By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: The world’s temperature is in the news again, showing that 2017 was another warm year. Now that it is in the record books, let’s look at the more important question — about future warming, if a new pause has begun — and what might be the political implications.
One of the most important datasets of our time.
Another warm year!
The world has been warming for two centuries, since the Little Ice Age ended. “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” {from AR5, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report). See the above graph. So we have had a lot of headlines like this: “For the globe, 2017 was the third warmest year on record and the warmest year without an El Niño present.”
Look at the numbers (from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance interactive graph).
- The total 18 year increase from the 1998 El Niño to the 2016 El Niño was 0.31°C (0.56°F).
- That is 0.18°C (0.32°F) per decade.
- That is faster than the warming of 0.11°C (0.20°F) per decade during 1950 – 1998.
- That is 4x faster than the warming of 0.04°C (0.07°F) per decade from 1880-1950.
We did not get these headlines during the “pause” (aka “hiatus”) from 1999 through 2014. The global surface temperature did not exceed the 1998 high (by more than the ~0.1°F margin of error) until the 2015-2016 El Niño. Scores of papers discussed the pause; scores explored its causes.
Climate activists responded by denying the science and concealing these papers from the public (examples here and here). For good reason. Frequent stories about warming are the core of their messaging. The long pause disrupted that program. They had to rely on scary but false predictions (more & bigger hurricanes after Katrina) and falsely blaming most extreme weather on global warming (e.g., 2017’s hurricanes).
What comes next?
“Mr. President, if that’s what you want there is only one way to get it. That is to …scare the hell out of the country.”
— Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s advice to Truman about starting the Cold War. Truman did so in his famous speech on 12 March 1947. From Put yourself in Marshall’s place
by James Warburg (he helped develop the US WWII propaganda programs).
Unfortunately, motivating America to action is more easily done using fear than reason. Fears ‘R us (it makes us easy to rule). So our news is presented as a series of hysteric fits. That is why we live in the crisis crisis. Hence the misuse of the worst-scenario in the IPCC’s AR5 (RCP8.5), ubiquitously described by activists as the “business as usual” scenario (which it is not; it is unlikely — and becoming more so).
That’s why the pause had such a large political effect, disproportionate to its significance to scientists — it interrupted the flow of scary stories about global temperature records.
What happens if we get another plateau, a step up only one or two tenths of a degree C (0.2 or 0.3°F) higher than the previous plateau? A pause perhaps lasting 10 or 15 years. Can the climate policy campaign continue without new record highs in temperature? A post by James Hanson et al. describes why this is “plausible, if not likely” — “Global Temperature in 2017.” Excerpt…
“The record 2016 temperature was abetted by the effects of both a strong El Niño and maximum warming from the solar irradiance cycle. …Therefore, because of the combination of the strong 2016 El Niño and the phase of the solar cycle, it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’. …Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.”
A new pause might already have begun. To see tentative signs of a new plateau, watch the YoY seasonal temperature changes in temperature. Like the following graph showing the average temperature per year for October to December. The September – December and August – December graphs are similar, but weaker. The passage of time will tell the answer.
What do Activists have without new temperature records? Thirty years of blaming extreme cold and warm, drought and floods, on CO2 has accomplished little (details here). Activists’ favorite tactic of focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
Activists could try science instead. Stop exaggerating the research, stick with reports from the IPCC and major climate agencies, and accurately describe the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. Of course, that is not as scary as their usual tactics.
Why the (possible) stair steps in warming? (updated)
Where did the heat come from in the massive warming during the 2014-2016 El Nino period? A new paper proposes an answer: “Big Jump of Record Warm Global Mean Surface Temperature in 2014-2016 Related to Unusually Large Oceanic Heat Releases” by Jianjun Yin et al. in Geophysical Research Letters (in press).
A recent paper give an explanation of this pattern: “Reconciling the signal and noise of atmospheric warming on decadal timescales“ by Roger N. Jones and James H. Ricketts in Earth System Dynamics, 8 (1), 2017 — Abstract…
“Interactions between externally forced and internally generated climate variations on decadal timescales is a major determinant of changing climate risk. Severe testing is applied to observed global and regional surface and satellite temperatures and modelled surface temperatures to determine whether these interactions are independent, as in the traditional signal-to-noise model, or whether they interact, resulting in step-like warming.
“This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.”
This paper points us to another perspective on climate change. Ocean heat content (OHC) is in many ways the best metric of warming. This was controversial when Roger Pielke Sr. first said it in 2003 (despite his eminent record, Skeptical Science called him a “climate misinformer” – for bogus reasons). Some scientists point to changes in the ocean’s heat content as an explanation for the pause.
Graphs of OHC should convert any remaining deniers of global warming (there are some out there). This shows the increasing temperature of the top 700 meters of the oceans, from NOAA’s OHC page. See here for more information about the increase in OHC. It is in a sense the clearest metric of global warming. Why do we not see this graph more often? Probably because it is not scary.
That’s all a sideshow. Here’s the center ring.
Information about past and present warming is important. But for making public policy decisions, we need to know about future warming. What are the odds of severe warming during the 21st century? There is no easy answer, and no consensus of climate scientists about it. So climate activists either ignore the research (e.g., the 4 scenarios described in AR5) or focus on the worst of these (the truly horrific RCP8.5) while ignoring its unlikely assumptions.
So far the weather has sided with the skeptics, with little of the extreme weather activists predicted. No surge of hurricanes after Katrina (despite the predictions). No sign of the methane monster. Northern hemisphere snow extent has risen since in both the Fall and the Winter. There is little evidence that we have passed one of the often declared “tipping points”.
The smart way to bet is on inaction, as both sides continue their food fight while climate scientists make incremental progress (insufficient to affect the public policy debate. America will not prepare for the repeat of past extreme weather, let alone what we can reasonably expect in the future.
There are ways to break this deadlock, but neither climate scientists nor the US government will push for them. So we hope for pleasant weather. Hope is not a plan.
For More Information
For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, and especially these …
- How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- My proposal: Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- Thomas Kuhn tells us what we need to know about climate science.
- Daniel Davies’ insights about predictions can unlock the climate change debate.
- Karl Popper explains how to open the deadlocked climate policy debate.
- Paul Krugman talks about economics. Climate scientists can learn from his insights.
- Milton Friedman’s advice about restarting the climate policy debate.
- We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
It is always joyful to read these posts from Kummer. They are the voice of reason at the time of a climate war.
Where’s the reason? Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
adapt and overcome.
I agree that adapt and overcome is the most reasoned course of action, but I don’t see that in the article. I’m not sure what the point of the article is. The last two paragraphs are confused and don’t succeed in summarizing the mishmash that precedes them
icisil,
“The last two paragraphs are confused and don’t succeed in summarizing the mishmash that precedes them”
(1) Why do you consider them to be a “mishmash”? What “confused” you?
(2) Let’s replay the tape for you.
Rather than giving a summary of the post, this section shifts the subject of the discussion.
This is a statement of the problem.
This says that there are solutions. Scroll down an inch and you’ll see posts describing the solution – from multiple perspectives.
I don’t click on those links because they go to your website. Was that the whole purpose of your post?
(His post was allowed by Anthony, the owner of this site) MOD
“(His post was allowed by Anthony, the owner of this site) MOD”
Sure, I know that and don’t have an issue with it. Just trying to determine if Larry is trying to engage us here or there. Hard to engage him here when what he’s trying to say isn’t here.
icisil,
“I don’t click on those links because they go to your website.”
I asked for an explanation of your comment, and replied to your statements.
That’s the best you can do in reply? Well, that tells us all we need to know about your comments.
> be me
> “Ad Hom, come over here a sec. I think Larry’s talking to you. I’m gonna go have a beer.”
Warm? warm? where? it was average at my house, on my farm here in Niagara Canada. What is warm anyway – are the arctic and antarctic temps included in the planetary ‘warm’ numbers – what the frig does planetary ‘warmer than previous’ even mean?
Joe Bastardi, a U.S meteorologist at weatherbell.com says that the reason the global temps are reading so high from the satellite data is because of the above average temps in the Arctic during winter. Five degrees rise in the average winter temps there wont melt any ice, but it certainly makes small changes in the satellite numbers upwards. Last summer the daily temps were below the mean most of the time, but the difference was microscopic.
Rick,
“it was average at my house, ”
You must be kidding us.
“what the frig does planetary ‘warmer than previous’ even mean?”
Yes, you’re kidding us. Very funny!
It’s probably bad luck to disagree
with a “Hugs”
who is “joyful” … but …
I think this is the ‘black swan”
of Kummer articles here.
And that’s not good like a white swan
(not that there is anything
wrong with black swans).
I seriously wonder if Kummer
was drinking while typing!
And I don’t mean water!
If not, then he should
start drinking while typing!
This article is one big non sequitur,
perhaps the biggest non sequitur
of all time!
” … the pause … interrupted the flow
of scary stories about
global temperature records.”
You must be kidding!
Almost no one away from here
who reads the mainstream media
(95% of the general public)
even knew there was a “pause”.
And of course the “pause”
has already been
“adjusted” away
in the surface data.
In my opinion,
and this is subjective,
the scary stories
of the future climate
GOT WORSE,
during the pause,
as a method for
distracting people
from the present temperature,
which was in a flat trend
until the “adjustments”
fixed that.
“A new pause might
already have begun”.
The warmunists claim
they can predict
the future climate.
That claim is a hoax.
We skeptics should not predict
the future climate, or speculate
about the future climate, to show
that real science is much more
than wild guess speculation
and wrong predictions
of fake (junk) climate science.
That didn’t stop Mr. Kummer !
“The smart way to bet
is on inaction …”
Huh?
You can’t “bet on inaction”
because there is already
a LOT of action taking place,
— trillions of dollars already spent
over many decades, and no sign
the subsidies for wind mills,
solar energy and electric cars
will ever end.
It’s our job to tell people
the climate is wonderful,
and they should be enjoying
the warmer nights — rather than
listening to wild guess
extrapolations of (mild, harmless)
warming into an imaginary climate
catastrophe in 100 years !
” … as both sides continue
their food fight …”
Huh?
Food fight?
There is no fight.
The warmunists do not debate.
They only character attack.
Skeptics may try to fight
with logic and real science,
but there is no “fight” when
one side shows up!
Warmunists refuse to engage
with us, so they can dismiss us with
their vicious character attacks:
The Saul Alinsky method
tells students that debating someone
gives them credibility
— so you do not debate !
You ridicule them
as being unworthy of debate!
Science deniers!
Meanwhile, schools brainwash
more and more children
decade after decade
about “evil CO2″..
” … while climate scientists
make incremental progress …”
What progress?
No progress!
Regression!
Wilder and wilder claims
of doom ahead. So bad that
I started my own climate blog
to refute the nonsense.
They claimed CO2 will cause
runaway warming decades ago,
and they still make the same
nonsense claim today.
What progress?
“There are ways to break
this deadlock,
but neither climate scientists
nor the US government
will push for them.”
Shouldn’t you at least
have the courtesy
of giving readers
one or two examples?
“So we hope for pleasant weather.”
Meaningless platitude!
“Hope is not a plan.”
Meaningless platitude!
And the good news:
(1)
“ubiquitously” was spelled right !
(2)
The next Larry Kummer article
will be much better than this one,
just like the past
Larry Kummer articles were.
My climate blog
Over 14,000 page views so far:
Leftists must stay away !
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Well stated. As reasonable as Larry reads on first glance, the more issues emerge over time.
The 17+ year pause (and we were told that >15 years,would mean big problems eith the consensus) was ridiculed, alarmism was hyped more and more, “communication” of climate (lying) became a huge industry.
Richard,
I was excited at first, thinking this was a poem (due to the formatting). I’m disappointed to see that it is a series of reading FAILs. I’ll mention just one.
“Shouldn’t you at least have the courtesy of giving readers one or two examples? {of ways to break the deadlock}?
Scroll down one inch and you’ll see links to eight posts on that very subject.
Reply to Kummer 10:56 am
concerning his pitiful first reply
to the above long comment I made:
I wrote:
“Shouldn’t you at least have the courtesy
of giving readers one or two examples?
{of ways to break the deadlock}?
.
.
.
Your pitiful reading FAIL 10:56am reply:
“Scroll down one inch and you’ll see links
to eight posts on that very subject”
.
.
.
I now write:
I asked for one or two examples
in the article published here
— could be one sentence,
maybe two.
I know you provided eight links
to eight other articles.
Do you not realize
there a BIG difference
between reading
“one or two examples”
written by you,
versus reading EIGHT ARTICLES,
which I don’t have time for?
I assume you read the articles.
I’m glad you were “excited”
thinking at first that my formatting
meant I wrote a poem about you.
Kummer:
“Have some more drinks,
your latest article stinks.
There, I wrote a poem.
I look forward to telling
you in a comment
that your next article
was a good as all your
other articles … before today.
No one bats 1.000
It is highly doubtful that 2017, or any time since temperature measurement started at pretty much the coldest period in 10,000 years, is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, and certainly nowhere near as warm as the RWP and the Holocene optimum.
By VERY thankful that we are no longer back in the LIA
Be VERY thankful we live in the Modern SLIGHTLY warm Period.
Be VERY thankful that fossil fuels have enable mankind to develop to the stage where he can control the local environment to some small degree
If you don’t like it…… go back and live in a hand built bark hovel with no power, and no modern conveniences.
Andy,
Your comment does not appear to address anything in this post.
The point is not that 2017 was horrific, but that the warming trend will eventually cause problems.
As usual in science, the key questions are “when” and “how much.” The public policy debate is about the best responce to those answers.
That the warming trend will eventually cause (net) problems has not been well established, and that even RCP 8.5 in all its unlikely glory would cause *catastrophic* problems to actual humans hasn’t remotely been established. There is no settled science in the economic models, and the real world results of the warming so far seems to have been net beneficial even without the large assist from CO2 fertilization.
There are three areas of uncertainty that directly impact the policy debate:
1) What is the transient and eventual climate sensitivity of CO2 doubling?
2) What would be the practical real-world effect of an anomaly change of T over Y years?
3) In the light of the answers to #1 and #2, what public policy, if any, is justified?
In the light of vast uncertainty, adaptation seems vastly preferable to mitigation as a public policy, largely because adaptation provides either deferred costs or immediate benefits, while mitigation can only provide deferred hypothetical benefits with immediate costs.
I’m thankful that the people of America and Europe in 1850-1950 performed an uncontrolled CO2 experiment rather than leave coal and petroleum in the ground for fear that future generations would otherwise have to cope with a small increase in temperature. Had they chosen the path of mitigation rather than force adaption on us, their FAR richer successors, we would be VASTLY worse off. Given that the ridiculously unlikely RCP 8.5 *requires* a far richer world in order to generate the emissions necessary, I’m not terribly worried about them lacking the resources to adapt.
Larry, your “warming trend” over the 18 years from El Nino to El Nino is nothing but a cherry pick. The 2018 El Nino was followed immediately by a 3 year La Nina. You won’t have apples to apples until we experience a similar La Nina. Might be starting this year.
Sorry, but you are fooling yourself. Using poor surface data just exaggerates your poor choice. As is clear from UAH data there was no warming at all from 1998-2015. Until you decide to use the best scientific data you will not get anyone to accept your views and believing that a one year super El Nino creates a trend is about as anti-science as it gets.
The Christy/McNider paper gives you a better view. It shows a warming of .08 C/decade when applied to UAH 6. It also avoids the cherry picking problem. However, it is still somewhat overstating man’s impact since it doesn’t account for the effect of the AMO on the Arctic..
Richard,
(1) “your ‘warming trend’ over the 18 years from El Nino to El Nino is nothing but a cherry pick.”
That’s wrong in several ways. Quite the reading FAIL!
First, all presentations of datasets are a “cherry pick.” Since El Nino has such a large impact on decadal temp data, showing data from peak to peak is a common way of looking at the numbers.
Second, and more important, I also show longer periods. The graph shows the period in which AR5 says AGW was more than half of warming: the 1950 – 2017 trend of 0.14°C per decade. The text shows the the trend for two subperiods: 1998-2016 and 1950-1998 — and the earlier part of the record 1880-1950.
