Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them

Denier, denier, pants on fire

Deniers claim debate is ‘over’ because they can’t win it

Constant practise of scepticism is the root of good science

Hot Topic have been reviling our good friend and climate warrior Bryan Leyland for his opinion piece published recently. Not to mention several other sceptical climate articles by other people which they cannot tolerate. In the process Gareth Renowden and his gang spill the beans on their evidence—they don’t have any.

Because, pressed for some evidence of catastrophic man-made warming of our planet, they don’t reveal any. Renowden, Dappledwater and the rest of the fourth-formers threaten that evidence not only exists but increases beyond doubt, yet they still refuse to disclose it.

They also make unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety or even falsehood against Bryan.

Their arguments always seemed fact-poor and this proves it. Again and again they ignore reasonable requests for supporting information or peer-reviewed papers and resort instead to attacking the questioner.

They indulge in a sickening display of hostile personal abuse. Those lurking at the conversation are left in no doubt that most people at Hot Topic are purulent with a terrible foulness.

The thoughtful people understand that warmists engage in ad hominem attacks as a substitute for reasoned argument and observe that the climate realists don’t. The thoughtful people conclude the reason is that the warmists can have no decent arguments.

What about it, Gareth—do you still claim that the global temperature “trend” is upwards, pretending that the actual temperature is actually rising? Or will you at last acknowledge that, after about 15 years, the only thing still rising is the straight line you drew on the graph? The one you called a “linear trend”?

Gareth must despair of the actual temperatures ever reaching the prediction lines drawn by his beloved Hansen 20 years ago. The rate of rise required to achieve that this century appears impossible. I mean, if the continued rise in CO2 over the last 15 years has not forced the temperature up, or up much, against “natural variability” over that period, why should things change any time soon?

Gareth claims there are “multiple independent lines of evidence supporting the continued warming of the planet” but doesn’t say what they are. But the instrument designed to measure temperature is the thermometer, not glaciers, or sea level, or TOA energy imbalances, or precipitation records or anything else. No “line” of evidence can possibly trump falling readings from thermometers.

Nor is it possible for heat to be “building up” without raising temperatures somewhere. If you haven’t found the rising temperatures, you haven’t detected any heat, no matter what you conclude about an energy imbalance.

By the way, in the absence of thermometers, nobody knows everything about heat in all parts of the oceans, no matter what wild assumptions are being made in some warmist quarters.

Visits: 447

71 Thoughts on “Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them

  1. Andy on 30/01/2012 at 8:25 am said:

    Speaking of Hot Topic, I noted that both Bryan Walker and Christopher Booker have both independently written on the same topic, namely that Obama has made no mention of Climate Change in his State of Union speech, and therefore appears to have substantially backed down from his position at the time of election.

  2. Andy on 30/01/2012 at 12:08 pm said:

    Ian Forrester January 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Roger Dewhurst said:

    “You base your case very largely on the pronouncements of the IPCC. The very foundations of your case have been shot away. It is time for you to apply your own maxim.”

    That just shows you know nothing about how scientists and science work. The IPCC is just a collation and interpretation of thousands of science papers.

    Any scientist worth his salt, which excludes any denier scientist, goes to the the actual papers so that they can see the data for themselves and are intelligent enough to make their own interpretations and conclusions. Thus real scientists can sort the real papers from the junk that denier scientists write since the denier scientists’ data and conclusions are most often incorrect due to lack of ability or cherry picking or gross dishonesty.

    Who is this Ian Forrester and how can he write such drivel?

  3. Nick on 30/01/2012 at 8:51 pm said:


    In response to your request for peer reviewed evidence of increased temperatures K. von Schuckmann and P.Y. Le Traon (2011) show that the oceans are warming. Which data set do you refer to when you mention “falling readings from thermometers”?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/01/2012 at 7:18 am said:


      1) What proportion of ocean heating in Joules is anthropogenic (if any)?

      2) If you do ascribe a figure for 1), what is the mechanism for it?

      3) How would you describe the efficiency of radiative ocean heating (downwelling SW or LW) versus the direct heating at depth from hydrothermal vents?

