UK Ocean Scientists: We’re going to Investigate the Pause

ocean-heat-uptake

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A fascinating rift is growing in the climate community.

While US scientists appear to be doing everything in their power to bury the ongoing pause in global warming, with questionable adjustments to their data, UK Ocean Scientists are refusing to give up without a fight.

On the basis of a 2014 paper, UK Ocean scientists have just secured a budget, to launch a major investigation into why global warming has paused, and to work out how to predict future pauses.

… In 2014 scientists at the NOC and The University of Southampton published research showing the important role played by the absorption of heat by the North Atlantic, Tropical Pacific and Southern Oceans in the most recent slow-down of global warming. The world leading ocean models available at the NOC will enable a high quality investigation of the wider role the ocean plays in global warming variability.

Dr Bablu Sinha, who is the project lead for NOC, said that climate change is recognised as one of society’s most pressing problems. The SMURPHS project will address the question of why the rate of surface warming varies on decadal time-scales and will inform government policies on climate change adaptation. This will fill important gaps in the understanding of the different processes controlling climate and how they interact with each other. Absorption of heat by the ocean is one of the most important climate moderating processes. The NOC will provide world leading expertise in ocean observations and ocean circulation models to help ensure the success of SMURPHS. …

Read more: http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus

Settled science anyone?

93 thoughts on “UK Ocean Scientists: We’re going to Investigate the Pause

  1. “said that climate change is recognised as one of society’s most pressing problems”
    how does climate change rate with cancer, or other diseases? I am always amazed about how those pushing CAGW don’t seem to care that money is being siphoned away from health care/research of which all of them are or will suffer and most likely die from some health issue.

    • “climate change is recognised as one of society’s most pressing problems”

      Recognized by who? Well, by their own good selves, of course!

      Global warming (aka climate “change”) is the evergreen gift of public funding that keeps on giving.

    • recognised as one of society’s most pressing problems by those in charge of grant funding…

    • It is pressing – we’re wasting money on it and unnecessarily turning our countryside into ‘brownfield sites’ with windmills and solar farms.

  2. “Dr Bablu Sinha, who is the project lead for NOC, said that climate change is recognised as one of society’s most pressing problems.”

    The SMURPHS acronym seems appropriate, but shouldn’t the PH be an F?

  3. Assuming that by “climate change,” Dr. Sinha means human CO2 emission-driven global warming, i.e., AGW, he is waaay late to the dock. The “heat is hiding in the deep ocean” boat (nope, not a ship, too puny a design) sailed long ago. A voice from SEVEN YEARS AGO (hear that, taxpayers? — your research-funding money is about to wasted again). Listen up, Sinha, et. al., you might LEARN something (lol, even though I shouted, Sinha, et. al. never even looked up from counting their money):

    Re: CAGW

    Scientists erect hypotheses to test based upon the fundamental science assumption of parsimony, or simplicity, sometimes grandly referred to as Occam’s Razor. That is to say, in seeking to explain matters of observation or experiment, a primary underlying principle is that the simplest explanation be sought; extraneous or complicating factors of interpretation, such as “extraterrestrials did it”, are only invoked when substantive evidence exists for such a complication.

    Concerning the climate change that we observe around us today – which, importantly, is occurring at similar rates and magnitudes to that known to have occurred throughout the historical and geological past – the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”. … The onus is therefore on Penny Wong and her scientists to provide some “evidence otherwise”. …

    attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record … [have] failed. … the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation. … That the correct null hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis is, of course, no reason why other more complex hypotheses cannot be erected for testing. For instance, … to test (as the IPCC should) the idea that ‘human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming’, … there are several ways … {And} the result, long ago, has been the falsification of the dangerous human-caused warming hypothesis.

    Failed tests include:
    — that global cooling has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide of 5%;

    — the lack of detailed correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature records over the last 100 years;

    — consideration of cause and effect timing of past carbon dioxide and temperature levels in ice core records;

    — the absence of the model-predicted temperature hotspot high in the tropical troposphere;

    — the low sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide forcing as judged against empirical tests; and

    — the demonstrable failure of computer GCMs to predict future climate. …

    Dr. Robert Carter, October, 2009

    • There is no mention in Carter’s post regarding ocean heat. The proof points listed in his failed tests all relate to surface temperatures. So how is his post relevant to the topic of ocean heat?

      • Chris. I guess you haven’t been reading about AGW for long.

        1. AGW says human CO2 emissions cause global warming.
        2. CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. (about 18 years ago)
        3. “Where did the heat that MUST be (our models say so!) happening go???” cried Trenber-th, et. al.
        4. The heat is somewhere…. it is in — the deep oceans! said the AGWers

        Dr. Carter is saying, essentially: AGW has been falsified (moreover, it has never even made a prima facie case, just speculation). Searching for “missing heat” is based purely on speculation about human CO2. All the “tests” of your AGW hypothesis show one “fail” after another.