(2) “Until you decide to use the best scientific data”
Most climate scientists disagree with you. They consider the surface and ocean temperature data to be more accurate than the satellite data. That includes the Dr. Mears of Remote Sensing Systems, who produces one of the two major sat temp datasets (prefers the surface atmos data) and Roger Pielke Sr. (preferes ocean temp data).
(3) “you will not get anyone to accept your views and believing that a one year super El Nino creates a trend …”
As that shows, the rest of your comment is more reading FAILs. This post says the opposite of that.
Trends only cause problems when they continue.
You have not proven that the current trend will continue.
MarkW,
“You have not proven that the current trend will continue.”
Let’s replay the last section to remind you about what I said.
Public policy about almost everything is seldom made on the basis of “proof” because we usually have incomplete data and limited understanding of the dynamics. That’s why we look at trends, and make reasonable inferences about the future — and take prudent steps.
My recommendations are to prepare for the likely repeat of past extreme weather (e.g., from the past century or two) — and push to break the deadlock (see the posts describing how to do so).
“but that the warming trend will eventually cause problems.”
Sure, as if.
Take that OHC graph, please explain how they have any idea of OHC before 2003 and ARGO.
Limited measurements, and we can be sure there is no 1940’s peak,
The data is just NOT THERE to say anything about trends and they will continue .
Unless you want to live in a land of make-believe.
“Second, and more important, I also show longer periods”
roflmao,
Why not go back , with raw data to the 1930’s
We know the late 1930s in the NH was probably about the same temperature as now.
And what data there is from the SH shows around the 1900 period warmer than now.
Your pretence that you are not cherry picking the upward leg of a known cycle is really quite disingenuous and shows that you are not taking the facts seriously.
Kummer sez:
” As usual in science, the key questions
are “when” and “how much.” ”
When = no one knows
How much = no one knows
There! I’ve answered the questions!
The climate change hoax
is to predict
a future climate crisis,
when no one
has the knowledge
to predict
the future climate.
The climate change hoax is to claim
there is something wrong with the
present climate, and convince people
that warming is bad news
… when the present climate is wonderful
and warming is good news!
The measurements are haphazard,
especially the surface data with
over half of our planet’s surface
infilled with wild guesses by people
who WANT to show
more global warming
… and they do.
Skeptics should avoid
using surface data when
a better alternative is available,
or at least place surface
and satellite charts side by side
to show the measurements
are not “settled”.
The ONLY way to refute the climate change
hoax is quite a few years of obviously
cold weather — so obvious no one needs
temperature anomaly charts to feel it !
The climate change hoax, during the recent
flat trend from the early 2000s to 2015
before the El Nino, depended on a HUGE
conflict of interest — the goobermint
bureaucrats who predict the coming
global warming crisis ALSO compile
the global average surface temperature —
and that means THEY decide whether or
not to report warming.
And there was going to be
global warming if they had
to use hundredths of a degree C.
“adjustments” to get there!
Mr. Kummer, unless it is so cold
one year that everyone knows there was
no warming (not likely) we will likely never in
our lifetime be told by any government
bureaucrat that one year was
COOLER than the prior year!
The official goobermint “data”
will show global warming
whether there is warming
or cooling !
And that is so easy to do with all
the arbitrary wild guess infilling,
that it is not funny!
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
A little more water in the air. Maybe a slight expansion of tropical areas and associated weather patterns. There’s your long-term trend.
Maybe.
“The point is not that 2017 was horrific…”
2017 another bumper year world wide for agriculture.
“…but that the warming trend will eventually cause problems” I’ve been hearing that for 30 years and no it hasn’t.
Hope is not a plan, but neither is assuming that whatever is happening now will continue into the future forever.
Mark,
“but neither is assuming that whatever is happening now will continue into the future forever.”
Including the “trends continue” scenario when planning is basic risk management. Failure to do so is irresponsible. This is not “assuming” anything.
In desperation, Larry invokes the Precautionary Principle.
I refer you to last weeks articles regarding the foolishness of the Precautionary Principle.
Plan all you want, just don’t spend any of my money doing it.
Larry states: “showing data from peak to peak is a common way of looking at the numbers.”
Good grief. That doesn’t make it right. You need to have a little understanding of the data you’re looking at. Sorry, but showing that graph completely destroys your entire article. Off to jail with you and do not pass go.
Richard Greene January 25, 2018 at 11:14 am
The ONLY way to refute the climate change
hoax is quite a few years of obviously
cold weather…
So until then it is irrefutable?
When and how much are not appropriate for public policy debate, that is a question for science to tackle. The policy debate is about what to do with the information provided by science. Unfortunately, there are so many people who won’t accept the science (although the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is a fact and a problem) that debate can’t happen.
I’ve read a few of your links about “how to get the debate going again.” You say at the beginning of the first, ” Climate science as an institution has become dysfunctional; large elements of the public no longer trust it.” The second clause is unrelated to the first clause, and the first is untrue, a misguided perception.
I think the first step is for the public as a whole to acknowledge the fact that opinion of climate science has been systematically undermined for decades through a well-orchestrated, well-funded propaganda campaign begun by a group of fossil fuel companies – how can you be unaware of this? The skeptical public needs to turn their skepticism around and identify the ways they are being misled – is it really likely that thousands of scientists all over the world are cooperating in a massive conspiracy to fool the public? Are they really abandoning their scientific integrity to push for a global socialist redistribution of America’s wealth? Or are they risking their careers and committing fraud to ensure job security??? It makes no sense.
“Skeptics” need to learn about what they disparage BEFORE passing judgment (the arguments over data handling are a case in point: many people claim data is fraudulently “altered” or “fabricated” without having any clue how scientists adjust data, or why). And people ought to realize that making a graph or applying a statistical test doesn’t necessarily show anything. Too many laymen are playing scientist and doing it very poorly, yet it appears convincing to other laymen.
‘Skeptics” most of all need to differentiate between media alarmism and what the science says. Don’t trust the media.
You, Kummer, suggest that the models have not been tested. This is not true. There are several ways to test the models and parts of models. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf Weak parts of models are known and acknowledged, but that doesn’t mean the models or their predictions should be thrown out or ignored, only that there is room for improvement, especially in certain areas.
Based on observation and predictions, the climate is changing at a rapid rate, will continue to do so, and it’s likely to have net adverse effects. One problem is that the public isn’t mindful of the range of these potential effects, ones that are secondary to and dependent on the climate effects modeled – things like rate and geography of disease contagion, spread of invasive species, mass dieoff of ocean species, change in insect ranges causing large-scale forest death… Yes, humanity can adapt (to a point), but at what cost? (Even if it were true that we are seeing change at a rate similar to that experienced by humanity in the past, that doesn’t mean it didn’t come at a great human toll.) Take just one parameter, sea level change: not only do we already see the problems growing, there is no benefit to offset the potentially extremely high human costs.
And your first graph is a load of nonsense, because, as we all know, most of that trend is fabricated by data adjustment.
Lets look at the only period that we have actual acceptable, untampered data for. 1979 -> satellite data
In that period, there has been only 2 major warming events, the step at 1998 El Nino and the unfinished transient of the 2016+/- El Nino.
Between those two El Ninos THERE WAS NO WARMING.
Neither of the El Ninos had anything to do with CO2 forcings, or human anything.
To suggest that anything we do will have any effect on El Nino events is an absolute nonsense.
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the warming events will continue, and substantial evidence that temperatures will now start to decline for a while.
Andy,
“Between those two El Ninos THERE WAS NO WARMING.”
Please read the post. That is exactly the point made. There appears to be a stair-step pattern of warming, perhaps driven by a “store and release” mechanism in the oceans.
One step does not make a stairway.
Store and release from the series of strong solar cycles of the latter half of last century.
Those strong solar cycles have eased right back
There is no proof that the next trending direction won’t be downwards.
and considerable evidence that a downward trend may already be starting.
The “scenarios” from IPCC should be ignored as a load of fantasy.
Andy,
“There is no proof that the next trending direction won’t be downwards.”
Let’s replay the tape to see if I said that there was “proof”, or even if another pause was certain.
The political implications of continued warming during the next few years (or decade) are obvious. Ditto for cooling. This post discusses the third scenario: another pause. And the evidence suggesting it might happen.
Andy wrote,
“Between those two El Ninos
THERE WAS NO WARMING.”
Kummer replied:
“Please read the post.
That is exactly the point made.
There appears to be a stair-step pattern
of warming, perhaps driven by a “store and release”
mechanism in the oceans.”
My comments:
There was a flat trend between
two huge El Ninos
(1998 and 2015/2016)
.
If you ignore the “adjustments”
in 2015 that created some ocean
warming out of thin air
for the surface data,
it was a flat trend in all
measurement methodologies.
It happen once, Kummer,
and one time is not a “pattern”
that we should expect to repeat.
Maybe it will repeat,
and we will have
learned something
(Kummer is smarter
that it appeared
from this article,
or made a lucky guess!)
I learned about one day after
I started reading about climate change,
in 1997, that expectations
or predictions of the
future climate
are best left unsaid,
because predictions
usually end up
making someone look foolish.
Actually Richard, there was no warming from 1980-1997 either. (1980 was the end of the previous El Nino, ) we don’t have any reliable data before then, just NOAA GISS based rubbish)
So essentially the ONLY warming in the satellite era has been a sort of step change around the time of the 1998 El Nino.
We don’t know yet what the broad transient from the Atlantic Blob and the 2015-2017 El Nino will settle down to.
“The political implications of continued warming during the next few years (or decade) are obvious.”
Only because of the political AGW Agenda/FARCE..
Real life implication of a bit more warming are almost all beneficial.
Andy,
“Only because of the political AGW Agenda”
Sad but true. If we get continued warming, activists will hope that plus blaming most extreme weather will panic Americans.
Mark,
“In desperation, Larry invokes the Precautionary Principle.”
Please stop making stuff up. This is getting old.
The precautionary principle can be stated in many ways, but something like this is the most common:
I said nothing remotely like that. I said two things.
(1) “My recommendations are to prepare for the likely repeat of past extreme weather (e.g., from the past century or two) — and push to break the deadlock (see the posts describing how to do so).”
(2) “Including the “trends continue” scenario when planning is basic risk management. Failure to do so is irresponsible.” The action taken in response to that scenario depends on many factors — estimates of the magnitude of loss and cost to avoid/mitigate, resources available, other needs, etc.
You didn’t call it the Precautionary Principle, but it is the precautionary principle nonetheless.
You declared that we must do something now because if we don’t something bad might happen in the future.
that my friend is the definition of the precautionary principle.
The only reason to break the deadlock is so that something can be done. Without regard as to whether anything needs to be done.
2) Your point two is just repeating your invocation of the precautionary principle.
There is no reason to assume that trends that haven’t continued in the past are going to continue into the future.
“When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.” …unless those actions are scientifically plausible but uncertain to cause even greater morally unacceptable harm.
I think we need a Hippocratic Oath of Climatology. First do no harm.
Larry,
“Climate activists responded by denying the science and concealing these papers from the public (examples here and here). For good reason.”
This aroused my curiosity. How on Earth did they do that? Did they steal them from the library?
Then I read the links, and all I could see was that some bloggers wrote articles disputing that there was a pause. At what level of paranoia does this become “concealing from the public”?
“Activists could try science instead.”
Inactivists could try science. It is possible that the big El Nino got us ahead of the warming trend, and we’ll drift back toward the trend line. Personally, I think it will just go on warming. But getting ahead of the trend doesn’t mean it has gone away. It just means that you have to do proper arithmetic.
Nick,
Always nice to see your weird comments.
(1) “all I could see was that some bloggers wrote articles disputing that there was a pause.”
First, that statement is wrong. I cited an article at Slate, which is a major media website. It is not a “blog”.
Second, I said “concealing” because they (e.g., astronomer Phil Plait) tell the public that only skeptics believe there was a pause, and do not tell the public about the many peer-reviewed papers and reports from the major climate agencies about the pause.
(2) “But getting ahead of the trend doesn’t mean it has gone away. It just means that you have to do proper arithmetic.”
Is there some relevance to that, or is it just your usual trolling, chaff thrown into the discussion? If you believe the numbers given here are incorrect, then sent your complaints to NOAA. As stated, they are from the NOAA “Climate at a Glance” interactive page.
Always nice to see your weird comments.
I don’t like Mr. Stokes very much but I engage him on the substance of his posts rather than falling into the trap of making disparaging remarks to try and discredit them.
First, that statement is wrong. I cited an article at Slate, which is a major media website.
Uhm no, you linked to an article on your web site that in turn cited an article on Slate written by….a blogger.
Second, I said “concealing”
Omission is not concealing. As Nick pointed out, the material you claim to be concealed isn’t, it is available to be cited and read.
Is there some relevance to that, or is it just your usual trolling
Some relevance? That’s the WHOLE ISSUE!! Is there an underlying trend caused by CO2 forcing that is obscured by temporary events or isn’t there? If you don’t understand the relevance of that point, perhaps you shouldn’t be writing these articles.
I’d be far more harsh in my criticism, but since you promised to never respond to me ever again, you can’t defend yourself, so I’ll let you off easy.
David,
(1) “Uhm no, you linked to an article on your web site that in turn cited an article on Slate written by….a blogger.”
False. Plait is a professional astronomer writing a column for a major media website. Slate pays their writers. In no sense is he a “blogger.”
(2) “Some relevance? That’s the WHOLE ISSUE!!”
Stoke’s comment is not a relevant comment to this post. I don’t say the trend “has gone away”; I say the opposite of that. His jibe at NOAA’s “arithmetic” is bizarre, even for him.
(3) “but since you promised to never respond to me ever again, you can’t defend yourself,”
Thank you for the reminder. This comment of yours reminds me why reading your comments — let alone responding to them — is a waste of time.
Larry alarmism likes surface temperatures because they sort of indicate a higher temperature but the hysteria is about the influence of Co2 and even Gavin Schmidt of NASA says that if the greenhouse effect is real then it would happen within the lower troposphere zero to 8km not at ground zero. NASA also admit that satellite data is the most accurate that we have accurate to 0.03C. The only reason alarmism switched from CAGW to climate change is because of the nascent satellite data and why alarmists began vilifying the message because the could not dispute the message/data.
Surface temperature is to a degree influenced by human behaviour and has sparse coverage when compared with near 360 degree coverage of satellite data. If you want an average anomaly then satellite data even though its anomaly not an average as such must be more accurate. Once you apply the margin for error then the argument is inconsequential at best.
Temperature will rise and fall provided its warmer than this I’m happy as a pig in …..
“People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.”
Larry
False. Plait is a professional astronomer writing a column for a major media website. Slate pays their writers. In no sense is he a “blogger.”
Oddly Larry, Plait disagrees with you. From his bio page:
On Nov. 12, 2012, I posted my first blog article for Slate. This article you are reading right now is my last.
After 1,541 days and more than 3,000 articles, I’m moving on. Starting Wednesday, I will be writing at my new blog home: Syfy Wire.
So he’s a blogger by his own assertion. Should I accept his word or yours?
Larry then skips over my entirely relevant comment about “concealing” being inaccurate rather than just admit that he misspoke and goes on to complain that:
Larry
Stoke’s comment is not a relevant comment to this post.
Except that it is.
Larry
This comment of yours reminds me why reading your comments — let alone responding to them — is a waste of time.
Except you did. In detail except for the one point where you should have just admitted that you were wrong and instead skipped over it like it was never made.
Thanks for responding to me, much appreciated.
Nick,
You asked, “How on Earth did they do that?”.
The IPCC has been concealing and obfuscating science since its inception. They, along with their self serving ‘consensus’ have been cherry picking and massaging the ‘science’ they put in their reports based on the ability to exaggerate anthropogenic effects in order make a case for their otherwise unsupportable agenda of wealth redistribution under the guise of climate reparations. This disservice to science and humanity has resulted in a malfeasance that makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief and the resulting disinformation has propagated throughout the field.