      You answer for 2) should be supported by recourse to established physics (some reputable references) i.e the bastardized cool-skin effect concocted by Peter Minnet at RealClimate and subsequently parroted by Rob Painting at Skeptical Science will not suffice (unless you can prove it of course – good luck with that).

      Bonus if you can provide us with Hansen’s anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism.

    • Nick on 31/01/2012 at 4:55 pm said:

      NASA explains how IR moderates heat transfer to and from the ocean better than I can and with good references to peer reviewed literature

      “Over the surface of the ocean, there frequently exists a very thin layer called the surface skin layer in remote sensing sciences (Schluessel et al., 1990) (Figure 2).The existence of the surface skin layer can be demonstrated both in theory (Hinzpeter, 1967, 1968) and in observations (Ewing and McAlister, 1960; Saunders, 1967; Clauss et al., 1970; Schluessel et al., 1990) by the need to regulate the long wave radiation and the sensible and latent turbulent heat fluxes across the sea surface. Above and below the thin skin layer, turbulent eddy fluxes enhance heat flux in the ocean and/or atmosphere across the interface. However, the eddy cannot transport heat across the ocean surface by itself. The heat balance in the skin layer must be accomplished by molecular processes, hence the thin skin layer. The actual thickness of the skin layer depends on the local energy flux of the molecular transports, which is usually less than 1 mm thick and can persist at wind speed up to 10 m/s. For stronger winds, the skin layer is destroyed by breaking waves. Observations indicate that the skin layer can re-establish itself within 10 to 12 seconds after the dissipation of the breaking waves (Ewing and McAlister, 1960; Clauss et al., 1970). ”

      As for heating from hydrothermal vents since the upper ocean is heating faster than the deep ocean I expect that the bulk of the heating is coming from the surface.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/01/2012 at 7:02 pm said:

      I take it that you have no answer for 1), 3) and the bonus Nick?

      And your answer to 2) leaves a lot to be desired. All you have done is repeated conventional heat transfer at the ocean surface (nothing new there, documented in Fairall et al 1996). Conspicuously absent is the ANTHROPOGENIC ocean heating mechanism i.e. IR-C effects from GHGs+clouds as distinct from IR-A and IR-B in the solar spectrum.

      Purkey and Johnson are oblivious to hydrothermal ocean heating (as are the “O” parts of IPCC AO-GCMs). As far as they are concerned, ocean heating is a radiative surface mechanism only, quote:-

      “Excepting the Arctic Ocean and Nordic seas, the rate of abyssal (below 4000 m) global ocean heat content change in the 1990s and 2000s is equivalent to a heat flux of 0.027 (±0.009) W m–2
      applied over the entire surface of the Earth. Deep (1000–4000 m) warming south of the
      Sub-Antarctic Front of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current adds 0.068 (±0.062) W m–2.”

      Using data from ‘Submarine Geothermics; Hydrothermal Vents and Electricity Generation’ we can make a rough estimate that hydrothermal ocean heating is in the vicinity of 2 PJ PER SECOND (equivalent flow out velocity of 1 m/s at 250 °C – the water is superheated). Most of the vents are at 2000 – 2500m.

      The hydrothermal vent question was in terms of EFFICIENCY. The simplest analogy being that if you boil a jug of water electrically, the immersed heating element is a 100% efficient heating agent to 100 °C but I’m sure you will find that placing the jug of water under downwelling radiation from solar or atmospheric sources is not nearly as efficient.

      Your expectation “that the bulk of the heating is coming from the surface” is not cognizant of the great bulk of water and heat below 700m. Total OHC change 1961-2003 (43 yrs) using trends:-

      16E22 J 0-700 from Domiguez et al 2008 pg 1

      43E22 J 700-3000 from Church et al 2011 2.2 pg 4 (1E21 J/yr)

      43E22 J Below 3000 from Church et al 2011 2.2 pg 4 (1E21 J/yr)

      16E22 J 0-700 vs 86E22 J below 700.

      It might be time for climate science to integrate hydrothermal ocean heating in climate models – would you agree Nick?