        That ocean heat research is pointless is a direct INFERENCE from Dr. Carter’s failed tests.

        Further, there is the implied knowledge from other reading that I did not think necessary to include here, i.e.: there has not been one piece of evidence proving heat “went into the deep ocean.” In fact, the evidence from SST’s, etc, is ANTI-proof of this silly idea. There simply has been no observation at all that establishes this conjecture about hiding-ocean-heat.

        And, now, they want to run some more computer simulations… using the taxpayers’ money.

        If you still do not understand, do a bit of research (use search terms like “ocean heat … sea surface temperature” etc) and learn.

      • Further, to Chris:

        (quoting below a VERY fine scientist — since I am not one)
        From: Bart
        To: ThinkingBeing (10:14:48) {who said}: “That being said, yes, you are right, Lindzen doesn’t give a mechanism, just an argument against AGW, and I have a big problem with that. It’s not how science should work.”

        You have it exactly backwards. That is precisely how science should work. You start with data, then form an hypothesis, not the other way around. Lindzen is starting with the data. The AGWers started with the hypothesis, and have been trying ever since to fit the data to it. The data inform the science, the science does not inform the data.

        Someone on another board quoted Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character in this respect. I though it was extremely apropos, so I saved it.

        ‘“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Sherlock Holmes.’

        (Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/#comment-214909 )

      • “Chris. I guess you haven’t been reading about AGW for long.

        Actually, I have, for about 6 years. I’ve done a fair bit of reading on both atmospheric and ocean warming.

        “1.AGW says human CO2 emissions cause global warming.”

        No, AGW says human CO2 emissions are a major contributor (>50%) to the observed warming. That’s very different from your statement.

        “2. CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. (about 18 years ago)”

        It did not stop if you look at land based measurements, your statement is only correct if you look just at RSS data, and using 1997/1998 as your starting point. And even that is no longer true – I believe with Feb data RSS now shows a positive trend,

        “3. “Where did the heat that MUST be (our models say so!) happening go???” cried Trenber-th, et. al.
        4. The heat is somewhere…. it is in — the deep oceans! said the AGWers”

        2% of solar energy goes into the atmosphere, 92% into the oceans, and the remaining 6% into ice masses (glaciers, the poles and Greenland). That’s a ratio of 45 to 1. So it is perfectly logical to investigate the oceans more thoroughly, especially given the complicated makeup of the oceans when it comes to understanding the heat content (depth, thermoclines, ocean currents), as well as the limited temperature data available.

        “There simply has been no observation at all that establishes this conjecture about hiding-ocean-heat.”

        Wrong, there has been observation of this: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n6/full/ngeo2438.html

        If you still do not understand, do a bit of research (use search terms like “ocean heat … sea surface temperature” etc) and learn.

      • Chris, I can’t let that go:
        1. It IS fair to say that the basis of the AGW argument is that CO2 causes warming.
        2. Surface temperatures are adjusted, and if you use satellite and radiosonde data, it IS fair to say that warming has levelled for the past 18 years.
        3&4. The idea that significant heat energy can hide in the ocean is absurd. Quite clearly, with massive forcing from CO2, any temporarily-stored heat should have been given up. And the word you missed was ‘establishes’.

      • Chris: In response to Janice’s point #2 “CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. (about 18 years ago)” you say:

        It did not stop if you look at land based measurements, your statement is only correct if you look just at RSS data, and using 1997/1998 as your starting point

        If you have been reading up on AGW for the past six years you must surely have read Chris Monckton’s regular posts on the pause, and if you have, you will have noted that 97/98 is NOT the start of the pause as far as his investigation of it is concerned, it is the end. If you do not understand that concept please re-read and tell us why it is wrong.

      • Chris opines:

        …AGW says human CO2 emissions are a major contributor (>50%) to the observed warming.

        Yeah, that’s what they say. But with no measurements quantifying AGW, it’s just a baseless assertion.

        You’re a True Believer, so assertions like that are enough for you. But they’re not enough for skeptics of the ‘dangerous AGW’ narrative.

        Wake me when you can produce a measurement of AGW…

      • if you would know about ocean heat, then the only driver is the sun and cloudiness. If you would know the greenhouse theory (mid troposphere warms faster then the surface) then you would know why more importance is given to the RSS and UAH dataset by skeptics: they show the CAGW theory is blatantly wrong as the data is contradicting the theory.

        this taken in account that CO2 should drive more then 50% of the warming….

        Maybe something i will mention did never grab your attention but against AGW believers i do always ask this question: “why are the polar icecaps on Mars also melting?” (google it you will find the NASA studies saying they are)

        after long reads about that it is safe to say that Martian climate change is comparable to earth’s climate change, of course considering both planets their unique properties. (and for starters nope it’s not the additional CO2 from the CO2 icecaps as any excess Martian atmosphere gets blasted away by solar winds if it gets to dense)…

        i think that if the surface temperature record vs lower troposphere record shows the opposite of the greenhouse theory another mechanism comes to mind: land use changes.