You follow this blog, so you must be seeing the exculpatory science a daily basis, most of which you can’t dispute with any kind of legitimate argument (appealing to a corrupt authority like the IPCC isn’t legitimate). Do you really think an entrenched bureaucracy like the IPCC would acknowledge science that precludes their reason to exist? Don’t you understand the partisan mind? A partisan will never admit that they’re wrong about anything, no matter how wrong they are, and the political left is very wrong about a lot, including climate science. This is why politics should have never gotten involved in the first place and why the IPCC/UNFCCC must be disbanded and its perpetrators harshly punished so that we never again allow a political narrative to replace the scientific method.
Nick..
Let me ask you.
How you doing so far with your step up warming, Nick…?
In regard to this blog post, it seems to me that Larry have in consideration the same point as you…a step up or a step down in temp’s trend, if I happen to be not mistaken..
But whatever, Nick, the problem is that, regardless of the temp measurement methods and any contemplated over massaging in that regard, still the temp anomaly method applied has no room either for steps up or a step down in the temp trend or for any warmest places or warmest period claims, in short term yearly bases.
It can not support, allow, validate or be able to sustain claims about the warmest place or warmest period, records broken, especially in yearly short term bases…
It is not meant or considered to be of any use in such means…not good also for any claims about a step up or a step down in the temps trend…
Is beyond this method to allow this….is a method that has a meaning and significance in the contemplation of the climatic format, when temp records will show, under appliance of this method, much clearly the climate signal over longer time periods than that of one year cycles….
See according to this approach the most warming place in the NH is Arctic or North Pole, but still this place is not the warmest place in the NH.
So when this approach can somehow show or point out the most warming place or most warming period, due to a biases, still it can not show the warmest place or the warmest period, especially in short term yearly cycles…is not meant for it, and it can not be as a means to support such as…
So as a side thought experiment:
A place or a period – consist with a swing trend temp of 6C, from -2C to +4C. (a +6C anomaly)
And another period – consist with a swing trend temp of 8C from -5C to + 3C. (a +8C anomaly)
Please try to estimate the most warming and warmest…..period or place, as per above.
I may be wrong, but it will not be the same one when it comes either in the regard of the most warming or the warmest….as per and regard of the above.
That is the problem when the temp anomaly method used, it can be abused to show anything that an authority likes to push forward, but still can not or will not be a valid method when it comes to estimate in the context of the warmest, either in period or place relation, because is not meant for it, especially when considering short term, like yearly periods…
The “warmest year” ever record, is and happens to be a very silly to contemplate under this circumstances, as silly as the contemplation of any possible step up or step down in the temp trend…
the method applied as far as I can tell has no any room or means for such allowances…
Please some one try to show me otherwise, and prove me wrong in this one…it will be very much appreciated…
cheers
You are not using the definition of “anomaly” in this context correctly, so your whole argument about them is shot. You don’t find the difference between two temperature data points to calculate the anomaly, it’s the differences between each of the data points in a series and the mean for all or part of that series. For example, you take a reading from a temperature recording station. Then you find the mean for all temps recorded at the same time of day and year at that station, over the course of the baseline set of years (which is arbitrary). The difference is the anomaly. For many purposes it is far better to look at anomalies than absolute temperatures.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
The forecast for January 28 is very winter for North America. High pressure in the center will pull arctic air, and low in the east means snow.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00956/nzyl2q3l35c7.png
i am lately watching a lot of the temperature records, but i realise that the early 1900’s were mostly more “volatile” on year to year basis then it is now.
For me it’s very simple: the latest El nino did push the last 18 years of the El nino/la nina running sum in favor of El nino. That means another “step up”.
A process that is entirely natural as the MWP has seen this same signature. during the LIA the balance was more La nina so the running sum was going negative.
Mrt Michiels:
“That means another “step up”.”
The step up I see in the temperature
data is between the early 1990s and early 2000s
There was a strong El Nino near the end of that period,
and the average temperature never came back down
to the pre-El Nino level.
We had another similar strong El Nino in 2015/2016
and I can only wonder if the same thing will happen
— another step up, with the average temperature
never coming back down to the pre-El Nino level.
I guess Kummer is speculating that might happen again.
I see no reason to speculate
– if there is one thing
I have learned from 20 years
of climate change reading,
it is that predictions
of the future climate,
which are the foundation
of the climate change crisis hoax,
should not be made,
and are very likely to be wrong.
I happen to know the future
will have warming,
unless there is cooling,
or a flat trend.
I make that prediction with
100% confidence, which
is five points above the IPCC
“95% confidence level”
so I obviously know more
than them!
If you take away “man made global warming” from the actual temperature, Where would we be and would it be better than we have? I think we would be heading into another little ice age? Past predictions against observed!
…we would be in exactly the same place we are right now
The change in temperature is no minute….if they didn’t hype it…not one single person, plant, animal, or insect would have noticed
Latitude,
“The change in temperature is no minute”
Trends matter because they point to the future. The perspective in your comment is like driving while looking out the rear window.
Not one person knows if the trends mean anything at all…the perspective of your comment is like locking the steering wheel on a crooked road
Trends? What about cycles? We have yet to see a 4.5 billion year old trend, but we have seen cycles.
Latitude,
“Not one person knows if the trends mean anything at all”
Did you read the post?
The political implications of continued warming during the next few years (or decade) are obvious. Ditto for cooling. This post discusses the third scenario: another pause. And the evidence suggesting it might happen. Let’s replay the tape to see what I said.
“Trends matter because they point to the future” –
11 billion people by 2100- in the past climate change wiped out civalizations.
Trends only point to the future when the continue.
Once again you are assuming that they will, without providing any evidence to support this assumption.
Then demanding that the rest of us do something because of your assumptions.
The graph does not show warming from 1950, it shows warming from perhaps 1977. So what happend in the mid-late 1970s?
…..adjustments
Plus station drop-out (mostly rural, i.e. cooler), plus increasing UHI.
It’s not so much that UHI increased (though it did), it’s that the cities spread out to where the sensors are.
“So what happened in the mid-late 1970s?”
The Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977.
The flaw in this article is EARTH COOLED FROM ~1940 TO ~1977, EVEN AS FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION STRONGLY ACCELERATED.
As atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased, Earth cooled for about 37 years, then warmed for a few decades, and then stayed about the same temperature during “the Pause”. except for some major El Nino’s. Earth is still cooling from the last El Nino, and is expected to cool considerably more, based on the 4-month leading indicator of sea surface temperatures.
The is NO evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver of global warming., unless you are also prepared to conclude that it also drives global cooling AND “the Pause”.
Regards, Allan
__________________
Using the same assumptions at Christy and McNider 2017 (~all changes are due to increasing atm.CO2), I estimated TCS equals MINUS ~1C/(2xCO2) for the global cooling period from 1940 to 1977, ~equal but opposite sign to the PLUS 1.1C calculated by Christy and McNider for 1979 to 2017.5.
I conclude that “This TCS is so low that there is no real global warming (or cooling) crisis caused by increasing atm. CO2.”
Regards, Alan
CASE 1 – AFTER CHRISTY & MCNIDER (2017) – GLOBAL WARMING PERIOD – YEARS 1979-2017.5 (SATELLITE ERA)
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2017.5/scale:100/trend/plot/uah6-land/from:1979/to:2017.5/scale:100/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2017.5
YEARS 1979 TO 2017.5
LT Temperature Anom scaled*100
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2017.5/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2017.5
YEARS 1979 TO 2017.5
CASE 2 – PREVIOUS GLOBAL COOLING PERIOD – YEARS 1940 TO 1977
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1977/scale:100/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1977/scale:100/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1977
YEARS 1940 TO 1977
ST Temperature Anom scaled*100
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1977
YEARS 1940 TO 1977
CONCLUSION:
ESTIMATED TCS IS +/- 1C/(2xCO2)
This TCS is so low that there is no real global warming (or cooling) crisis caused by increasing atm. CO2
Allan, not only that, the rapid greening of the planet (14% more forest cover + planet-wide and ocean changes) over the past 30 years is not only a major sequestration of CO2 (there are 3 trillion trees on the planet and 14% more is 420 billion!) but is an endothermic process. It coincides with the pause, BTW. I have been hoping some knowledgeable person would attempt to quantify the beginning development of Garden of Eden Earth. Say the average age of new trees is 10yrs. It would on average take in ~20kg, or 0.2 tonnes per 10yr old tree. Amount sequestered so far only in new forest is 0.2 and 420 billion= 84Gt of carbon. Fattening of trees on the rest of the planet, plus shrubs, grasses, etc. 4(?) times that because bigger trees slow, total new and old= 420Gt, + algae, plankton, fish getting fatter, etc. Lets go 30% more= 550Gt sequestered in 30 years. Now imagine equivalent of burning 550Gt of anthracite plus, say 15% – that would be only a modest part of the energy budget incoming but cooling nevertheless. Didnt we have a dip or leveling of CO2 in the atmosphere? It is an exponential process, too, until some form of equilibrium is reached and, with the logarithmic effect of increased CO2 and the slowing in accumulation, hey, we don’t have a problem for the future at all even if CO2 did do what the warm worriers want to believe.
I think we should raise the ugly head of cost benefit of Carbon to twist the blade a bit more. On the benefits side, I would give a value for this sequestration and expansion of habitat (using worriers figures created for the decline in habit) plus the percentage of new harvest attributable to carbon!!!!. We may end up having to give the fossil fuel industry a dividend.
Phoenix,
“So what happend in the mid-late 1970s?”
It was a pause. The pattern appears to be one of stairsteps, perhaps driven by accelerating increases in ocean heat content. Each appears to become more pronounced.
Time will tell if this is correct.
Hi Larry,
If I am correct and Earth gets significantly cooler in the next decade or so, it is not a Pause – rather the pattern of global temperature change with time is a series of warming and cooling periods, roughly multi-decadal, with an irregular period and amplitude.
To call the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1977 a Pause is, I suggest incorrect. That actual amount of cooling is only about 0.1C in the modern data record, but that record has been “adjusted” upwards and that cooling may in fact be much greater.
The PDO turned negative (cold mode) in ~1945, and except for ~1956-1960, stayed negative until ~1977, at the time of the Great Pacific Climate Shift.
The PDO also went negative after ~2005 and there were some very cold years.
Here is the plot of the PDO data:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1538024529608437&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Allan,
“To call the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1977 a Pause”
That’s interesting. Who said it was a pause?
The “store and release” model that creates “pauses” describes, if I understand it correctly, an emerging response to the rapid rise in ocean heat content during the past three decades. If accurate, this pattern should become more pronounced if the oceans continue to warm.
Hi Larry,
You wrote:
“The “store and release” model that creates “pauses” describes, if I understand it correctly, an emerging response to the rapid rise in ocean heat content during the past three decades.”
I think you are describing a typical El Nino, and I suggest these are not an “emerging response” but have been happening for millions of years.
I have two engineering degrees in the earth sciences, have studied the subject of “global warming” since ~1985, and published papers and articles that have survived intact since 2002.
My problem with the IPCC and the warmist camp is their perfectly negative predictive track record – every scary prediction they have made has failed to materialize. The IPCC’s enthusiastic embrace of the fraudulent Mann hockey stick severely damaged their credibility, and it has deteriorated further and further since then.
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the global warming alarmists have consistently failed.
In contrast, all our predictions written in 2002 have now materialized in those countries that adopted the full measure of global warming alarmism – save one – and that is for global cooling to resume, starting by 2020 to 2030.
My last prediction, for imminent global cooling, is still looking pretty good. Solar Cycle 24 is a dud and SC25 is predicted to also be weak. The PDO is peaking and poised to drop. Equatorial Pacific Sea Surface temperatures are dropping sharply, and are a good predictor of near-term atmospheric temperatures.
You appear to believe the IPCC, and especially its politically-rewritten Summary for Policymakers. I do not. Repeating, these people have a perfectly negative predictive track record, and thus negative credibility. Nobody should believe them.
Best personal regards, Allan
Allan,
You are much too kind to the IPCC-NOAA-worshipper, Kummer.
Even though you cloak your words in fine veneer, your refutations of Kummer’s assumptions are stilettoes to the squishy heart of his mealy-mouthed assumptions.
I again protest Watts’ continued provision of a pulpit for Kummer’s salesmanship.
Still not sure what it is he’s selling, but it is not useful.
It has hit me what Kummer is about, though. His professional background is a STOCK BROKER. This profession is on a par with used car salesman. The difference is that stock brokers cloak their nonsense in charts, trend-lines, spreadsheets. They appeal to authority. They belittle their marks. They obfuscate with words, figures, numbers.
The perfect example of the sliminess of stock brokers is Bernie Madoff. He played the same games that Kummer plays here–adopt an air of credibility and competence; sneer at those who point out that the emperor has no clothes; show graphs, numbers, trends; call for action.
Kummer’s apparent hero, Paul Krugman, is another great example of a charlatan in a fake science–Economics.
https://fee.org/articles/paul-krugman-three-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/
(You need to get back on topic, leave out the personal snotty insinuations of his background) MOD
Hello Kent,
I have done (up to) multi-billion-dollar business on six continents, including the Americas, the Arab world and the Former Soviet Union.
In my career I’ve successfully managed two armed hostage crises in the FSU without bloodshed, where my people were held at gunpoint – and everyone got to go home. I’ve also been through too many armed checkpoints manned by border guards, police, and others, and still do not enjoy the experience. I’ve also recovered my 4-year-old daughter, after she was abducted for two months in a million-dollar extortion scam. Recently, as an uninvolved citizen, I took action to shut down an unsafe sour gas project that could have killed many tens of thousands of Calgarians, resulting in the greatest government penalties ever lodged against a corporation in the history of Alberta.
So let’s say I have an alternative perspective on life, having been differently “calibrated”.
Larry and I are having a polite technical disagreement, and I am confident I am correct and he is wrong. This is how I conduct myself when I disagree with people who are polite and conduct themselves properly. In my experience, nobody should want to “go in shooting” – there is too much collateral damage.
When I do see evidence of bad faith, deceit and/or criminal misconduct, I am not hesitant to call out the miscreants. For example, see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/24/nasa-james-hansen-gavin-schmidt-paper-10-more-years-of-global-warming-pause-maybe/comment-page-1/#comment-2726546
Regards, Allan
So the atmosphere is not heated ‘in situ’ but the oceans store and release heat.
Now can someone define the mechanism by which downwelling (sic) infrared radiation from Carbon Dioxide heats the oceans. Ideally, this should be supported by experiments showing that 4 watts per square meter result in heating oceans at depth with sufficient kilojoules to heat the atmosphere when that energy is released. Note that all experiments I have seen show that such small quantities of infrared do not penetrate more than a micron or two and result in a cooling of the ocean surface due to enhanced evaporation and the loss of latent heat.
No hand-waving – real experimental evidence. It is extremely simple to set up such an experiment.
The truth is of course that the heat in the oceans comes from the Sun and shortwave radiation that penetrates deeper into the waters that covers >70% of the surface of the Earth. An increase in solar radiation or a reduction in cloud cover results in the increased heating of the oceans. This is the mechanism claimed for the El Nino/La Nina oscillations. Carbon Dioxide has no apparent part in this oscillation that drives the heating of the atmosphere.
“define the mechanism by which downwelling (sic) infrared radiation from Carbon Dioxide heats the oceans”
….. but wait, there’s more. To be anthropogenic, it has to be the downwelling (sic) infrared radiation from carbon dioxide at ~405 ppm on a background of 30 – 40,000 ppm water vapor versus the downwelling (sic) infrared radiation from carbon dioxide at ~280 ppm on a background of 30 – 40,000 ppm water vapor.
I wonder why we can’t find the results of such an empirical study?
Downwelling radiation doesn’t warm the oceans. It warms the air, which warm the oceans.
Mark W
So warm air heats water?
Ever used a blown hot air hand drier Mark? Your hands will feel cold until all the water on them has evaporated then your hands will feel the warmth of the air. Your hands felt cold as the latent heat of evaporation was being taken from the water as it evaporated. That is the principle of hair driers – evaporate the water. So warm air over a water surface results in more evaporation. In fact any air blowing over a water surface results in evaporation – hence lake effect snow.
There is no mechanism for warm air to heat water below it as it will just increase evaporation in the same way as infrared and the latent heat of evaporation taken from the surface results in a cooler water surface.
IanW, we’ve gone over this many, many times.
The hair dryer analogy is bogus because of the blowing air.
