well.
I am just scared of doing this with CO2 also, joining data other than from Mauna Loa prior to 1959 and posting it. I just don’t know how reliable such is compared to Mauna Loa after 1959 and will probably get into trouble here if I post such.
I am already in enough trouble here for posting this graph!
But yes I have done such and other stuff. I like playing with time series.
I decided to post this graph, obtained from climate4you.com, because I had very similar results with the same CO2 time series but with the GISS T time series. But mine used the annual averages for both. He used the monthly averages. At first I was very surprised, but this is really great, taking in the photosynthesis seasonal variation in CO2 is so consistent around the average. I liked that, better than what I had. Now I don’t have to wait a year to see what Mother Nature will do.
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
UNSW, the home of the “ship of fools”? We just make carp up…
The fascinating study of ocean currents also masks another issue with the “pause.”
In 1998 there was an extreme El Nino event which caused an anomalous spike in temperature. Since then the average global temperature has been steadily increasing until normal temperatures are almost as high as the exceptional temperature of 1998.
If you take the average temperature of a 30 year period, the unusual highs and lows average out to show a steady temperature increase through 1998 to today. Which is to say, there has been no pause; only interesting new studies of factors that may counter the warming trends over time.
I believe you already posted about confirmation bias; the idea that one freak temperature can be held up as proof that the average temperature since then has been cool.
Agreed. Thanks for the good info.
You need a minimum of sixty to seventy years to complete the positive and negative aspects of ocean medium term ocean cycles. There has been a moderate el Nino the past two years, going by current NASA estimates, and both RSS and UAH show the earth to be about .3 degrees cooler then 1998.
I dont see a trend difference when 1998 is included or when its excluded.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.8/mean:5/plot/rss/from:1996.8/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
I also dont see the normal temperatures being as high as 1998. Nowhere near that.
CBeaudry,
Correctomundo!
Let’s eliminate 1997, by starting fifteen years ago:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000
Global warming still stopped.
Sorry about that, warrenlb. Back to the drawing board.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/04/22/global-warming-has-paused-not/#more-25251
Here’s a stunning chart that proves that the earth is cooling!
http://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SkepticsvRealistsv3_0.gif
Claude, It’s amazing that the second graph of SKS, the Skeptic one, resembles Trenberth’s ‘Big Jumps’. Is Trenberth a Skeptic now?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
@CBeaudry,
That nonsense chart is typical of SkS propaganda. The interesting thing is that it’s convincing to the mindless alarmist lemmings: the less thought, the more convincing it is. With zero thought, it is 100% convincing.
The fact is that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. We are fortunate to be living in a wonderful, stable climate. The only ‘climate alarm’ is within the addled minds of the alarmist cult, as we can clearly see here:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
@Claud, warrenlb, icouldnthelpit:
Here is one of your great, green leaders. Contrast him with a normal person, and you will see how stupid climate alarmists look.
That guy is no different than the rest of you crazies. Really, no normal person takes any of you seriously, and Ted Kazynski has nothing on insane, wild-eyed climate alarmists.
You need to up your Prozac dosage ASAP, before you hurt yourselves.☺
That is not true in reality, as shown bu satellites. It might be what the cooked books of GISS & HadCRU show, but in the real world, no.
You need to update your chart.
What a total waste of time and money
VISCOUS THINKING
by Max Photon
Big Fools have little fools
Who feed on their “lucidity”
And little fools have lesser fools
And so on to stupidity.
* * * * *
Source: http://www.maxphoton.com/viscous-thinking/
Goddards work on temp adjustments confirmed by R Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/
Probably a very important event in the AGW saga. Its the first confirmation of fiddling by a respected climate scientist
yup, read that!
Alarmists have done all they can to discredit Roy.
Question: who in the hells is Small Eddie, and why is he in the Southern Ocean?
(Rotten joke, I know – but the whole premise of this hypothesis is laughable).
Then there’s this:
The chart shows predictions which are about the FUTURE, and compares them to CURRENT temperatures. Nonsensical.
warrenlb
Please look a\t the graph again because your comment on it is as daft as your usual contributions.
You say
No, warrenlb.
The chart shows predictions which were made in the PAST about what would be the FUTURE and is now the PRESENT. It compares those model projections for the PRESENT temperatures to CURRENT observed temperatures. This is called model validation.
Your are being nonsensical when you object to comparing model projections to real outcomes (but I have yet to see you provide a post which is not nonsense).
Richard
warrenlb ls trying to plug the big skeptical hole all by himself. His finger is getting cold and sore. Where are his alarmist pals?
Even they seem to sense carp when it’s this bad…
No Courtney, that’s not what the chart shows.
And here is just one of many comparisons of model output vs actual. Lots more out there- you just need to look instead of drinking your own bathwater: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
warrenlb
When in a hole you cannot resist the temptation to keep digging.
You have now compounded your nonsense with an addition of idiocy.
You claimed
I told you to look at the graph again because, I said,
My comment is simply true as anybody can see for themselves because the model projections were published in the past (which is why they diverge with time from their start time) and the measured values are plotted on the same graph.
Did you thank me for correcting your silly mistake? No, you wrote
warrenlb,
1.
I did say “what the chart shows”.
2.
Your link is to a book review that is NOT “[my] own bathwater”: it makes no mention of me or my work.
3.
My “bathwater” is this peer reviewed publication of a “comparison of model output vs actual”
Courtney RS. ‘An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre’, Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999
4.
I commend Kiehl’s “bathwater” which says the same as my paper except that he assessed 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models
ref.Kiehl JT, ‘Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity’. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, (2007).
Take a bath because you need to clean up your act.
Richard
Richard thank you for taking the time to show the complete logic fails of Warren.
At least he’s not in the space-time continuum.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9753-i-have-detected-disturbances-in-the-wash-the-wash-the
I have yet another excuse for “the pause”.
My excuse is that CO2 doubling in the atmosphere does nothing or is so close to nothing that it might as well be nothing. In other words, on net, the effect of CO2 is nil. This is the excuse they should use rather than stay tied to the Jim Hansen fantasies they now use to mis-explain how the atmosphere works.