      • In my view the difference between the surface data and the satellite data is proof of negative feedback. This implies a luke warming situation. While I also believe the surface data is overstated and result of well understood researcher bias, I believe there is real warming there. I also accept the satellite data is accurate as well.

        What this implies is the energy from the greenhouse effect is there but is efficiently being managed by the water cycle. There is no C-AGW. There is only M-AGW, a Mild and completely beneficial improvement to the planet’s biosphere.

      • “4. The heat is somewhere…. it is in — the deep oceans! said the AGWers”

        2% of solar energy goes into the atmosphere, 92% into the oceans, and the remaining 6% into ice masses (glaciers, the poles and Greenland). That’s a ratio of 45 to 1. So it is perfectly logical to investigate the oceans more thoroughly, especially given the complicated makeup of the oceans when it comes to understanding the heat content (depth, thermoclines, ocean currents), as well as the limited temperature data available.

        “There simply has been no observation at all that establishes this conjecture about hiding-ocean-heat.”

        Wrong, there has been observation of this: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n6/full/ngeo2438.html

        If you still do not understand, do a bit of research (use search terms like “ocean heat … sea surface temperature” etc) and learn.”

        You talk of the ocean taking up heat then give a link for a tiny fraction of the ocean. Here is a NASA link talking about a paper that showed NO deep ocean warming at all. Other obvious holes in what you said if you dont only follow biased sources but I have this nasa link handy.
        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

      • Chris – I find it curious that you argue strenuously that the ocean is the place to look for the heat, and then argue that warming “did not stop if you look at land based measurements“. Trying to have a bob each way?

      • Chris

        “2% of solar energy goes into the atmosphere, 92% into the oceans, and the remaining 6% into ice masses”

        You missed the 30% that goes into landmass. Better do your sums again.

        No, wait, I get it. The land heats up the atmosphere but the ocean doesn’ …… Ohh, no that won’t work either. …… Have you discovered evaporative cooling yet? I give up.

      • Land based measurements?

        Africa alone needs 6 times the monitoring stations they currently use globally.
        A serious % of data from locations with data are estimated and or missing a lot of data.
        UHI not quantified but only someone dishonest would say it is not an issue.
        Near 50% ish of land (only 30% of entire surface obviously) has no data, Greenland Antarctic Arctic amongst other places have sparse data.
        Homogenisation of data (some of it very questionable)
        The guts of 100 adjustments to the temperature record from 1880 to current.
        Finally all of the data is run through models.

        And you state the “land based temp record” as some empirical fact to be thrown around?

        It’s hard not to laugh

  4. Eric Worrall,

    Quoting the Hydro International news blurb:

    Heat Absorption

    In 2014 scientists at the NOC and The University of Southampton published research showing the important role played by the absorption of heat by the North Atlantic, Tropical Pacific and Southern Oceans in the most recent slow-down of global warming. The world leading ocean models available at the NOC will enable a high quality investigation of the wider role the ocean plays in global warming variability.

    It’s a bit confused to talk about heat absorption on one hand and a slow-down of global warming on the other. Thinking folk don’t have trouble understanding the difference between global surface and atmospheric temperature trends and net energy retained in the system over time when those concepts are clearly delineated and properly explained. Poorly written statements as the above which conflate the two don’t quite get there, but they sure are quotable, eh?

    Settled science anyone?

    I’d wager few people dispute that the Sun is the major input into Earth’s energy budget. Surely you would not be critical of anyone who calls at least that much of it settled?

    • Short wave radiation enters the ocean and warms it down several hundred meters. Short wave radiation is from the Sun.

      Long wave radiation does not penetrate more than a few microns as it is immediately absorbed by water molecules that then evaporate with that energy and what they had before – removing latent heat of evaporation from the surface – a cooling effect.

      Warm air blowing across the ocean increases evaporation (it’s why you blow over hot coffee) and as before each molecule evaporating removes latent heat of evaporation cooling the ocean (as the coffee is cooled)

      So downwelling IR cannot cause ocean heat energy to increase at depth, warmer air results in more evaporation cools the ocean surface.

      What is the hypothesized mechanism for heat to enter the oceans from CO2 induced downwelling IR or heat in the atmosphere?

      • “Long wave radiation does not penetrate more than a few microns as it is immediately absorbed by water molecules that then evaporate with that energy and what they had before – removing latent heat of evaporation from the surface – a cooling effect.”

        Err, no:

        “What is the hypothesized mechanism for heat to enter the oceans from CO2 induced downwelling IR or heat in the atmosphere?”

        This:
        The cool skin behaves quite differently to the water below, because it is the boundary where the ocean and air meet, and therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by conduction With conduction the steepness of the temperature gradient is critical to the rate of heat transfer.

        Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to the atmosphere.