Warm air warms the water two ways, by direct contact and by preventing the warmth that the sun is putting into the water from escaping.
There is always a wind blowing. In fact even a still day the water will naturally evaporate and water molecules being lighter than Nitrogen or Oxygen mean that the humid air volume is lighter than the dry air so will convect up drawing in dry air over the water surface and – you have a breeze shortly becoming a wind – even a hurricane. Wind is a term used by meteorologists for ‘blowing air’ so the hair drier analogy is perfectly apt. Warm air cannot prevent the latent heat from escaping it is energy without any temperature. You are hand-waving again.
I do agree with you about the warmth from the Sun as that is shorter wave energy and penetrates deep into the water. Unlike infrared that only has a cooling effect.
However, warm air as in a normal wind cannot heat water – go on try it simple experiment. The amount of heat lost due to the evaporation caused by the warm air will surprise you. That’s how swamp coolers work.
Yes, there is always wind blowing, but the wind is blowing the same now as it did when CO2 levels were lower.
Regardless, before the oceans can evaporate more, they first have to warm up. So you can’t rely on increased evaporation to cover your shortcomings.
To put it another way, you have claimed that shortwave radiation doesn’t increase water temperature.
Then you introduce an experiment in which a hair dryer is used on a pot of water.
The problem is that you have changed two variables at the same time.
1) You introduced a source of shortwave radiation.
2) You have also caused the air over the water to start moving very, very rapidly.
If you can’t see how your example is invalid, then there’s not much reason to try and explain even more basic science to you.
” MarkW
January 25, 2018 at 1:21 pm
To put it another way, you have claimed that shortwave radiation doesn’t increase water temperature.”
Pm the contrary – shortwave radiation DOES heat water – it is the longer wave infrared that is absorbed by the first molecule on the water surface.
If you like you can just put an infrared lamp over the water and just leave it in a ventilated area. You will find a breeze develops and the water cools.
You seem to have a problem with understanding what enhances evaporation and what will heat deeper into the volume of water.
As water warms, it will evaporate more.
The critical thing is the water must warm first. Something which you have been claiming is impossible.
Ian, Take a pot of water and measure its temperature. Mount a hairdryer above it, blowing on the surface. Run the hairdryer for 4 hours, Measure the temperature again. If the water not warmer, please tell us.
There is a good correlation between Ocean Surface Temperature, as measured in the Nino3.4 area in the central Pacific, which drives Tropical Humidity and Tropical Atmospheric Temperatures about 3 months later, which drives Global Atmospheric Temperatures about 1 month thereafter (about 4 months after Nino3.4 and about 6 months after East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperatures).
In the following plot, atmospheric (LT) temperatures have been lagged by 4 months after Nino34 temperatures to demonstrate this correlation.
In summary:
Tropical ocean heats -> Tropical humidity increases -> Tropical air temperature increases -> Global air temperature increases.
Richard Feynman called this Causality. Others call it Precedence. I continue to maintain that “the future cannot cause the past” (at least within this space-time continuum). 🙂
Hope this helps.
Regards, Allan
(h/t to John Christy, Richard McNider, and Bill Illis)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/01/almost-half-of-the-contiguous-usa-still-covered-in-snow/comment-page-1/#comment-2707499
[excerpt]
Global Lower Troposphere (LT) temperatures can be accurately predicted ~4 months in the future using the Nino34 temperature anomaly, and ~6 months using the Equatorial Upper Ocean temperature anomaly.
The atmospheric cooling I predicted (4 months in advance) using the Nino34 anomaly has started to materialize in November 2017 – with more cooling to follow. I expect the UAH LT temperature anomaly to decline further to ~0.0C in the next few months.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1527601687317388&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Data:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
Year Month Nino34 Anom dC
2017 6 0.55
2017 7 0.39
2017 8 -0.15
2017 9 -0.43
2017 10 -0.46
2017 11 -0.86
Incidentally, the Nino34 temperature anomaly is absolutely flat over the period from 1982 to present – there is only apparent atmospheric warming during this period due to the natural recovery from two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.
To add a little to Ian W (ha they all think)4
The Ocean is the greenhouse around here. It meets all the definitions of one..
a) It absorbs and retains (heat) energy throughout its volume
b) It is warmer at the top than the bottom
c) It can only lose (heat) energy through its surface
The atmosphere does not satisfy conditions b & c
The atmosphere is therefore not a greenhouse.
Serious question…
If you got in a plane, took it up to where the atmosphere might be described as ‘stratosphere’ and flew it, at constant height around a ‘parallel’ – at a constant latitude.Stratosphere being where the air is ‘stratified’ (no weather worth talking about) and where radiation (alone) does the heat transport.
How would the temperature vary as you flew around the globe?
How would the temps you see change if you took that plane down to treetop level and did another circuit?
IOW, if ‘radiation’ controls temperatures, why is there such a thing as ‘weather’ or, in other other words, which came first, longwave radiation or temperature. What actually causes what?
Why are continental interiors subject to greater variation in weather than either coasts or islands far off-shore?
Maybe even ask all the people who obviously prefer living near large volumes of water.
Why do they do that? Are they (how many billions) are quite effectively saying, by where they prefer to live, that The Green House Gas Effect is a Total Crock of Shyte.
If there is anything serious to worry about in all this, it is *why* so many supposedly intelligent and educated folk have been taken in by it.
As someone is supposed to have, “Beware stupid people, especially in large numbers”
Who are the ‘stupid people’ – is it the billions of coast-dwellers or the (climate) scientists?
“So the atmosphere is not heated ‘in situ’ but the oceans store and release heat”.
Now can someone define the mechanism by which downwelling (sic) infrared radiation from Carbon Dioxide heats the oceans.”
DWLWIR is extra energy directed at the ocean surface.
No thermodynamical process is 100% efficient.
It is not all redirected into greater evaporation.
There is turbulence present at the surface (unless you are proposing a glass-like surface over the entirety of oceans).
The extra heat is mixed down a few mill, which then reduces the deltaT between the warmer waters below by which the oceans heat escapes to space (as LWIR cannot be emitted by the body only at the surface via radiation and sensible/LH exchange). So the flux being reduced (2nd LoT ) less energy is available to escape.
This from Nick Stokes
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/can-downwelling-infrared-warm-ocean.html
and
http://home.earthlink.net/~drdrapp/ocean.heating.v3.pdf
and
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC004825/pdf
In short the effect works (as does the atmospheric GHE) by the reduction in cooling.
“Calling the slight warming of 2014-2016 “massive” is silly.”
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-global-temperatures-largest.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu
“Abstract
A 0.24°C jump of record warm global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the past three consecutive record-breaking years (2014-2016) was highly unusual and largely a consequence of an El Niño that released unusually large amounts of ocean heat from the subsurface layer of the northwestern tropical Pacific (NWP). This heat had built up since the 1990s mainly due to greenhouse-gas (GHG) forcing and possible remote oceanic effects. Model simulations and projections suggest that the fundamental cause, and robust predictor of large record-breaking events of GMST in the 21st century is GHG forcing rather than internal climate variability alone. Such events will increase in frequency, magnitude and duration, as well as impact, in the future unless GHG forcing is reduced.”
“possible”
“Model simulations”
“projections”
“suggest”
Where do I send the rest of my money?
Andrew
In the same way that you blow on your coffee to keep it warm?
You have gone into hand-waving mode.
Show an experiment with a volume of water in a large unenclosed space, that blowing warm air over the water surface or irradiating that surface with 4watts per square meter of infrared warms the volume of water.
This is hardly CERN level experimentation anyone with a ventilated indoor swimming pool could set it up.
Null Hypothesis:
Blowing warm air over the surface of a volume of water or irradiating it with infrared will cool the water.
“Where do I send the rest of my money?”
Put it towards an education in science.
One that teaches you that models are a tool in science and not the definitive answer.
One that teaches you that there is no ceratianty but that to not know everything does not mean we know nothing.
Teaches you that “projections” are indeed just that because we cannot forecast the amount of carbon man will burn in the future.
“… “projections” are indeed just that because we cannot forecast the amount of carbon man will burn in the future.”
If a series of conditional forecasts are made, calling them “projections” is just a CYA tactic.
“we cannot forecast the amount of carbon man will burn in the future.”
The amount of carbon humans burn is irrelevant, because it has basically nothing to with global temperatures.
“If a series of conditional forecasts are made, calling them “projections” is just a CYA tactic.”
Yes indeed, climate scientists have to forecast what the planet’s citizens will do for energy in the future and refrain from calling that a projection.
Amazing.
“The amount of carbon humans burn is irrelevant, because it has basically nothing to with global temperatures.”
In some sort of Never never land, saying that sky-dragon slaying stuff over and over may work.
Not otherwise.
Still if it makes you happy.
I believe you, I really do.
“Put it towards an education in science.”
Toneb,
If education in science is producing minds similar to yours, no thanks.
Andrew
“If education in science is producing minds similar to yours, no thanks.”
As Monckton would say, so condescendingly …
And your scientific point is?
Yes, I am being condescending, but unlike you, not an ad hominem.
models are indeed a practical tool in many science disciplines. not sure the bastardised models from other disciplines used in climate science are much use for anything other than wasting energy and tax payers money.
Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25
“Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”
Dr Patrick Frank has presented his paper to 6 Journals, has had 16 reviewers, 13 of which were modelers. The count is 13 to 3 against publication, all 13 modelers voted against it. All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.
“In some sort of Never never land”
In your little fantasy make-believe la-la-land you mean . where unicorn farts rule the world.
You have nothing but assumption driven dribble, and you know it.
Calling the slight warming of 2014-2016 “massive” is silly.
One of the most important points you make is that the error bars and unknowns are what is massive…and are denied by the climate fanatics. This deception by the climate community is ongoing and includes the data you used in your essay. The most likely outcome of this social mania, like most other social manias, will be that it was a huge amount of huffing and puffing about very little.
Otherwise a pretty good essay.
Hunter,
“Calling the slight warming of 2014-2016 “massive” is silly.”
The GRL paper cited disagrees with you, and does so in considerable detail. Did you read it?
“Calling the slight warming of 2014-2016 “massive” is silly.”
The El Nino/Blob transient has all but disappeared, another few months there will probably be nothing left at all.
A “massive” amount of nothing.
That’s why we stop measuring the trend at the peak of the El Nino cycle.
Keep a ‘weather eye’ on what Ron Clutz is following:-
‘Oceans Cool Off Previous 3 Years’
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/oceans-cool-off-previous-3-years/
Green Sand,
“‘Oceans Cool Off Previous 3 Years’”
That’s is what the “store and release” model predicts. So long as ocean heat content continues to increase, we will get (according to this theory) more bursts of heat into the atmosphere.
” …. stick with reports from the IPCC and the major climate agencies … ”
Since when was an IPCC report regarded as science? I thought it was political.
Oldseadog
The final IPCC Summary for Policymakers
is rewritten by politicians and bureaucrats
with no attention paid to whether they
have contradicted the back-up
documents.
The back up data are then changed,
if necessary, to support the final Summary,
and released months later hoping no one
will read past the Summary (actually the press
reads the Press Release about the Summary
because the Summary is too complicated for them
I want to know what happens to methane.Will it explode?Many scientists are already pessimistic.
Or is nothing like the last few tens of thousands of years?
No, the methane will not suddenly explode and cause a global climate crisis, nor will it suddenly explode due to “climate change” on some sort of massive scale.
Methane has always been seeping into the atmosphere. It is natural.
On rare occasions it can ignite when a fuel air mixture, plus a spark or flame, come together.
Methane is quickly removed from the atmosphere by bio and inorganic chemical processes quite naturally.
It is unfortunate that climate extremists resort to strange non-physical scare tactics to maintain their grip on the public’s imagination.
Caoyufi,
“I want to know what happens to methane.Will it explode?”
The IPCC isn’t panicking about methane, and neither should you. Details:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/20/ipcc-defeats-the-methane-monster-apocalypse-88620/
Methane will oxidize rather quickly (over the course of just a few years) into the highly beneficial CO2 and H2O (water vapor) which every plant on earth needs to survive. All that is needed is Lightning or fire
Lighting or fire will speed up the process.
All that’s needed is the presence of oxygen.
“Graphs of OHC should convert any remaining deniers of global warming (there are some out there).”
Wow, fancy seeing that published on these pages.
Straw man alert.
That’s one thing I’ve noticed with leftists. They are incapable of seeing complexity in those who disagree with them. They insist on forcing people into groups and then assigning the same beliefs to everyone in this artificially created group.
Leftists go on and on about treating people as individuals, yet they are incapable of doing that.
Mat,
‘fancy seeing that published on these pages.”
If you believe it is false, then tell us why.
2017 was a cool summer for us and December was brutal cold. I guess those other months must have been warmer. 1998 was a hot year for us.
Eyeballing that ocean temperature graph, it looks like the trend is +0.45 C per century LOL That’s lower than the official +0.6 to +0.7 C in the 20th century. Lindzen said we expect temperature difference between the poles and the tropics to decrease in a warming world. That means less storminess, generally less extreme weather. But that is not alarming so we are told the opposite
My biggest fear is hysterical communists
how about cool, calm and collected communists?
Please stop using the broken and terribly mishandled land temperature record. The world isn’t 30% of its surface, and it certainly isn’t the part covered in concrete.
As for that ocean temperature product, get real. You can’t have a graph that all resides in the margin of error.
“As for that ocean temperature product, get real. You can’t have a graph that all resides in the margin of error.”
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.full
“Abstract
Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error. We performed a subsample test, in which subsets of data during the data-rich Argo era are colocated with locations of earlier ocean observations, to quantify this error. Our results provide a new OHC estimate with an unbiased mean sampling error and with variability on decadal and multidecadal time scales (signal) that can be reliably distinguished from sampling error (noise) with signal-to-noise ratios higher than 3. The inferred integrated EEI is greater than that reported in previous assessments and is consistent with a reconstruction of the radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere starting in 1985. We found that changes in OHC are relatively small before about 1980; since then, OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal time scales. All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean. This new look at OHC and EEI changes over time provides greater confidence than previously possible, and the data sets produced are a valuable resource for further study.”
“An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge”
“estimates”
“inferred”
“is consistent with”
“reconstruction”
“new look”
“provides greater confidence than previously”
“resource for further study”
Where do I send my money?
Andrew
This has all the weasel words a person could ask for. Science!
Andrew
“This heat had built up since the 1990s mainly due to greenhouse-gas (GHG) forcing and possible remote oceanic effects. ”
BS
“provides greater confidence than previously possible,”….
good grief…..what does that say about the previous data sets….if this many ifs and buts is an improvement…the others had to be really crap
Where do I send the rest of my money?”
Again…
Put it towards an education in science.
One that teaches you that anything iin science and not the definitive answer, just a probability.
One that teaches you that there is no certainty but that to not know everything does not mean we know nothing.
heal brother….heal
“Put it towards an education in science.”
Why should we pay for you to try again?
You prove you learnt nothing the first time!
Peter,
The major temperature datasets — global surface, satellite lower troposphere, ocean heat content — all show similar pictures of the long-term heating (a decade or so for the ocean’s heat).
I see every reason to plan for natural disasters except man caused climate fluctuation. Unless you’re going to guarantee a net benefit significantly surpassing all monetary, environmental and human cost analyses from reordering economies, governments and societies and guaranteeing against the worst abuses. Guarantee because you have the burden.
Something to be said for free climatism, where we see what develops and adapt. Not like it’s urgent. Not like technological evolution won’t render CAGW moot. Not like you can guarantee you have a control knob in anthropogenic CO2. Not like the 95% extremely likely phrase was unfounded when made.
Coach, we should be prepared for the kind of storms we have had over the last century. The ideologues don’t want this. They revel in the death and destruction that allows them to keep the bullhorn going. We’ve seen it in Australia and SW US that they wouldnt allow controlled burning or removal of accumulating tinder in the old forests. They don’t want forest fires to be controlled. California even quashed a bill in their legislature that would have replaced dangerously sparking power lines in the very place that subsequently caught fire this past year. You could see the linear nature of the fire caused by the powerline. Also, they want the droughts and floods for PR propaganda. The abundant water that causes horrible flooding and landslides, intermittenly with years of drought, could be resolved largely by building water storage to level things out. This technique was figured centuries ago.