    • Nick on 06/02/2012 at 6:15 pm said:

      Richard, in your original post you said “Nor is it possible for heat to be “building up” without raising temperatures somewhere” but can I take it from you response above that you accept that temperatures are increasing and heat is being accumulated in the ocean? If we can agree on this point we can move on to discussing where this heat is coming from.

    • Nick,

      “Richard, in your original post you said “Nor is it possible for heat to be “building up” without raising temperatures somewhere” but can I take it from you response above that you accept that temperatures are increasing and heat is being accumulated in the ocean?”

      No. It wasn’t from me, but from Richard C. As the HadSST2 dataset makes clear, since about 2001 SSTs have not risen. How can heat be accumulating in the ocean?

    • Nick on 09/02/2012 at 8:37 pm said:

      Sea Surface Temps may not have risen since 2001 but as Richard C points out temperatures at various levels below the surface are indeed rising.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/02/2012 at 7:25 am said:

      Were rising. What I actually pointed out was the long-term changes in total heat, that GHGs have nothing to do with that, and the vast energy being pumped in at depth by hydrothermal vents here:-

      I’ve also looked at the SkS change in total heat plot and discovered that the left scale is grossly incorrect here:-

      But let’s look at the SkS graph anyway:-

      It’s not up-to-date but if it was, total heat has plateaued. I don’t see this as a sign of cooling by itself but I think we are witnessing a precursor to loss of heat from the ocean that, if successive La Ninas do not recharge ocean heat (they’re not at the moment), in conjunction with astronomical cycles will result in cooling maybe kicking in post 2014.

    • Nick on 11/02/2012 at 7:26 pm said:

      Richard, it is interesting that your immediate reaction is to pronounce the graph bogus rather than question your interpretation. It is also interesting that no one on this site corrected you.

      Let me guess, you think the units on the left are 10^31 when in fact it is fairly clear that it is 10^21.

      You can find a clearer version of the graph on the sks web site in about 5 minutes which confirms that the graph is correct and you are mistaken by 10 orders of magnitude.

      I’m also wondering how you define a plateau. says “to remain at a stable level for a relatively long period” and the graph you present certainly does not show that. Can you please explain how you think that this graph shows a “plateau” when the slope remains positive?

    • Nick on 11/02/2012 at 7:32 pm said:

      You also over estimate hydrothermal ocean heating by a couple of orders of magnitude.

      Have a look at: for a more credible analysis than your “rough estimate”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/02/2012 at 8:39 pm said:

      The Davies and Davies 2010 accounting of “hot-spots” (as they put it) leaves a lot to be desired:-

      In our estimate for heat flow across young oceanic crust, we assume that the calibration measurements for the models have been selected to avoid hot-spots and, therefore, the effect of hot-spots is not included (thus a correction is needed). In contrast, we feel that hot-spot anomalies are included in the rest of the measurements on the ocean floor and continent. As a result, we only include a hot-spot cor-rection for the young oceanic domains, which is propor-tional to the surface area included in the young ocean estimate. We take a contribution of 1±0.33TW

      In contrast, Hiriart et al 2010 account for ACTUAL STUDIED VENTS:-

      According to some studies, (Baker and German, 2004) there are 67 000 km of Ocean Ridges that are constantly
      recharging their thermal activity by the uprising of magma.
      They represent 30% of all heat released by the earth. So far 13 000 km have been studied representing 20% of the global ridges of the world. There have been reported 280 sites of hydrothermal vents along the ridges, most of them are at a depth of 2000 to 2 500 meters.


      “ …on super fasts ridge sections, vent sources can be so extensive that plumes are continuous for upward of 100 km along axis” an average width of this equivalent vent as 10 cm and a flow out at a velocity of 1 m/s at 250 °C, one gets a heat flow of 400 TW thermal

      The 20% 400TW figure is what my global ROUGH estimate is based on and I suggest that it is Davies and Davies that underestimate the contribution by “several orders of magnitude” when it is already established that the 20% studied so far produce 400TW.