        The same concept applies to the cool skin layer – warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean.

        http://images.remss.com/papers/gentemann/Gentemann_Minnett_JGR_2008.pdf

      • ToneB: Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to the atmosphere.

        Has that been studied and quantified? Increased DWLWIR ought to transfer energy into the “skin layer”, and increase the rate of evaporation (with or without increased temperature of the skin layer), increase the rate of heat flow out of the ocean to the atmosphere, and maintain the temperature gradient between skin and deeper layers. Water vapor pressure increases about 6% per C (at the prevalent surface temperatures), and with persistent wind blowing across the surface, that should increase the vaporization rate approximately proportionately.

        Back to my question: Has this been studied and quantified. I have read studies conducted in indoor swimming pools, but that is a windless condition with near equilibrium relative humidity.

      • Toneb references a Minnett paper and then goes on to say

        The same concept applies to the cool skin layer – warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean.

        However it doesn’t look like the question of DLR on the cool skin was addressed in that paper. Perhaps you could quote the relevent section Toneb?

    • Brandon, I have no trouble with the idea of the ocean taking up sun’s heat, even into the depths, if there is a rational scientific explanation or demonstration (empirical measure) of the phenomenon. But how would this be due to CO2. It would be hard to claim that it wasn’t a natural phenomenon. If the crux of the idea is that it is due to human caused emissions, then I would suspect even you would surely be a sceptic on this (you are aware that this “s” word is not a pejorative term and is therefore not an ad hominem as it appears to be among the consensus).

      With the volume and temperature of the deeps, tens of decades of this wouldn’t make much of a change in the water temperature. Indeed, if this water then came to the surface, it would further cool, not warm, the atmosphere. If this mechanism operates for many decades then we will have a sustained decline in temperature caused by a natural phenomenon while CO2 continues to mount. By the time it has doubled from 1950 levels, this gas will have shot its bolt for the future as it continues to rise.

      So many other negative feedbacks also operate on any significant heating that might be caused by CO2 – , speed up of evaporation/convection, clouds/albedo, etc. Even delta T caused by a bolide collision with earth would result in restorative feedbacks to the temperature band that the earth has been in for at least a billion years, although it might not be as benign to us and other species as CO2 seems to be demonstrating (the greening of the planet, of course is an inconvenient negative feedback, too).

      • Gary Pearse,

        I have no trouble with the idea of the ocean taking up sun’s heat, even into the depths, if there is a rational scientific explanation or demonstration (empirical measure) of the phenomenon.

        Start with: short wave solar energy penetrates to tens of meters, long wave “thermal” radiation only a few microns. So energy from the main source gets in radiatively with relative ease, getting out by the same mechanism not so much.

        But how would this be due to CO2.

        Increased downward energy flux at the surface. Net of cooling upward fluxes (sensible, latent and radiative) and assuming constant solar input, the logical result is energy retention below the surface until a new (pseudo-)equilibrium is established.

        It would be hard to claim that it wasn’t a natural phenomenon.

        That just happens to coincide with increased atmospheric CO2 levels coincident with human emissions? Natural phenomena are not magic. They can be, in principle, identified and quantified.

        If the crux of the idea is that it is due to human caused emissions, then I would suspect even you would surely be a sceptic on this (you are aware that this “s” word is not a pejorative term and is therefore not an ad hominem as it appears to be among the consensus).

        I’m plenty skeptical. That I believe the consensus explanation doesn’t mean I don’t critically examine claims or have ceased questioning my own biases or (lack of) understanding of the rather large body of theory and observation supporting them.

        With the volume and temperature of the deeps, tens of decades of this wouldn’t make much of a change in the water temperature.

        Surely correct on physical principles alone. Also consistent with observation:

        Regressing that against HADCRUT4 over the same interval puts the ratio of change at 7.60:1, R^2 = 0.76. Going to full depth, that ratio is likely higher.

        Indeed, if this water then came to the surface, it would further cool, not warm, the atmosphere.

        I assume you mean by way of evaporative cooling from the surface, with convection carrying away the latent heat. My first immediate question: what happens when the surface layer of the atmosphere is already saturated, or nearly so?

        If this mechanism operates for many decades then we will have a sustained decline in temperature caused by a natural phenomenon while CO2 continues to mount.

        The cold reservoir of the atmospheric heat engine is near the tropopause, not the surface. The process you’re describing here doesn’t make any physical sense to me. Additional heat into the oceans from whatever source coming out at the surface needs to go through the atmosphere to get out. How it can do that without bumping surface temperature in the process simply doesn’t add up for me.

        So many other negative feedbacks also operate on any significant heating that might be caused by CO2 – , speed up of evaporation/convection, clouds/albedo, etc.

        There’s nothing particularly special about CO2 relative to, say, increased solar output. Main difference is that increasing any well-mixed GHG will tend to enhance radiative cooling in the stratosphere whereas increased solar flux would not be expected to do the same. Otherwise, I don’t see why any of your other proposed negative feedbacks would not expected to be operative.