Everyone must remember that the current climate record from 1880-2017 only includes the Modern Warm Period. Since the end of the Little Ice Age ~1300-1850 and the corresponding start around 1850 of the Modern Warm Period. I find it unsurprising that the climate is changing in the same manner it did at the end of The Dark Ages and the start of the Medieval Warm Period.
At the same time everyone must remember we live in the Holocene Inter-glacial and that the warmest period of the Holocene Inter-glacial was ~8,000 years ago during the Holocene climatic optimum and that it has been growing cooler ever since interspersed with cool and warm periods about every 1,400 years(Bond Events).
To John Leggett
The ice core studies
told us the average temperature
is always changing
and there seems to be
mild harmless warming / cooling cycles
that last hundreds of years
(500 to 1,500 years
+/- 500- years
for a full cycle)
A warming cycle started around 1850.
The measurements started around 1880,
if you don’t mind very few Southern
Hemisphere measurements
(if you do mind, somewhat global
measurements with a lot of infilling
started around 1940),
(and if infilling bothers you,
then global measurements
with little infilling started
with the use of weather satellites
in 1979).
No matter what starting point for the
measurements you consider accurate enough
for government use,
they were all during a warming phase
of what is VERY likely to be yet another
first half of a mild warming / mild cooling cycle
THAT IS TOTALLY HARMLESS.
.
.
Measuring ONLY
during an uptrend means
“record highs” will be frequent
and EXPECTED,
until the uptrend ends.
.
.
The uptrend could stop tomorrow,
or in 100 years
— no one knows —
I hope a cooling trend does
not start during my lifetime,
not only because I prefer
warming, living in Michigan,
but also because I will then get
annoyed by the leftists
bellowing about the
coming global cooling
disaster !
They just love a disaster,
whether real or fake,
whether cooling or warming,
so they can take change
and tell everyone else
how to live and what to do
Everyone should know,
but few people do,
that having warmer nights
in higher latitudes,
from greenhouse warming
is a great thing,
and having our planet greening
from more CO2 in the air
is also a great thing!
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Richard Greene – a very good post, thank you.
The following points are verified, based on my own work and that of others who I know and trust:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/21/trying-to-perpetuate-alarmist-climate-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2643072
[excerpt]
A. THE ALLEGED GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST
1. Since ~1940, fossil fuel combustion has greatly increased and global temperature has declined or stayed ~constant for ~52 years, and increased for only ~25 years.
2. The year-to-year correlation of atm. CO2 with changes in global temperature is very high, but CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE.
3. The rate of change dCO2/dt correlates strongly with global temperature, and its integral CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.
4. Atmospheric CO2 ALSO lags temperature by hundreds or thousands of years in the ice core record. CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE AT ALL MEASURED TIME SCALES.
5. There is no clear, measurable effect of CO2 on temperatures in any time scale. The evidence strongly suggests that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atm. CO2 is very low.
6. We know to a reasonable degree of confidence what drives global temperature and it is almost entirely natural and has an INSIGNIFICANT causative relationship from increasing atm. CO2:
– in sub-decadal time frames, the primary driver of global temperature is Pacific Ocean natural cycles, moderated by occasional cooling from major (century-scale) volcanoes;
– in multi-decadal time frames, the primary cause is solar activity;
– in the very long term, the primary cause is planetary cycles.
7. The next trend change in global temperature will probably be moderate naturally-caused global cooling, starting by ~2020-2030, due to reduced solar activity (as we published in 2002).
B. ALLEGATIONS OF INCREASING WILDER WEATHER ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE
8. There has been no increase in more extreme weather events. Alarmist allegations of wilder weather due to increased atmospheric CO2 , global warming, etc. are unsupported by the evidence.
C. INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS ENTIRELY BENEFICIAL TO HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
9. Natural CO2 flux into and out of the atmosphere dwarfs humanmade CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
10. CO2 satellites show that the high concentrations of atm. CO2 are located in tropical and agricultural areas and the far North, and less so in industrialized areas.
11. The year-to-year correlation of atm. CO2 with fossil fuel CO2 emissions is low.
12. Atm. CO2 is not alarmingly high; at ~400 ppm it is in fact far too low for optimal plant and crop growth. An optimal concentration of atm. CO2 would be ~1000-2000ppm (which is unlikely to result from human activity).
13. Atm. CO2 is, in the longer term, alarmingly low for the continued survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Past continental glaciations (ice ages) were near-extinction events due to very low atm. CO2 and the near-shutdown of terrestrial photosynthesis.
D. A SLIGHTLY WARMER WORLD WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR BOTH HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
14. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates.
15. Excess winter mortality in the human species totals about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths per year, and is high in both warm and cold climates. Excess Winter Mortality Rates are surprisingly high in countries with warmer climates, and are lowest in advanced countries that have cheap energy and modern home insulation and heating/cooling systems.
E. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
16. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
17. Based on all the above evidence, alarmist allegations of catastrophic global warming, more extreme weather events, and other very negative consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 are unsupported by the evidence.
18. A slightly warmer Earth with higher concentrations of atm. CO2 would be beneficial for both humanity AND the environment.
19. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.
20. The misguided focus on global warming alarmism has caused society to squander many trillions of dollars of scarce global resources on foolish CO2 abatement programs that have driven up energy costs, reduced electric grid reliability, increased winter mortality, especially harmed the elderly and poor of the world, and diverted our attention and our resources from solving the real and pressing needs of humanity and the environment. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Regards to all, Allan
Does anyone know the anomaly baseline formthe charts in this post?
Steve,
This is from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance interactive graph (as mentioned in the post). That page says “Global and hemispheric anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average.”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global
What caused the warming from 1850 to 1950?
What proof is there that whatever caused that warming hasn’t continued to cause the warming from 1950 to today?
Without knowing exactly what caused the first 100 years of warming you can not “speculate out” the possible additional warming from human CO2 emissions.
JohnWho
You are far too logical
to be involved in
the climate change debates.
You must be reprogrammed.
Here is what really happened:
Before 1900 is a mystery, because
there were almost no measurements
of the Southern Hemisphere, and
the NH ocean measurements
were unreliable, because sailors
sometimes smoked a cigarette
before they stuck a thermometer
in the bucket of water they hauled
up from the ocean. And some were
drunk too.
There was natural climate change
from 1910 to 1940 (warming).
Sometime after that,
“natural” died,
being 4.5 billion years old
is really old.
Aerosols took over in 1940,
caused global cooling,
but were bumped off in 1975,
and completely disappeared
from the atmosphere,
instantly.
CO2 took over in 1975,
but fell asleep
in the early 2000s.
Then we had a flat trend until the
2015 / 2016 El Nino took over
for a while, and now supposedly
CO2 is the big boss again.
I know this seems complicated
but I’ve described exactly
what the global warmunists believe!
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.co
Show me the thermometer used to get a “global temperature” and maybe I will believe this crap! How can you average the temperature of Louisville, Kentucky, with the temperature of Honolulu, Hawaii, with Whakatane, New Zealand, with Jagdalpur, Indian, and Port-Louis, Mauritius? The entire concept of a “global temperature” makes no sense. Same with “global sea level.” Exactly where are you measuring that? How can you average the sea level of the Atlantic Ocean with the sea level of the Artic Ocean? It makes no sense. And of course, how can you even hope to see a trend in any of these averages over a time-span of only a few decade? The Earth is billions of years old. Where I live in Michigan, there was an ice sheet over a mile thick sitting right here just a measly 12,000 years ago. Global warming is a joke, not because one cannot differentiate between “man-made” and “natural” warming, but also because of the whole scaling and averaging issue I mention above! It is all BS. All of it.
Luke of the D, I could only have said this slightly better myself.
Climate Science is rife with conceptual problems, and people act like some kind of useful information has been miraculously wrung out of all the squiggly lines, colored maps, and press releases.
Its a giant joke.
Andtew
Now we are down to the crux of the issue, a crux visited many times by many others. I know its all we have, but who believes that we can ACCURATELY and PRECISELY measure GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE to a FRACTION OF A DEGREE? Even in the satellite era much less in the land-based thermometer era and the sea data with so few locations relative to available surface area and then to continue to previous data using proxies such as tree rings and other bio-indicators or such things as trapped gases in ice cores? To a FRACTION OF A DEGREE? I know its all we have, and we have to start somewhere, but are we taking the data as Gospel and then basing policy and trillions of dollars on something so…..squishy?
I know its all we have. I mean, find some indications of ferns under a glacier and tell me that the area was warmer and I can believe. Tell me it was XX.XX degress F/C warmer or colder and my eyebrows will lower.
Believe me, I know its all we have and I have observed and used temperature bio-indicators in my professional past but they are not ACCURATE AND PRECISE to a FRACTION OF A DEGREE.
I know…..its all we have. For now.
Luke you forgot to point out that:
> taking two temperatures and dividing the result by two is an arithmetic mean and tells you little about the ‘average temperature of the day.
> temperature is an intensive variable and it makes no sense to average it
> the concern is that energy is being trapped in the atmosphere – temperature is not a measure of energy content as the enthalpy of the atmosphere is hugely affected by the humidity. 100% humid air in Louisiana at 75DegF has twice the energy content of close to 0% humid air in Arizona at 100DegF in kilojoules per kilogram which should be the units used..
Climate science needs to take note of metrology as much as meteorology
How do you get any useful information from using bastardized charts? The chart at the top of this page shows 2016 to be 0.3C hotter than 1998, whereas the UAH satellite chart shows 2016 being 0.1C hotter than 1998.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg
TA,
“The chart at the top of this page shows 2016 to be 0.3C hotter than 1998, whereas the UAH satellite chart shows 2016 being 0.1C hotter than 1998.”
Why does that bother you? One shows surface temperatures, the other is the temperature in the lower troposphere.
“Why does that bother you? One shows surface temperatures, the other is the temperature in the lower troposphere.”
Exactly
Additionally, it never occurs here that the tropospheric sat temp series are a tad “bastardised” does it?
Which UAH v do you want instead TA?
You have the choice right up to v6.0.
Surface data is a mish-mash of sparse, unknown data quality, manipulated, twisted , adjusted, smeared.
It is certainly NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
And sorry that tone doesn’t have understanding to grasp physics based corrections to the satellite data.
Yeah, I got as far as Karlized data graph and started flipping channels. I wonder when the 2016 El Nino will be revisioned out of history.
RW Turner,
“I got as far as Karlized data graph and started flipping channels”
Keep those eyes closed! Who knows what you might learn if you open them.
The two sets of satellite data show a similar picture. See the Global Temperature Report for December 2017 from Christy and Spencer at UAH: “2017 was third warmest year in satellite record.” Roy Spencer shows more info about December and the longer record at his website.
Also see similar data bout 2017 by Remote Sensing Systems, and their analysis of the longer-term data.
This post also shows the ocean temperature data — which shows a roughly similar picture.
RWturner
El Nino = heat
heat = good
heat = climate change
El Ninos will not be “revisioned out of history”
The revisions are:
Cool the past
Warm the present.
The 1998 and 2015/2106 El Ninos
were huge, sharp spikes on the charts.
If they disappear, someone will notice!
TA – good question. The answer of course is that the data in the two charts come from different kinds of measurement devices, and those devices measure different things. I’m a skeptic in general, and I don’t understand why one chart should be viewed as any more accurate than the other. Both have very serious systemic flaws.
But they both show warming – but we already knew that. And it’s been warming for a long time. Some feel that they can tease out the anthropogenic signal from the modern temperature record. I have yet to be convinced of this. We’ve had warming periods in the 20th century quite similar to what i shown on these graphs. And any temperature record prior to about 1900 is a sorry excuse for a “record”.
So we have about a century worth (at most) of reliable temperature data and somehow climate scientists feel the increase in the last 50 years is “abnormal”.
You figure it out. I can’t.
scraft1
“We have about a century worth (at most)
of reliable temperature data …”
I disagree.
The people who collect the surface
data are not trustworthy, per their
stolen eMails and other examples
of bad character: Lawsuits,
the phony Mann Hockey Stock Chart,
failing to comply with FOIA requests,
and trying to hide, and “losing”, raw data.
They also have two huge conflict
of interests:
(1)
Getting their jobs
BECAUSE they believe CO2
controls the climate, and
(2)
Decades of predicting
lots of global warming
… and then they are
given responsibility
for the global average
temperature compilation,
which has more wild guess
infilling than actual data.
Leftists can not be trusted,
Climate change is a religion,
not real science!
Winter is preparing a powerful attack in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00956/ow7er9vhggyk.png
The obsession with “average temperature” misses the point. Are peak daytime temperatures increasing or minimum nighttime temperatures moderating? The former indicates the world IS getting “hotter”, the latter suggests a global Urban Heat Island effect.
Paul,
“the latter suggests a global Urban Heat Island effect.”
See the graph above of ocean temperatures. Warming, but there are no cities in the oceans.
Not yet. To see what the future has in store for us, watch Irwin Allen’s “City Beneath the Sea” (1971). Opening:
Seriously? Ocean temps are as uncertain as any measurement on Earth. What is the adjustment for UHI? Hmmm?
Gator,
“Ocean temps are as uncertain as any measurement on Earth. What is the adjustment for UHI”
I assume you are trolling us. There are no cities under the ocean, and so no need for Urban Heat island adjustments to the ocean heat content data.
I assume you are trolling us.
Nope, just pointing out a fact, we have squat little knowledge of global temperatures, especially in oceans. Alarmists love claiming precision where there is none. Ever heard of error bars Larry?
There are no cities under the ocean, and so no need for Urban Heat island adjustments to the ocean heat content data.
Not surprisingly Larry, you faled utterly to understand my post.
“failed” (needed repeating anyway)
While I know it has been discussed before on this site I really have an extremely hard time with “global mean surface temperatures” present or especially from the past. Comparing present mean surface temperatures with those say prior to World War II but especially before 1900 is just crazy, different instruments, different geographical coverage, etc. Even today for much of the earth’s surface there is NO surface temperature data, reliable or otherwise. 75% of the earth is covered by oceans yet there are a relatively tiny handful of fixed data collection sites. You might be able to say that eastern North America or Western Europe has had “x” change in average surface temperature but certainly not the entire planet. They are just making it up.
All of the warming since 1900 came from Hansen’s 2000 TOD adjustment that was pure bull! Without his fiction of cooling the 1930’s and warming the 1990’s, the AGW mantra would have failed miserably and died a well deserved death after Climategate! Earth did warmed slightly from 1900 to 1950. Cooled slightly from 1950 to 1976. Warmed slightly from 2 or 3 strong el Ninos, then had a 12 year pause from 1990 to 2016. All this warming took place while the Sun was in an extreme solar activity cycle (3 strong sunspot cycles back to back) from 1960 to 2000. Man hasn’t contributed more than 0.1 deg F, but that doesn’t fit the narrative or drive fear and contributions!
Kummer sez:
” Information about past
and present warming is important.
But for making public policy decisions,
we need to know about future warming.”
The above sentence is nonsense!.
The article title is nonsense.
The article is nonsense.
One of the worst so far this year.
The author should ask to have it deleted
and try again.
The author is capable of much better —
in fact every other article he’s had
at this website was better!
One year is no more important
than any other year
in the climate “business” !
And how can the next few years
be more important ???
We don’t know anything about them now,
and two years from now you could still
claim the next few years will be
more important.
Where does it end,
like a dog
chasing his tail?
We have no idea now whether the
next few years will be warmer
or cooler.
We’ve had a mild
and beneficial warming trend
since 1850, and suddenly
“The next few year
will be more important”
(than the past 167 years) ?
Public policy
should not be changed,
based on the climate,
because our current climate
is WONDERFUL, and has been
getting BETTER for at least 400 years,
since the Maunder Minimum
very cold period.
The planet is greening too.
That’s good news.
Higher northern latitudes
are getting warmer nights.
That’s good news.
Although warming
doesn’t seem to be happening
in the southern half
of the Southern Hemisphere —
— one of many reasons (evidence)
warming can not be blamed
on greenhouse gases with
95% certainty.
President:
Should we start a war with North Korea?
Cabinet:
Public policy must depend on
whether or not
there is future warming.
Mr. President.
And that must be based
on surface measurements,
where over half the “data”
are just wild guesses (infilling),
and not the more accurate
weather satellites
and weather balloons.
Climate blog that makes sense:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
Further reading of the essay raises the question of why the author chooses to use the bigot’s favorite word, “denier” and lower the tone of his essay and needlessly become inflammatory?
Also, it was the climate consensus leaders who rejected OHC, not skeptics.
Pielke was shredded by the consensus for pointing out that OHC is not at the level predicted by the alarmist consensus.
hunter,
(1) Words are not inherently good or bad (there are probably exceptions to this rule, as always). “Denier” is a useful word that has been (as so often the case these days) been misappropriated for propaganda use.
It is used in this post twice. First, to describe climate activists who “deny” scientists’ papers about the pause (too good an opportunity to miss, given activists long history of misusing “denier”). Second, about those few (but too many) who deny the massive evidence that the Earth is warming.
(2) “it was the climate consensus leaders who rejected OHC, not skeptics. Pielke was shredded by the consensus …”
This post says that, and links to evidence.
I do not deny climate change. I do not deny that there has been warming – from time to time, as well, in case it failed to register, cooling from time to time. I do not deny that it is probably so that for a while, at least, the warming and cooling will continue. I do deny that carbon dioxide is the control knob for global temperature, and that anyone that has looked at climate history can actually state that the Earth is warming in a manner that is going to be catastrophic in any way.
Thank you for making me one of your few but too many that deny the massive evidence that the Earth is warming in any form other than likely to accommodate all life forms on the planet to have a more pleasant climate to live in. They will adapt, as they have in the past, and as we should be doing now instead of tilting with windmills.
In 2016, I published “Denier Pride” and it can be Googled.
Liked the play on words, but I am a skeptic and critic of the theory that man-caused CO2 increases force global warming.
0.8 C since 1880, with a very dodgy temperature record before 1960, is just meaningless to the public. No one goes around saying, “Wow! It is so much hotter than it used to be!”
So, no one cares except “Climate Scientists” and alarmist journalists.
Why are there alarmist journalists? It sells papers, generates clicks. They went into journalism because they did not want to go into industry. Plus, it is another opportunity for virtue signaling, the Left’s favorite sport.
It seems to me that so much of this alarm publicity is caused by hatred of mining, which destroys natural habitat, at least until they reconstruct the natural habitat after they are through mining.
After another decade or two it will all go away, as everyone notices that nothing bad has actually happened…
Michael,
“Wow! It is so much hotter than it used to be!”
Missing the point. What matters is the trend, not the present level — and what it means for the future if it continues.
Larry, is that like the trend in the tide – its now 3 hours we’ve been watching the sea and the sea level has been rising almost consistently. In fact at the current trend by tomorrow it will be 40ft deep where we are now which has been dry land within living memory!! By the end of the century even the mountains will be inundated!! We are all going to drown!! That kind of trend?
“What matters is the trend, not the present level — and what it means for the future if it continues.”
Watch the pea under the thimble. Whoops! Where did it go?
This quote sounds a little speculative. Pick a trend, any trend! (Barks the carnival clown) What happens if it continues?
This is a joke. We need real science, not this Chicken Littleism.
Andrew
The “trend” is over an insignificant period of time. Certainly not long enough to be a climate trend. And most certainly not as long as the pause that the climate hype industry so steadfastly worked to ignore.
And ignoring the fact that temps, vs. anomalies, are not doing anything significant at all is not constructive.
We do not have “anomaly waves”. We have weather.
And the climate hype industry survives on claiming non-climate scale events are climate, while studiously ignoring the history of climate, showing we are not experiencing anything of particular note.
Bad Andrew,
“Pick a trend, any trend!”
This post shows the surface atmosphere trends over 4 periods from 1880 to 2017, plus the full ocean heat content dataset. They all show roughly the same picture.
As does the satellite data. See the Global Temperature Report for December 2017 from Christy and Spencer at UAH: “2017 was third warmest year in satellite record.” Roy Spencer shows more info about December and the longer record at his website.
Also see similar data bout 2017 by Remote Sensing Systems, and their analysis of the longer-term data.
That’s only true if the trend continues. Something you have assumed but not demonstrated.
Mark W,
“That’s only true if the trend continues. Something you have assumed but not demonstrated.”
See my reply to your almost identical earlier comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/25/2017-was-warm-the-next-few-years-will-be-more-important/comment-page-1/#comment-2726879
“This post shows the surface atmosphere trends over 4 periods from 1880 to 2017, plus the full ocean heat content dataset. They all show roughly the same picture.”
Larry Kummer,
I know you are a focused propagandist, but my point is that a person can pick ANY trend and extrapolate it into a concern.
I wish that people could stick to science, when they dare drape themselves in a lab coat, and not try to sell me the latest 97% of dentists study.
Andrew
Bad Andrew,
“I know you are a focused propagandist, but my point is that a person can pick ANY trend and extrapolate it into a concern.”
Instead of insults, why don’t you share with us your interpretation of the data. You appear to be calling any look at the data to be invalid “cherry picking.”
“why don’t you share with us your interpretation of the data”
I have been. For years. Here we go again:
The data is not adequate to draw conclusions from.
Andrew
“The data is not adequate to draw conclusions from.”
Certainly there is no sign of any CO2 influence in the satellite data
(plenty of sign of human “influence” in surface data though 😉 )
As I said before, you are assuming that the trend will continue, so you want government to do something about it.
The whole core of your argument is your assumption that what has been happening will continue to happen.
Without that assumption there is no crisis for the government to fix.
Mark,
“As I said before, you are assuming that the trend will continue, so you want government to do something about it.”
As I said to your other identical comment — Including the “trends continue” scenario when planning is basic risk management. Failure to do so is irresponsible. This is not “assuming” anything.
So the failure to plan for a Martian Invasion is irresponsible?
What you have done here though you probably won’t admit it, is invoke the Precautionary Principle.
Mark,
You are just trolling us. I’ve attempted to discuss this with you. Done.
“So the failure to plan for a Martian Invasion is irresponsible?”
That is not a rational response to saying we should plan for the “trends continue” scenario.
“What you have done here though you probably won’t admit it, is invoke the Precautionary Principle.”
As I said to your other identical comment — that is quite false. You’re just making stuff up.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/25/2017-was-warm-the-next-few-years-will-be-more-important/#comment-2727395
You have proclaimed that if the trends continue, something bad might happen, and that is sufficient justification for doing something about it now.
That is the precautionary principle in a nutshell, no matter how much you want to deny it.
As to the Martian issue, you are the one who has proclaimed that it is the job of government to take actions to prevent possible harm in the future, no matter how unlikely the potential harm.
Larry, you made a very good point in the graph, that the so-called “mean” temperature has flatlined recently, or appears to have done so.
However, since this is in tenths of a degree Celsius or Fahrenheit – doesn’t matter – I have difficulty understanding why there is so much dissension in addition to all that howling on the CAGWer side of the fence, when this is not something that is detectable by any human. I understand that it is averaging, but in my view the averaging presents a false picture that the CAGWers can latch onto. Would it not be better to address the factors that are possibly causing the flatlining, e.g., increased volcanism?
Sara,
” since this is in tenths of a degree Celsius or Fahrenheit – doesn’t matter ”
The trend matters. Small changes equal big changes in many fields — climate, economics, demographics.
The rule in all of these is that reasonable action now have substantial effects only decades out.
Trends only matter if they continue.
Climate trends in the past haven’t continued, but you want us to pretend that the current trends will continue to the point where something bad happens.
Why should we make the same bad assumptions that you are making?
“However, since this is in tenths of a degree Celsius or Fahrenheit – doesn’t matter – I have difficulty understanding why there is so much dissension in addition to all that howling on the CAGWer side of the fence, when this is not something that is detectable by any human.
It most certainly does matter becaus the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the graph should more properly be the one plotted in that metric (J 10^22) ……
In other words that “doesn’t matter” temp can heat the atmosphere as though the oceans were air at 100C (for water having warmed by 0.1C).
Toneb,
“the graph should more properly be the one plotted in that metric (J 10^22)”
I love people proclaiming as if they were the Pope of Science!
There is no one way,/b> to display data. Different perspectives each have their utility, which is why NOAA provide different perspectives at their page on ocean warming.
This post was for a general audience. Most don’t know what a joule is, and if they do they have little feel for what it means. More importantly, the atmosphere temperature data is in degrees – so I show the ocean data in the same way for easier comparison.
Larry:
Then you should explain that 0.1C of OHC is 1000x larger then, when comparing it to an atmospheric temp anomaly.
I’ve met this before on here.
Your “general audience” is rather deficient on understanding here and it just promulgates comments such as “However, since this is in tenths of a degree Celsius or Fahrenheit – doesn’t matter “.
As I said, it most definately does matter.
“Your “general audience” is rather deficient on understanding “
Yes, we had noted your lack of basic understanding of most things, especially actual science and physics..
Stick with it, tone, Its all you have.
“Yes, we had noted your lack of basic understanding of most things, especially actual science and physics..”
So, was I incorrect to say that ….
The Oceans contain 1000x more heat energy that does the atmosphere?
And that therefore a 0.1C rise in ocean temps (given that is throughout the oceans) is the equivalent of a 100C rise in the atmosphere?
Pray tell.
Oh, and do try to critique the science and not the poster – there is a name for that.
Mind, I do know from your history that you find it difficult.
Why is that?
Couldn’t be that the pot calls the kettle black could it? (rhetorical).
And really it is you who has a “lack of basic understanding of most things,especially actual science and physics”.
And, just put of curiousity you umderstand – to what do you attribute your “expertise” pray?
I’m sorry, but that can change quickly.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.1.22.2018.gif
ren,
Yes, weather changes quickly. What is your point?
The graphs show changes in ocean surface temperature and this is not a temporary “weather”.
Monthly Niño-3.4 index
2017 1 26.12 26.45 -0.33
2017 2 26.68 26.66 0.02
2017 3 27.33 27.21 0.12
2017 4 28.04 27.73 0.30
2017 5 28.30 27.85 0.45
2017 6 28.06 27.65 0.41
2017 7 27.54 27.26 0.28
2017 8 26.70 26.91 -0.21
2017 9 26.29 26.80 -0.51
2017 10 26.15 26.75 -0.60
2017 11 25.74 26.75 -1.01
2017 12 25.62 26.65 -1.03
Repeating Larry’s graph from above.
(0.2 deg C in 40 yrs)/(40yrs/century) = 0.5 deg C per century.
Half a degree per century!! Oh noes! We’re all going to die at that rate.
Joel,
(1) “Repeating Larry’s graph from above.”
It’s NOAA’s graph.
(2) “We’re all going to die at that rate.”
This is where showing the ocean heat content in joules (as Tony did above) is useful. Note the slope. As the papers in this post suggest, even a small release of that heat from the oceans can heat the atmosphere a lot.
Add the fact that ocean temp data before ARGO is nearly useless, not fit for use.
We only have reliable data from 2003.
To be clearer …
The capacity of air at 100C NOT actually at that temp.
The obsession with tenths of a degree imply that the oceans constitute a microclimate like the one in my yard that has a sharp line dividing melting snow in the sun and snow NOT melting in the shadow of the house next door.
That is not an appropriate viewpoint, especially since it also implies that ocean water is a static state when we all know that it is not.
modelled, assumption based nonsense. Insufficient data before 2003.
certainly nothing to show anything that isn’t totally natural
“This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk.”
Yes, or the only cause of global warming is due to the ocean.
The average surface temperature of the Ocean is about 17 C. And average temperature of the Land is about 10 C.
A significant factor of why the average temperature of ocean is that the average temperature of tropical ocean is about 26 C and tropical ocean surface area is about 40% of entire ocean.
Or in class of 100, one has 40 students with high score and rest class are mostly flunking the class.
Our world is cold, other than in or near the tropics. Or we have been for millions millions of years
in an ice box climate- which is defined as cold oceans and having polar cap.
And a hothouse climate is warm ocean and no ice caps.
And as everyone knows the tropics warms the rest of the world. The tropical ocean warms the rest of the world- adds heat to the rest the world. And tropical zone makes the earth class have a passing grade of 15 C and having average temperature of 15 C is actually rare in terms of total surface area.
Now one could say tropical ocean surface temperatures controls global weather, but it’s the average volume temperature of entire ocean which controls global climate temperature.
Or it’s the difference between an ice box and hothouse climate. And this average volume temperature of our ocean is about 3.5 C.
What happens of earth’s average volume temperature was instead 5 C- mainly prevent colder nights and colder winters outside the tropics. Or doesn’t make hot days hotter. .
That is why La Niña is so important. The wind direction along the equator significantly lowers the temperature in medium latitudes.
The surface cannot warm without the additional “enhanced greenhouse effect”. Climate models assume water vapor is a strong positive feedback and that relative humidity is constant. On RPS’s now defunct weblog, he discussed this topic frequently.
Toneb, please explain how a .0001 Mole Fraction increase in atmospheric CO2 levels can warm the ocean depths. Is it a magic gas? Considering the vaunted “back radiation” we’ve heard about all these decades can only penetrate the top ~.030mm of water, surely you can provide an experimental source where tests have verified CO2 can warm the oceans more than short wave radiation over the past 30 years? I suspect even with make believe “wave action” overturning mixing of the “heated” top layer could not contribute a measurable temperature change by the most sensitive thermometer.
Climate models also assume cloud cover is controlled by CO2. Would you care to explain by what mechanism this is accomplished? It seems like it’s just more bumpkins pulling levers on GCM’s once the curtain is pulled away.
“Considering the vaunted “back radiation” we’ve heard about all these decades can only penetrate the top ~.030mm of water,”
and when evaporation occurs, it actually decreases the water temp in the first 1mm or so by 0.3ºC due to the extraction of latent heat.
So any “mixing” will actually cool the surface.
What is the evidence that whatever warming occurs will be harmful in the future?
So far it appears to be mostly beneficial. Since even most catastrophists admit the upward temperature trend will moderate, what evidence is there the beneficial trend will end before that moderation?
Brian,
There is a massive amount of studies showing ill effects from warming.
“what evidence is there the beneficial trend will end before that moderation?”
That’s why the IPCC uses scenarios, from best case to worst case. These provide a basis for making public policy. It is imo an inadequate basis, hence my proposals (links shown in this post).
“That’s why the IPCC uses scenarios”
Larry Kummer,
You may not realize this but appealing to the IPCC is not science.
Andrew
I’m aware of a massive amount of speculation, some of it in the form of studies. That speculation is considerably blunted in that there were massive studies and speculations that we would already be seeing considerable harm from rising temps. But, as you note, the effect so far has been mostly positive.
The history of these speculations and projections and scenarios have been almost always overstating the actual negative effects followed by a quiet reassessment that later also turns out to be overly pessimistic.
The “massive amount of studies” have so far inspired little to no confidence they are worthwhile.
The actual concrete evidence we have, the past and present observations, compared to previous studies and speculations seem to me to demonstrate we should place very little credence in the same people telling us this time they have it right for sure.
It is especially disappointing to observe the manner so many react to their failed speculations.
Moar cowbell! is not science.
Kummer, you’ve done it now
This quote below
certainly must be a typo,
or you are drunk:
.
.
“There is a massive amount of studies
showing ill effects from warming.”
.
.
What the h-e-l-l are you talking about?
Cold weather is much more dangerous
to humans than warm weather.
There are nonsense junk science “studies”.
And we don’t need no stinkin’ studies!
we had an alleged one degree C.
of warming since 1880 and our
planet has the most prosperous
and healthy people we’ve ever had.
The past 137 years was the best 137 years
for humans since there were humans
on our planet.
We had warming for at least 137 years
and now the climate is wonderful,
people are healthier
and more prosperous too.
The cold era in the last half of the
1600’s (Maunder Minimum)
got lots of complaints
in anecdotal evidence,
and there were some famines too.
Warming = good
Cooling = bad
There is no evidence
the reverse is true.
But there is no evidence
and no real science studies
showing that the roughly estimated
average temperature change
of +1 degree C.