        Point being, if climate is so self-stablilizing as you propose, it makes it difficult to explain the 4-8 K global temperature cycles of the past million+ years of ice age cycles. In short, I rather think they’re not so negative as you apparently wish to believe.

        Even delta T caused by a bolide collision with earth would result in restorative feedbacks to the temperature band that the earth has been in for at least a billion years, although it might not be as benign to us and other species as CO2 seems to be demonstrating (the greening of the planet, of course is an inconvenient negative feedback, too).

        Well sure, a perturbed equilibrium system is going to tend to return to its original state once the causal mechanism has faded. CO2 doesn’t settle out like impact dust and aerosols do.

        That the stuff is plant food isn’t lost on me, but unless I come to find out the cost side of the ledger is less than the benefit side, I’m not going to be in any rush to advocate pumping more of it into our atmosphere.

    • Brandon
      I guess global heat budget is a kind of bolt hole or life boat to escape to when telling people that climate (which used to mean something connected with weather) is endlessly warming when it is not, starts to lose its credibility. But it wont work, at least not for long. Who cares about heat budget in the end? “All that concerns a man is man”. It is climate experienced on the earth’s surface that matters to the biosphere and us.

      For instance, there is evidence that during ice ages, deep ocean water is warmer. So according to a global heat budget, the earth could be as warm or warmer during glaciation than during interglacials. Does this mean that even if the earth started to cool toward glacial inception, you and your crowd would blithely continue to preach endless warming on the basis of some rabbit-out-of-a computer-model gain in budget heat? Why? Just to see, out of contemptuous curiosity, how long the general population would be stupid enough to go on believing it? Or because you actually believe it yourselves?

      • belousov,

        I guess global heat budget is a kind of bolt hole or life boat to escape to when telling people that climate (which used to mean something connected with weather) is endlessly warming when it is not, starts to lose its credibility.

        Global heat budgets are arguments firmly rooted in the law of conservation of energy.

        Who cares about heat budget in the end?

        People who are interested in determining whether the system is gaining or losing energy over time, why, and by how much.

        It is climate experienced on the earth’s surface that matters to the biosphere and us.

        Sure, and to the extent that tallying up the number of Hiroshima bomb equivalents accumulate in the ocean over time tells us something about how surface conditions are expected to respond, it seems a worthy, more comprehensive approach to determining what’s happening than simply calculating surface and bulk upper air temperature anomalies — which only tell us something on the order of 7% of net energy change in the system.

        For instance, there is evidence that during ice ages, deep ocean water is warmer.

        Citation? In the meantime, I offer Bintanja (2008), which is a model study (constrained to observation) whose output suggests a 5:1 surface to deep ocean temperature ratio over complete cycles going back 3 million years, with ocean temps lagging the surface on the order of 5,000 years.

        Since the Holocene Optimum was warmer than the pre-industrial LIA (and MWP) it has been argued that some residual heat from those warming episodes at depth have potential to throw of energy budget calculations attempting to use temperature profiles obtained from extreme depths. Other than that wrinkle, I know of no literature suggesting an inverse relationship between Tsurf and Tdo except, maybe, as a transient condition due to lag when long-term warming flips to long-term cooling and vice versa.

        So according to a global heat budget, the earth could be as warm or warmer during glaciation than during interglacials.

        Yes, that is a rather silly-sounding argument, which is why I’ve asked you for a literature citation.

        Does this mean that even if the earth started to cool toward glacial inception, you and your crowd would blithely continue to preach endless warming on the basis of some rabbit-out-of-a computer-model gain in budget heat?

        I’m not in a position to speak for everyone who more or less shares my views on AGW, but for myself: if Trenberth, Kiehl, Fasullo, Stephens, etc., et al. published a revised energy budget showing a negative (outbound) net flux imbalance and from that claimed more warming was still in “the pipeline”, I’d take exception to it.

        Nobody I consider credible is talking about “endless warming” either. I claim we know exactly what would eventually stop it, the real debate as I see it is how to do it and how long it would take for surface temperatures to stabilize.

        Why?

        Good question.

        Just to see, out of contemptuous curiosity, how long the general population would be stupid enough to go on believing it?

        Don’t be ridiculous.

        Or because you actually believe it yourselves?

        I certainly don’t. Come back with a reference substantiating your claim of surface/deep ocean temperature inversion and maybe we can have a more sensible and factual discussion about what theory and evidence actually say instead of what looks to me to be a distorted view of what you’d like them to say so that you can “refute” them.

    • Much of climate science research has always been about natural variability, an optimist would say that they are only mentioning AGW to deflect the wailing and finger-pointing of the green police.

  5. Hi from Oz. Markl – Sorry, I don’t think they have the slightest interest in investigating natural variability, because the IPCC terms of engagement don’t require anything but ‘human-causes of climate change’ to be considered. And what academic would even think of challenging the IPCC way of doing climate ‘science’?