(+/- 1 degree C., in my opinion)
since 1880,
has caused any ill effects,
or that a +1 degree C. increase
from doubling CO2
in the future would be harmful,
(I’m assuming the simple CO2 lab
experiments are correct)
+1 degree C.
in the next 133 years
(if CO2 is up 3 ppm per year)
+1 degree C.
in the next 200 years
(if CO2 is up 2 ppm per year)
You’re in a deepening hole,
Kummer, and still digging,
halfway to China by now,
in one day!
Sorry, no poem this time!
“The world has been warming for two centuries, since the Little Ice Age ended.” A very good thing. If it wasn’t it would still be just as cold or very likely getting colder. You would have to be very stupid to wish for that, unless you favor widespread famine and slowly encroaching glaciers.
The oceans have probably been warming for about 10 or 12 thousand years. Also, a good thing as it takes a long time to heat a pot of water if the heat source is on top. Even the coldest periods of the Holocene were probably warming the oceans.
According to IPCC the ocean has warmed about 0.1 degrees C in 50 years. That is very close to actually cooling. Perhaps we should begin to worry.
this story and thread are based on a precision of measurement that does NOT EXIST…..we CANT arrive at a single temperature for the entire earth with precision to the hundredths of a degree being claimed here.
Bill Taylor
Kummer is using tenths of a degree C.
I think tenths are meaningless,
but many disagree.
It is NOAA who are “quoted”
using hundredths of a degree C.
As in ‘2016 was a few hundredths of a degree C.
warmer than 2015 — everyone head for the hills!’
the economy of the US is being decarbonized; this would happen faster if nuclear power plants were not being shut down but the trend is still there
events in 2018 should make this trend more obvious e.g., the emergence of hybrid trucks, better energy storage devices, although there will be events that go the other way
the metrics on this take several years
The US economy is becoming more efficient. Something it’s been doing for hundreds of years.
That we use less energy in the process is a by product, not the intent.
One of things l will be watching closely in 2018 will be the NH spring snow cover extent.
Last winter there was above average snow depth over large parts of northern Russia which lasted into the spring. This help to cause a large rise in the 2017 spring snow cover extent. Well this winter the same thing has happened again with above average snow depth over central and NE Russia. So it will be interesting to see what happens to this years spring snow cover extent.
As a further note there is also above average snow cover around the Hudson bay. So any extended cold weather that lasts into the spring in these area’s. Will cause this years NH spring snow cover extent to shoot up.
Sorry above average snow depth around the Hudson bay area rather then snow cover.
Hundred$ of Billion$ of dollar$ $pent world wide on temperature wiggle watching, with chicken little hand wringing over ‘changes’ in hundredths of an ‘average’ degree…. What a profound waste of time, manpower, and money.
“But, but it’s the trend that matters! Oooh! It wiggled up last year.”
Excuse me. I have more important work beckoning. Time to clean the lint out of the dryer exhaust vent.
Well that’s fairly important:
“An estimated 2,900 clothes dryer fires in residential buildings are reported to U.S. fire departments each year and cause an estimated 5 deaths, 100 injuries, and $35 million in property loss.
Failure to clean (34 percent) was the leading factor contributing to the ignition of clothes dryer fires in residential buildings.”
Good point, Phil! Dryer lint is more hazardous that Global Warming, AGW, Climate Change, Climate Weirding, or whatever the climate chicken littles are calling it these days.
J Mac
“temperature wiggle watching,”
You climate change wisdom
is so great that it only takes
you three words to make a huge
point.
If the temperature of Earth can not be determined exactly in the past then we should not claim that we know the precise temperature of the past, all the adjustment of past global temperatures makes me lose confidence that you know what the global temperature was. The present global temperatures will soon become past global temperatures and will be adjusted again which gives me no confidence that you know what the present global temperature is , this method may be acceptable in social science but it is not acceptable in science. All the temperature adjustment and additions to the global temperature gleefully declared necessary before we can know what the true extent of global warming really is leaves the possibility open that the measurement of the last el nino temperature increase was wrong and not an indication of global warming. How do the oceans warm during a pause?
A criticism made at the link shown below is that the NOAA and NASA data on which the claim of record 2017 warmth is made is fake. Cold on their map is shown as warm. Areas for which they have no observations is shown as warmth, even record warmth.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/new-video-2017-the-fakest-year-on-record-at-nasa-and-noaa/
At this link it is pointed out that in 2017 Greenland had the fifth largest gain in ice on record. Arctic ice has gained thick ice and ice volume over 1o years ago. As is pointed out “Global warming is caused by data tampering at government agencies.”
groweg,
“A criticism made at the link shown below is that the NOAA and NASA data on which the claim of record 2017 warmth is made is fake.”
Even if that is true (which I doubt), there are other systems giving confirming evidence.
The two sets of satellite data show a similar picture. See the Global Temperature Report for December 2017 from Christy and Spencer at UAH: “2017 was third warmest year in satellite record.” Roy Spencer shows more info about December and the longer record at his website.
Also see similar data bout 2017 by Remote Sensing Systems, and their analysis of the longer-term data.
Also, this post shows the ocean temperature data — which shows recent temperaturer is a record high (going back to about 1955).
Larry makes no refutation of the point made in the linked to article that very many of the “hot” areas in the NOAA/NASA data have no observations and use imputed (“made up”) temperatures. If this is true, his article collapses. All he can say is he has “doubt” that it is true. Is true or not that very many ‘hot” areas in the data set Larry cites actually have NO empirical observations? Apparently, Larry is saying he does not know. It is either true or not that many of the “hot” areas have no observed actual temperature readings, leaving room for “fake” hot temperature data to be filled in.
Larry, did you write an article claiming record warmth in 2017 when very many of the “hot” areas your conclusion is based upon have no actual temperature readings? Yes or no?
A simple look at the temperature graph Christy and Spencer develop makes it clear their upward trend looks nothing like the relentless upward march your graph shows. Since you bring it up, why is there this difference? The Christy and Spencer data set does not show a “similar picture.”
Kummer’s “analysis” is right out of a Wall St. stock broker’s office.
Semi-meaningful observations, stuck together with pretty charts, hand-waving, and an “if-this-trend-continues-you’ll-make-a-million-by-the-third-quarter” exhortation.
Still can’t figure out what he’s exhorting–but every stock broker’s pitching something.
Of course, he cannot be bothered with actual vetting of the “data” his “trend” is based on.
If he acknowledged the fraudulent data, then he’d have no basis to exhort action.
Meanwhile, back on Main St., the temperature record fraud is chronicled daily.
See Homewood’s analysis today: NOAA massively altered NY’s temperature record.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/
How’s that “trend”?
What’ll happen if we don’t act now?
What temperature will be in North America at the beginning of February 2018?
Kummer is not a good contributor for this site.
He embraces the fake NOAA/NASA temperature data.
Not sure what his motivations are, but whatever they are, it’s not good.
Not even sure what he’s trying to say in this posting. He throws around “denier” a bit. Seems to criticize alarmists.
Then he says that the important thing is “knowing the future temperature”? What?! The temperature record is totally corrupted. It is changed, adjusted, homogenized, cooled, warmed, and twisted into a tool for the alarmists to tout. Why think the future will be any different?
The real indicator of unfitness of this contributor, however, is his links at the bottom of his article. He links to his own site. It should only take one of those links to disqualify him as a source worth listening to. This one:
“Paul Krugman talks about economics. Climate scientists can learn from his insights.”
Yeah, that’s it. What’s missing from the climate debate is Paul Krugman’s insights!
Yeah! Krugman is a failure as an economist. Much like Al Gore, if Krugman predicts it, the opposite is likely to happen.
Nearly nothing Krugman predicts happens. He believes, like the AGW cultists, in a proven-wrong economic theory (Keynes), and despises normal-Americans. Reality never gets in Krugman’s way.
One example? The day Trump was elected, Krugman predicted the stock market would crash, continue crashing, and plunge the world into never-ending recession. The reality? The stock market has set nearly daily records in the year of Trump’s administration.
Krugman’s “markets will never recover” prediction:
“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout
Yeah, just what we need–Krugman and Kummer as the prophets of a “climate solution.”
No, thanks. Please send Kummer packing off to the NY Times with Krugman.
Thanks.
Kent,
Wow! Not much worth responding to there, but I’ll look at a few points.
(1) “He throws around “denier” a bit.”
Words are not inherently good or bad (there are probably exceptions to this rule, as always). “Denier” is a useful word that has been (as so often the case these days) been misappropriated for propaganda use.
It is used in this post twice. First, to describe climate activists who “deny” scientists’ papers about the pause (too good an opportunity to miss, given activists long history of misusing “denier”). Second, about those few (but too many) who deny the massive evidence that the Earth is warming.
(2) “Seems to criticize alarmists.”
Yes. I do that a lot. What’s your point?
(3) “What’s missing from the climate debate is Paul Krugman’s insights!”
I’m amazed that I must explain this. Krugman is a big-time climate alarmist. When his own logic shows the fallacy of the alarmists’ case, it is news. This is similar to what attorney’s call an Admission Against Interest.
(4) “Nearly nothing Krugman predicts happens.”
That’s bizarrely false. He has become preeminent among economists in part because of his many accurate predictions. Such as during 1994-1998 about the East Asian economies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#East_Asian_growth
Also, his analysis during the 2007-08 crash and aftermath were quite accurate (esp since so many others’ were very wrong).
(5) “Krugman’s “markets will never recover” prediction” was an impulsive and emotional comment in reaction to disappointment after the election. Perhaps you are Mr. Perfect and never said something dumb like that, but most of the rest of us have.
“Kummer is not a good contributor for this site.
He embraces the fake NOAA/NASA temperature data.”
OK. Then I assume you prefer UAH.
If so, could you elaborate as to why?
Perhaps tell us why it’s many adjustments should not make it untrustworthy?
Fake even?
Such that, UAH (not forgetting the all important V6.0) is a cold outlier in the various tropospheric temerature series.
Is that scientific considering the standard practise of at least taking the mean of series as the most likely to have least error?
In short a conspiracy theory that belittles any rational site let alone a science based one.
“OK. Then I assume you prefer UAH.
If so, could you elaborate as to why?
Perhaps tell us why it’s many adjustments should not make it untrustworthy?
Fake even?”
Yes, I definitely prefer UAH. The radiosondes measurements agree with the UAH satellite measurements. Are the radiosondes fake?
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/
“Yes, I definitely prefer UAH. The radiosondes measurements agree with the UAH satellite measurements. Are the radiosondes fake?”
Really??
You ought to look more closely…..
http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
They most certainly do NOT agree.
UAH has been running cold against them since the move from NOAA 14 to 15 and the new AMSU in ’98.
RSS made a correction with their v4.0 to take partial account of it.
UAH have not.
http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated/
But thanks for saying that radiosonde measurements are good.
Here is a comparison of the tropospheric trends…..
UAH is a distant cold outlier.
Kent Clizbe
Excellent comment.
Especially your next to last sentence:
“Yeah, just what we need–Krugman and Kummer
as the prophets of a “climate solution.” “
“Not sure what his motivations are, but whatever they are, it’s not good.
Not even sure what he’s trying to say in this posting. He throws around “denier” a bit. Seems to criticize alarmists. ”
How about Reasonable Man in the Middle game, ie, act like a peacemaker trying to bring both sides together as a way of eroding opposition to alarmists’ goals of government established policy?
ICISIL,
Yeah, that’s what I thought for a while. But it sure looks like he’s got some other angle.
He’s a career stockbroker. They always have an angle–always something they’re working on selling.
Glib babblers telling stories that sound plausible, even attractive.
The dead giveaways of “issues” are two:
1. He doesn’t care that the data his entire edifice is built on is fake. That is a Bernie Madoff-size indicator of fraud.
2. He touts the failed economist, Paul Krugman.
Either one of those indicators is a deal-breaker.
Together they send the Kummer ship to the bottom of the sea of credibility.
Beware.
I love his attitude that it is unreasonable to not assume that current trends will continue forever.
Funny, climate trends have never continued forever in the past.
Mark,
Have you ever heard such nonsense before? From whom?
If you’ve ever dealt with a stock broker, this is the EXACT exhortation you get.
“GLOBAL WIDGETS stock hit a 5 year high today. Look at the charts. See the trend? It’s going straight up. You HAVE to buy now!”
Their nonsense exhortations for us to put our money where their mouth is are total nonsense.
Kummer doesn’t know what the temperature will be in the future–regardless of his silly faith in NOAA and the IPCC.
Snake oil, at best. Fraud at worst.
Mark,
“I love his attitude that it is unreasonable to not assume that current trends will continue forever.”
Your comments are just reading FAILs. You make stuff up, respond to that, and declare victory. Not much point to responding to them.
That is also the most common tactic used by alarmists. Odd how the fringes in both sides resemble each other.
Pardon my laymen bluntness, but it looks to me like the trend on the last section of the graph was moving back down after a peak.
Joel,
Yes, declining from the peak. What comes next might have large political effect. This post speculates about what that might be, examining one scenario — another pause (implications of the cooling and warming scenarios are obvious).
Time will tell.
So, only the trends that you agree with should be considered as continuing forever.
Non-scientist here, so forgive my ignorance, but . . . what temperature data does the above graph use? Has it been manipulated/adjusted? If so, what would it look like if it used raw, unadjusted data?
“Non-scientist here, so forgive my ignorance, but . . . what temperature data does the above graph use? Has it been manipulated/adjusted?”
It uses NASA/NOAA data. Yes, it has been extensively manipulated to lower past temperatures, which makes later years look warmer (hotter and hotter).
These heavily manipulated surface temperature charts are called “Hockey Stick” charts. They are not to be believed. They are dishonest manipulations of the temperature record.
“If so, what would it look like if it used raw, unadjusted data?”
It would look something like this: The 1999 Hansen surface temperature chart and the UAH satellite chart (1979 to present). Notice on the Hansen chart that the 1930’s is 0.5C hotter than 1998, and then notice on the satellite chart that 2016 is 0.1C hotter than 1998, which makes the 1930’s 0.4C hotter than 2016, which NASA and NOAA claim was the hotter year ever.
Hansen 1999 chart (notice it looks nothing like a Hockey Stick chart):
UAH satellite chart:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg
The way to recognize a Hockey Stick chart is to look at the 1930’s. If the chart shows the 1930’s as being cooler than 1998, then you are looking at a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. Most legitimate charts, from all over the world, show the 1930’s as being hotter than subsequent years and none of them look like Hockey Stick charts.
David,
Ignore all the wild claims about conspiracies. There are multiple databases, all of which show roughly similar patterns of warming.
The two sets of satellite data show a similar picture. See the Global Temperature Report for December 2017 by Christy and Spencer at UAH: “2017 was third warmest year in satellite record.” Roy Spencer shows more info about December and the longer record at his website.
Also see Lower Tropospheric Temperature for 2017 is the second warmest in recent history by Remote Sensing Systems, and their analysis of the longer-term data.
This post also shows NOAA’s ocean temperature data — which shows a roughly similar picture.
Larry, you keep referring to Christy and Spencer’s chart as supporting your chart. It contains less than 40 years of data. 2017 was an el Nino year and it was third of 38 years. So what? Fluctuations due to el Nino’s happen. The UAH chart looks nothing like the chart you extol with its relentless upward temperature progression.
The NOAA/NASA data set you use imputes record high temperatures to large sections of the globe where there are no recorded observations according to Steve Goddard. Have any answer to that criticism? If not, why waste our time here.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/new-video-2017-the-fakest-year-on-record-at-nasa-and-noaa/
“Ignore all the wild claims about conspiracies. There are multiple databases, all of which show roughly similar patterns of warming.
The two sets of satellite data show a similar picture.”
Well, you should look at this post by Mr. Heller. He gives very good visuals of how the temperature records, including the satellites, have been changed over time.
The UAH satellite measurements are the least changed of all, and UAH agrees with the balloon measurements. So it looks to me like UAH is the most accurate one.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/my-climate-forecast-from-three-years-ago/
Once again Larry, your sources are confused or wrong.
?w=720
Willis investigated the ocean heat content claim back when NOAA first introduced their chart disguise that placed temperatures into joules.
It makes a massive difference when 0.02°C change is suddenly displayed as a 0.2°C temperature change.