  6. ..My friend just bought my cat a T-shirt that says ” We love the Paws ! ” ..Didn’t buy me nothin’…hmmm…..LOL

  7. “This will fill important gaps in the understanding of the different processes controlling climate and how they interact with each other.”

    “Fill important gaps”?! And yet we have been told by these so-called experts that the science is settled and action must be taken now.

    Fire. Them. All. Send. Them. Home.

  8. … ocean models available at the NOC will enable a high quality investigation …

    Model this:

    (youtube)

    LOL. As if.

    “Bathic phythicth.” Right. With equations like Navier-St0kes which have not even been solved (and some, no doubt, which have yet even to be formulated).

    @ The AGW Gang: Why don’t you just drop all that WORTHLESS time-waster computer simulation junk and just ENJOY nature? Life’s short.

    Hey… AGW guy? Leaving already? …. where are you going?…. Oh. I see. Time for the last round of groveling about at the idol altar for the day. If only you could see yourself… . Pitiful.

    • ..Thanks Janice, excellent video ! The power and beauty of nature is awesome, isn’t it ! Mother Nature laughs in the faces of CAGW doomsayers !

      • My pleasure, Marcus. Glad you liked that. Personally, I believe that God is laughing. Seriously, “… for he knows their day is coming.” (Psalm 37:13). He saw Climategate waaay before we did, you know. I think the dolphins and whales and turtles, etc… are laughing, too (see their smiles :) ? ).

        Re: the cute T-shirt. I asked my younger shepherd, Davy. He said, “I’ll wear it. What size is it? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT CAT?” The older shepherd, Riley, said, “Oxymoron.”

        Get a dog! They will let you dress them up — and smile :) (No, I do not dress up my German Shepherds. NO NOT EVEN IN A ___!! heh). It would have to be a little dog. Try a Papillon — cute and great personality (I’ve heard).

      • Janice, I’m not the one trying to put clothes on my cat ! My neighbor wanted to impress me by showing me that she understood the explanation I gave her about ” The Pause “…So she got my cat a T-shirt about ” Paws ” !! …Sigh… ( p.s. my cat’s name is ” The Claw ” for a reason ! LOL

      • OKAY! … say…. that neighbor likes you a lot Marcus… maybe… she is “the girl next door”… think about it!
        :) “The Claw,” lol. What a great pet cats make (cough). No, seriously, I’m glad you have a furry friend. But, still…. think about a dog…

        (glad you like the Armstrong tune)

      • ..” The Claw ” does not allow dogs in the house….or within 50 ft. of anything she thinks of as hers ( which is pretty well everything, including me ! ) , but she will allow butterflies to land on her head in the spring ? Women, sheesh ! LOL

      • “Marcus

        March 12, 2016 at 7:56 pm

        ..” The Claw ” does not allow dogs in the house….or within 50 ft. of anything she thinks of as hers ( which is pretty well everything, including me ! )”

        That’s my experience with females. What’s mine is hers and what’s hers is hers too. She’ll get a surprise one day when I put a mouse trap in my wallet. Shame I cannot do that with the tax man and Govn’t paid climate “scientists”.

  9. The University of Southampton published research showing the important role played by the absorption of heat by the North Atlantic, Tropical Pacific, and Southern Oceans …

    “BBC Weather — How Do Hurricanes Form?”

    (youtube)
    ~ 00:30 “The heat from the ocean will be the energy source…”

    We’ve known this for quite a few years, now, Sinha, et. al.. Guess you were sick a lot as a child and missed most of the fifth grade, huh? And the only books around your house were about how to invest in commodities and how to calculate future values, huh? Bummer. Well, now you know. Isn’t that GREAT? Now, you can log off, go outside, and take a look around…. ah. Beautiful. :)

    • What?…. Dark out, now? Oh. Well, then. Here — you — go! :)

      “What a Wonderful World” — Louis Armstrong

      (youtube)

      “They’re really sayin’, ‘I love you,’… .” Money doesn’t love you, AGW guy. Why do you love it?

      Oh, come off it. You are fooling no one but yourself (and I doubt, late at night, as you lie awake, trying to get to sleep… oh, that’s what the “medication” is for. Sorry about that — get free!).

      It is time to get real.

      1. You have demonstrated that you are not intellectually impaired.
      2. You can’t, with what you know, truly believe in AGW.
      That leaves..

      3. Psychotic.
      4. Money-worshipping. (power-worshipping is a form of psychosis, so that falls under #3)

      I chose #4 for you. COME ON, GUY! BREAK AWAY — YOU CAN DO IT!

      It IS, truly, a wonderful world. Stop simulating and LIVE!!!

  10. So, they are getting more money to investigate why what they predicted in the past didn’t come true? What a racket!

  11. I never imagined the nation that turned its back on Churchhill would then turn its back on climate alarmism. There is a tear in the fabric of broken logic that promulgates climate catastrofauxbia.

    • I am not surprised people turned their backs on Churchill. He was the right person for the job, during the war years. A buffoon before and after who grew up privileged and with a silver spoon in his mouth and assumed a position in the Admiralty before his WW2 PM years. Many people I know had no idea he was a firm supporter of the Feeble Minded Persons Act of 1912 which, fortunately, was never passed into law. He was also a strong believer in Eugenics.

      With regards to AGW, CAGW and CC, I would suggest that most people in the UK don’t care about the fact we’re being hoodwinked and being lead down the path to global governance via UN Agenda 21. Where it is our use of energy and emissions of CO2 that is the problem, not theirs. Where it is our existence that is a problem for the planet, not them.

      Most English I know would actually riot if Coronation Street, Eastenders, football or beer were suddenly made to be unavailable to “us”.

      And IMO, “Big Brother”, as depicted in the Wells book 1984, is not far off. If you look at the current crop of “smart tv’s” with on-board cameras, ability to record voice and track activity, all presently can be turned off, but for how long?

      • Patrick MJD says:

        A buffoon before and after who grew up privileged and with a silver spoon in his mouth and assumed a position in the Admiralty before his WW2 PM years.

        How did that make him any different from literally thousands of upper-crust Brit aristocrats?

        Also, many Americans and others in the West were firm supporters of Eugenics, as Dr. Michael Crichton documented.

        From this side of the Atlantic it looks like you have unstated resons for not liking Churchill. But he was the man of the hour, and without his leadership WWII might well have ended differently. Just MHO.

        (BTW, I fully agree with your other views re: Agenda 21, etc.)

  12. The answer to the lost heat is right in front of us. Smurfs inhail the CO2 heated air, and hold their breath for 20 years thus causing the pause. It also solves another burning scientific mystery; why Smurfs are purpule.

  13. I like the “how to work out to predict future pauses” the implications of course being constant CAGW with some pauses thrown in. Hilarious.

  14. Why is everyone dumping on these guys?
    They are stipulating to the pause!
    At worst, their research comes up with an “I don’t know”.
    At best, it shows why the models are wrong.
    More power to ’em.

  15. So…you get a grant to claim that the world is going to end, and then when it doesn’t, you get a grant to explain why….

    Nice work if you can get it….

  16. I would agree with DMH save for the nasty suspicion that the team will not be investigating the cause of the Pause, but finding another line of casuistry to bolster the settled science. Anthony’s experiences in investigating met. station temperatures is a case in point. Expect more torturing of data to fit the theory; same old, same old.

  17. They are no less corrupt than their american colleagues. This will be another exercise in finding new excuses for the non-existence of the pause.
    There is no way they will find anythng that goes against AGW

  18. Dr. Sinha says in the head article:

    “This will fill important gaps in the understanding of the different processes controlling climate and how they interact with each other.”

    My question: if a gap is “important”, then shouldn’t it should be left alone to do its important thing, rather than have someone come along and destroy it? The grasp of English (or lack thereof) by some scientists leaves me reeling.

    And BTW I wouldn’t have paid $1 to make this comment (see related thread).

    Rich.

  19. At the end of the post, there is a connection to the abstract on this story.

    If you read it, you will see all those involved are ‘the usual suspects’, hell bent on milking the system for every penny they can get. In other words, just another instance of grant addiction.

    The one thing you can be sure of is that ‘the usual suspects’ will ensure the cause of the Pause (estimated here to be only 10 years!) will not be the result of a previous over-estimation of the impact of growing levels of CO2.

  20. Unless certified stations unadjusted data shows significant warming the whole hypothesis was either and error or a fraud. So what if it did go into the oceans or was stolen by little green men. It means the mechanism was not as sold to the public in that we did not get temperature rises predicted. We were sold ugly and expensive wind turbines and daylight only supplies from solar based on incompetently collected or falsified data.
    Instead of spending on more climate research we should be spending on a criminal investigation into whether anyone knew the work was not as solid as claimed and if so whether they had any financial benefit from the misrepresentation.

  21. “…The world leading ocean models available at the NOC will enable a high quality investigation of the wider role the ocean plays in global warming variability…”

    Translation:
    ‘Give us money to live comfortably without concerns, program our old models into our preconceived model concepts of what ocean warming is and should act like; and to take frequent ocean voyages to exotic locations.’

  22. Thank you, Janice, for your video of the oceans. This provides the explanation for how the heat gets into the deep oceans. Whales and porpoises jump out of the sea because they like the warmth from the sun, and basking sharks, well, they bask. When nicely warmed up they swim down to the deep ocean looking for food, and take the heat down with them. There you are. QED.