As, I remember, Willis checked the ocean temperatures for several portions of the world and discovered that the oceans are not uniformly warming.
As with so many other NOAA products, temperatures found in one isolated regions are smeared to represent temperatures in other oceanic regions.
Link? I went and found one. You find the rest.
ATheoK,,
“Link? I went and found one. You find the rest.”
I’ll stick with the NOAA data — which is broadly similar to that of the surface atmosphere and satellite data. You can explore the grey literature if you like.
Ocean temperatures are starting to drop. as you would expect from the sleepy sun and the dissolution of the El Nino transient.
?w=1000
Larry Kummer, “One of the most important datasets of our time.”
Its importance is strictly political.
Scientifically, neglected systematic measurement error makes the global air temperature record almost meaningless.
Pat,
“Its importance is strictly political.”
Yes, I agree.. That’s what I said in the opening and closing sections.
Even on the first graph you presented, the 1998 temperature was exceeded by more than 1F in 2014 and, possibly 2010, so your claim that it wasn’t beaten until the latest el Nino is wrong. It’s interesting, though, that even your imagined line drawn from the tip of 1998 shows an upward incline. So no pause. In a later graph, with your lines drawn in (not necessarily statistically sound) show the famed escalator. Temps continue to go up with each “plateau” being higher than the last. So even contrarians find it hard to argue for no warming, any more.
Mike,
(1) “Even on the first graph you presented, the 1998 temperature was exceeded by more than 1F in 2014 and, possibly 2010, so your claim that it wasn’t beaten until the latest el Nino is wrong”
I see what you mean. That’s my sloppy phrasing. I said “The global surface temperature did not exceed the 1998 high” — which is from the NOAA or NASA story about 2017, referring to the daily high. Not the annual average anomalies shown in the graph.
(2) “It’s interesting, though, that even your imagined line”
Close your eyes. The line is still there. It’s not an “imagined line.”
(3) “drawn from the tip of 1998 shows an upward incline.”
It’s just a hand-drawn broad line given as an illustration. To learn about the pause see these two dozen papers describing the pause (aka “hiatus”), with full citations, abstracts, and links:
In the past few years attention shifted to analysis about possible causes of the pause. See these four score papers about this (with full citations, abstracts, links). It’s a sample, not comprehensive. ~18 of these are from 2017, with Jones and Ricketts one of the most recent (they call them “steps”). Lots of theories about this.
Mike,
A follow-up note to your comment.
Thanks for raising this issue. I looked at the data more closely. The yearly high I mentioned is trivia (as with most of us who write press releases for a living, we tend to insert fun distracting trivia).
More important is, as you note, the annual anomalies. The first year with an anomaly (to tenths of a degree, all I trust the data for) above 1998 is 2014 — when the 2014-2016 El Nino period began. So I changed the line you drew attention to read “did not exceed the 1998 high (by more than the ~0.1°F margin of error) until the 2014-2016 period of El Niño conditions.” (i.e., changed on the FM website.)
A much clearer and stronger point!
Well, the 2014-2015 el Nino was a weak one. So is it not significant that 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 were all above both 1997-1998 el Nino years by the margin you think is important (0.1F)? Also, 2010 was more than 0.1F above 1998 (in fact, 0.07C above 1998). That was a moderately strong el Nino year. 2005 and 2009 were also nominally above 1998, though not by the 0.01F margin. Note, though, that any uncertainty works both ways; 1998 may have been slightly cooler and 2005,9,10,14,15,16 and 17 may have been slightly warmer. But, from the NOAA data we can say that, nominally, the exceptional 1998 warmth was beaten within 7 years (during which there were no strong or very strong el Ninos and 2005 was only a weak el Nino year) and then beaten another 6 times up to last year, even though there was only one strong or very strong el Nino, with 2017 being a weak la Nina year.
Mike,
The “store and release” model is a theory described in a peer-reviewed paper. If you wish to give a rebuttal, I suggest you read the paper and reply to what they say.
Time will show if that theory is correct.
Larry, I don’t see that line changed to “did not exceed the 1998 high (by more than the ~0.1°F margin of error) until the 2014-2016 period of El Niño conditions.” However, this would also be wrong, as I pointed out the 2010 also exceeded the 1998 high by more than 0.1F, in the NOAA data that you started the article with.
Here is my take on the future moves for sst and ssta numbers. I stated this in early Sept 2017, “…Further, the oceans ssta numbers will turn predominantly cool by the end of next spring. Within several years after that almost all of the oceans will be showing cooler than average surface temps. All of that despite the continuing increase in global CO2. So that is my prediction.”
From here, …https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/the_un_climate_panel_cannot_be_trusted/#comment-3536232646
Sea level has been marching upward in a slow, straight line for 150+ years according to essentially all long run tide gauges on earth. Why shouldn’t we assume that OHC has done the same?
The only reason to assume it was flat until 1950 then started rising is because that matches the CO2 narrative.
KTM,
(1) “The only reason to assume it was flat until 1950 then started rising ….”
Who assumes that? No climate scientist that I’ve seen.
(2) “Sea level has been marching upward in a slow, straight line for 150+ years…. Why shouldn’t we assume that OHC has done the same?”
No assumptions needed. The evidence for acceleration of GMSL rise is tentative. The rate of ocean heat content warming, like the rate of surface atmospheric warming, is accelerating.
Surface temperature anomalies should never be lumped in with any other data. They should be thrown into the trashcan along with anything that NOAA puts out.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/
. The problem is that the real science is not there for AGW and never will be, so the alarmists have to point to corrupted data to make their case. The basis physics is upside down. please read this paper
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/
Also as another poster has pointed out IT is NOT a food fight. Billions of dollars are at stake here and the whole survival of the scientific method which has been corrupted by the alarmists and their ridiculous computer models and who refuse to admit that the science is not settled; so therefore refuse to debate it., Thousands of climate papers are put out with government funding and are based in part on computer simulations. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh .. Shame on you Mr. Kummer for believing in that stuff.
As recently as 1979-2000 (approximately) sea level rise was decelerating so why should I be more concerned with the current trend than the equally steep one from 1969-1979?
I don’t dispute there is a general warming trend, but its beginning certainly predates significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions so I do dispute we have the tools (so far) to accurately determine what part of the trend is natural and what is manmade, an uncertainty the IPCC grudgingly acknowledges and somewhat speciously tries to estimate given the lack of precision in all climate metrics. Nor have I seen any reasonable projection that future likely temperature increases are significant enough to waste a single dollar trying to mitigate the effects of. The evidence so far would indicate any successful mitigation might actually give us net costs when we would otherwise experience net benefits.
Finally, the newfound enthusiasm for the “yeah, yeah, it’s a step process” as though they knew that all along rather than being confounded by the pause they didn’t predict and couldn’t explain does not inspire confidence in climate science’s maturity or competence. The historical record very clearly shows a series of spikes, plateaus and even a decline or two and yet, others should put much confidence in the guys who finally figured out that might be how things actually work in the real world as opposed to their models?
Climate science has yet to earn the right to be considered anything other than an immature, imprecise and barely more than rudimentary niche of science.
All science evolves as it matures but climate seems particularly resistant to making it easy on science to crack it, a problem greatly exacerbated by the political uses to which it is put and its maddening reluctance to police its own ranks of charlatans like Mann and cranks like Hansen riding their political hobby horses right through sound, sober research.
There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere (400 ppm by volume and 600 ppm by mass) to heat much of anything (never mind the 71% of the earth’s surface covered by water). Plus the fact that the oceans are over 5 miles deep in some places. The oceans contain 22 times more heat than the atmosphere(Plimer 2009). Some other sources give 1000x . The sea surface is heated by solar radiation and infrared energy from clouds and a little bit by greenhouse gases. The % amount of solar in the above equation dwarfs any piddling amount of heat from greenhouse gases. Also as the sea surface temperature heats up enough it then loses heat through evaporation. A new sea surface temperature equilibrium is then reached. The IPCC doesnt like the word equilibrium. If there wasnt many equilibriums in the science of the earths history we wouldnt be here. The winds drive ocean currents and different pressures drives the wind and differing sea surface temperature. What causes the differing pressures in the 1st place? Different temperatures from uneven solar heating caused by different surface compositions. So we are back where we started from. It is a cycle. So how in the hell would one ever be able to accurately model EL NINOs and EL NINAS and the thousands of other wind and temperature oscillations on the earths surface not to mention the formation of clouds is very poorly understood or else we would we able to predict every cloud that ever was created. Climate modelers have deluded themselves.
Depending on whether you use monthly, semi annual or yearly averages you can show either no change little change or significant change in temperatures. Its a mugs game and each side cherry picks the graph scale they want. However look at the following study
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1858
That study says the total increase over 100 years of sea surface temperature with the last 30 years by ARGO robots has been a third of a degree Celsius and for much of that time there was accelerating increases in man made CO2 with no acceleration in warming of the oceans; just a slight overall increase of .33 degrees C. If you are upset over a third of a degree temperature change in the ocean in a century then i suggest you move to another planet.
Where is the acceleration in this long run tide gauge from San Francisco?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/50yr.htm;jsessionid=83C0FDF3631402D4566DA5472DF8672D?stnid=9414290
The trend looks straight as an arrow to me, and if you want to squint at the wiggles the trend was higher between ~1945 and ~1975 than it has been more recently.
Look at other long-run tide gauges and you’ll see a very similar story. Why should they be ignored in favor of much shorter and less suitable metrics?
Anomalies are bullshit science. They always need a base period and that average base period is not the historical average for all time. Collecting temperature data that needs anomalies to work with is not science. Has anybody actually looked at the Gator69 youtube video in this post. It for once and for all time discredits all climate modelers and the IPCC. There is little to say after viewing the professors presentation. Again here is the link
Anomalies are a reasonable way to present the data but, for annual averages, it doesn’t matter whether you examine anomalies or average annual temperatures, you’ll see the same changes.
Really there is no such thing as an average temperature. The concept of an average temperature only became important once the climate modelers arrived. The temperature changes every hour in most locations. And a global average temperature is a pretty meaningless concept. Anomalies depend on a base point and who is to say what that base point is?
Really there is such thing as an average temperature. For any given geographical location, all one needs to do is record the temperature periodically for a given time interval. The average temperature is the “area under the curve” divided by the length of the time interval. This is simple stuff that was taught in Calc 101.
Alan: a global average temperature is a pretty meaningless concept. Anomalies depend on a base point and who is to say what that base point is?
I think you miss the point Alan. Averages are easy to calculate, they are far from meaningless and it doesn’t matter what is the base point. Maybe it is only a meaningless “concept” if you do not like what is revealed. Maybe the meaning is more obvious if they showed a decline trend.
a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
1. something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
I guess for those that don’t get the big picture, anomalies make sense. But I started as a geology student, and ended up as a climatology student. So my perspective is a bit larger than most “climate experts”, who seem to think that the tail end of this interglacial is somehow the standard by which all climates should be compared. What I learned through my education is that there is no “normal” in climate or weather, and IMHO, claims that there is a “normal” climate is simply ignorance.
No, this just isn’t true. Annual averages of anomalies instead of absolute temps are used for very good reasons.
I don’t think anyone here bothered to look up how “anomaly” is used in this context, and there are endless misguided statements because of it.
Kristi, grab a dictionary and follow along, it’s time to start thinking for yourself.
a·nom·a·ly əˈnäməlē/ noun
1. something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
So, a few commenters here don’t line average temps and don’t like anomalies Would any of them care to say how we should present temperature or climate data to show warming or cooling, globally?
I support using the term “average”, and encourage its usage when discussing climate. I was able to convince my state climatologist to abandon the use of “normal” in favor of the correct term, average. Of course when discussing averages it is important to make sure that everyone understands what period of time is being used to determine said average.
I also strongly encourage the use of error bars, and the admission that when it comes to global temperatures we are making good guesses based upon our best methods. But there is no certainty in measuring global climate, and anyone who claims that there is does not know of what they speak or they are trying to deceive.
Mike,
Great questions!
How about ensuring that the “global temperature” actually measured temperature, oh, maybe, globally?
Current “global averages” are manipulated fraudulent guesses based on measurements from a few places on the globe.
With the current array of measuring stations–poorly distributed, and not stable–climate “scientists” just make up temperatures for huge swathes of the globe. These made up temperatures are part of the “average.”
Though there are many other issues with the “average global temperature,” that’s a pretty fundamental one.
But then, how about if you ask a mathematician about the concept of a “global average temperature?”
Well, maybe there’s not such thing?
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
Christopher Essex, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario
Bjarne Andresen, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
ABSTRACT:
Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html
The main problem with anomalies is that you can change any short period with them and it effect’s everything before and after. This is the ideal tool for frequently adjusting to what you want it to show and not what it should show. It is how the significant cooling period during the 1940’s and 1970’s has been removed to almost a pause. With absolute values changes don’t effect before and after, only the part that has been changed.
For example :-
When 0.5c cooling is removed to zero trend, further future 0.5c warming without this change would equal to before. Therefore with this removed we now have further 0.5c warming which was invented because of the previous cooling removed.
Matt,
&w=1484
Even better, to strip away the con-men’s “anomalies-make-numbers-scarier” approach, let’s look at the actual temperatures of the “global average” for the last 140 years:
With all the hockey sticks stripped away, getting rid of the stockbroker’s favorite trick–“trends-to-tomorrow-buy-now!”, you see that, even with the massive alterations to the official record, the change in “average temperature” is miniscule. Your home’s thermostat can hardly register the difference between 1880 and 2016.
24 hour changes in temperature, in one place, here on Earth, regularly swing 100 degrees.
Relax.
For the statistical refutation that I was referring to, you will have to go back to Gator69 post.
Thankyou from the bottom of my heart Gator69 for alerting me to these 2 videos
My pleasure Alan, pass them on.
Mr Kummer, An excellent article.
But judging by half the comments (and your patient replies) you must feel a bit like a human worm-hole: attempting to connect two separate universes.
zazove,
Par for the course here.
But this shows why Anthony Watts is a prince in the climate debates. He posts material that much of his audience dislikes.
Few do that in the climate wars. Most website proprietors feed their audience exciting morality plays and simplistic stories — but only content matching their tribal beliefs.
@ zazove…nice analogy
No matter what happens, cold, hot, wet, dry, extreme, calm, it’s all controlled by the MagicalMysticalMiracleMolecule. They haven’t moved the goalposts, they’ve installed them along the entire field perimeter.
There is no evidence in oceans or land and continents that 6 years have been warmer than 1998, just about manage one being very similar and that’s it.
This is all that is needed to suggest this a prime example of how much exaggerated rubbish this so called estimated set is.
Only adjustments cause ocean warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/offset:0.3/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979
Only one year rivals 1998, 2016.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979
Only adjustments cause warming 2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979
The more frequently adjusted show the most warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979
Over 40% of the surface data is made up by estimates or interpolation.
GISS and NOAA are examples how not to do, not any more observation data sets. HADCRUD also at it, but with considerable less adjustments.
The next few years depending what happens will show up how much these are going to continue conning the public even more. All these do is add about 0.4c on top of the recent warming to exaggerate its extent. When in reality there is little difference between 1998 and 2016.
I don’t think you need to worry about a step up, in a couple of years we will be into the grand solar minimum and temps will begin to fall in earnest. What are they going to say when the graph shows a sharp decline in yearly temps starting in a couple of years?
The history of temperature change shown in government produced graphs shows a pretty definite pattern of equal length periods of continuous warming and pauses in warming. That pattern was reflected in a changeover from warming to pause in warming around 2003 or 2004. Considering El Ninos as a part of this pattern of global average temperature change is misleading. El Ninos are short term climate events whose cause is known and should be ignored in any discussion of global average temperature change. I am suspicious of the work of government measuring agencies such as NOAA and the NASA climate office when their supervisors appear to have bought into the Man-made climate change argument. If past history is any guide then the pause that began around 2004 should last until around 2034 with the current few warm years being only a short- lived situation.
If the seeming temperature change pattern evident during the twentieth century persists through the twenty-first century then there will only be continuous warming from about 2034 until 2064 and from 2094 until 2100. Also, the current pause began about 2003-4 not 1998 according to how I read the chart.