  23. Even if you adopt a non-scientific but common sense view of this whole enterprise, you would have strong doubts about the AGW theory. The earth is four thousand five hundred million years old. We have evolved from a primordial soup of basic molecules into thinking, reasoning beings that can land ourselves on the moon and come back from it alive. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the Earth’s atmosphere must be VERY stable and resistant to perturbations from a slight change in a trace gas in the atmosphere? Surely in the geological past, there must have been countless times when forest fires raged unchecked, or volcanoes spewed billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, all while we were evolving into our present state, What is 100 years against this 4.5 billion year timescale? It’s absolutely nothing! My advice to the AGW crowd is to get a life and spend your scientific time doing something useful. If you still have to believe in this conjecture, then relax. We are homo sapiens. We’re not fruit flies. We can adapt to climate change. My ancestors came out of Africa which was probably a balmy 30 degrees into Europe which was wet, cold and miserable. They adapted and so can your descendents and mine.

  24. The “Pause” isn’t really a pause at all–it’s simply the continuation of a 60 year cycle that has been recurring for at least 500 years and we’re right on target. All you have to do is look back into the past and it’s very apparent what is happening. All of this is documented in my earlier papers and is spelled out in detail in a forthcoming book by Elsevier.

  25. Chris says:

    “2% of solar energy goes into the atmosphere, 92% into the oceans, and the remaining 6% into ice masses (glaciers, the poles and Greenland). That’s a ratio of 45 to 1.”

    This is correct, but you forgot to mention that solar radiation is an entirely natural forcing, not a man-made one. Man-made CO2 back-radiation accounts for 0.6 watts/sqm, compared to 332 watts/sqm for direct solar. That means the warming effect of human CO2 on the oceans is a mere 0.2% of the ocean warming. So while it’s important to study ocean warming, we are primarily looking at a natural process, not a human-generated one. Unless by “human-generated” we mean “created by our imaginations”.

    • That .2% causes a tiny increase in evaporation with the resulting water vapour rising high into the atmosphere where it condenses and the excess energy is free once more.

  26. Colour me cynical.
    Same quality of “investigation” given the CRU Emails?
    Where is that “recreated raw data” the CRU promised within 3 years?
    Investigating the pause?
    Using what data sets?
    Over what time period?

  27. I have seen signs that CRU/UKMO/GB universities have been, starting in small ways, to separate themselves from US (and let’s not forget the center of gravity of climate science idiocy – Australia) since Climategate. The resistance to M. Mann by British dendro researchers, (Phil Jones) the first of the Clime Syndicate to recognize the dreaded “Pause”, ocean acidification greatly exaggerated, this thread on the Pause is real, etc.

    The US branch will hang in, at least until the presidential elections and M. Mann’s lawsuit from which his escape is blocked by Steyn’s countersuit. Obama pushes the cash out there and intimidates his own gov scientists to come out with stuff he can use to kill US free enterprise and install the marksbrothers permanently. The pause buster science of NOAA was perfectly made to order for this.

    Ozzie Cli Sci?? Well they have been cut off (350 scientists are looking for bank teller and other jobs) and are whirling around ejecting random papers at great speed, probably a step toward going up in smoke.

    • “Ozzie Cli Sci?? ”

      That might be right GP. Or not.

      With do nothing Malcolm at the helm as the newest illegitimate and disloyal Prime Minister whispering sweet some-things into the greens’ shell-like, Australia can look forward to a repeat of the incompetent Gillard gambit of getting into bed with the greens for a nice little romp. The illegitimate off-spring of which is likely to be the reinstitution of a carbon dioxide tax or a trading scheme of one form or another. Remember Malcolm Turnbull is a product of Goldman Sachs. As such he can’t be trusted. Oh, and he’s also a politician; double jeopardy.

      The hope for the future now rests with the National Party and its agreement with the Liberals that constrains Malcolm from sending the economy down the gurgler with his imbecilic Carbon dioxide beliefs.

  28. I have voted Liberal for 45 years, but not this election, this election I will vote Labor. I have no choice. If I vote for a Turnbull Government I know the Party will be moved farther to the “Left”. The only way I can get a Conservative Government back in power is to vote the Liberals out. It is only from opposition the Party will change, so they must be removed from office. I know that Labor will add a further 300 billion to our debt, I know they will let in thousands of refugees, I know they will keep their corrupt unions but that’s the price I must pay. I see it as my duty to remove socialism from my once conservative political party. It’s a sad sad day.

    • Jim,

      Please consider voting for the Nationals.

      Even if the Nationals don’t run a candidate in your electorate (because of the “non-compete” agreement with their Coalition partners) for the House of Reps, you can still vote for them in the Senate and help lock out the eco-socialist greens and Labor while strengthening the only constraint we have on Malcolm the socialist banker and the rest on the left leaning Liberal Party.

  29. “Look! Nothing’s been happening for nearly 20 years. If this keep up, our entire way of life (research grants, public speaking gigs, media coverage, stimulus money, futile mitigation projects, government programs, and so on) could be in serious danger. We’ve got to find out why nothing is happening and put a stop to it, NOW!” – anonymous climate alarmist

Comments are closed.