      They can only have accounted realistically if close to 2000TW is already included in “the rest of the measurements on the ocean floor and continent” because their 1TW correction is laughable.

    • Nick on 11/02/2012 at 9:26 pm said:

      Hi Richard, lets look at the whole section that you quote from.

      “Being quite speculative on the amount of heat that comes out of this equivalent vent, and based in some extend on Baker`s words that “ …on super fasts ridge sections, vent sources can be so extensive that plumes are continuous for upward of 100 km along axis” an average width of this equivalent vent as 10 cm and a flow out at a velocity of 1 m/s at 250 °C, one gets a heat flow of 400 TW thermal using as a sink temperature 30 °C. We can check the results obtained with these daring assumptions.”

      Note in particular that they are being “quite speculative” and that their assumptions are “daring”. It appears to me that the size, temperature and flow values that they give are just guesses. On the other hand Davies and Davies compare their results with numerous other studies and get similar numbers.

      So which is more likely to be accurate, a 20 page paper explicitly measuring “Earth’s Surface Heat Flux” which is in agreement with the wider published work or a six page paper speculating on how we might connect submarines to hydro thermal vents to generate electricity?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/02/2012 at 9:51 pm said:

      You are quite correct to pull me up over my 10^31 error Nick – welcome to Sceptic World.

      I don’t dispute that there’s been a rise of 10^21.Joules but as I said previously the SKS graph is not up-to-date. My interpretation is consistent with the other related metrics, SST and SSL.

      I’ve put HadSST2.xls and GMSL.xls in Dropbox ‘Public’ folder so they should be readily accessible now.

      The real OHC problem is that Hansens model (and IPCC models) have failed spectacularly to project ARGO-era OHC since 2003:-

      Or, as Roger Pielke Snr puts it “according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003”

      The “plateau” is most pronounced in HadSST2 (“Poly”), peaking at the end of 2004. GMSL lags SST and peaks (no plateau) at the beginning of 2010, GSML TOPEX/Jason linear trends:-

      1.85 mm/yr (prior to 1998 El Nino and consistent with tide guages)

      3.7 mm/yr (1998 El Nino to beginning of 2005 – big thermosteric boost)

      1.7 mm/yr (post 2005, back to tide guages long-term trend).

      -1.97 mm/yr post 2010. 1714 (falling sea levels)

      GMSL EMD.xls in Dropbox Public returns a similar EMD result from older data.

      I’m not going to bother arguing the definition of “plateau” except to say none of the metrics: OHC, SST, or SSL are exhibiting anything other than an inflexion this century that indicates heat is not following the long-term trend.

      Furthermore, my EMD analysis (also in Dropbox ‘Public’ at the link above) shows that with the additional data since Wu et al 07 and Scafetta 10, what was a positively rising trajectory curve in HadCRUT3/HadSST2, has now INVERTED to a negatively accelerating but still rising trajectory.

      This all goes to support Richard Treadgold’s original contention “falling readings from thermometers” and “Nor is it possible for heat to be “building up” without raising temperatures somewhere”

      Now, how about some answers to those questions:-

      1) What proportion of ocean heating in Joules is anthropogenic (if any)?

      2) If you do ascribe a figure for 1), what is the mechanism for it?


      Bonus if you can provide us with Hansen’s anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/02/2012 at 10:02 pm said:

      So which is more likely to be accurate, a 20 page paper explicitly measuring “Earth’s Surface Heat Flux” which is in agreement with the wider published work or a six page paper speculating on how we might connect submarines to hydro thermal vents to generate electricity?

      Simple. The paper that is SPECIFICALLY studying hydrothermal vents, CITES the UP-TO-DATE STUDIES of hydrothermal vents and DETAILS THEIR WORKINGS for commercial purposes..

      BTW, quantity does not equate to quality.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/02/2012 at 5:36 pm said:

      Nick, Skeptical Science and Trenberth concede that “ocean temperature measurements from 2004 to 2008 suggested a substantial slowing of the increase in global ocean heat content”

      SkS even shows SSTs (Tsfc) peaked (plateaued) around 2005 then falling thereafter in Fig 4.

      In regard to the “questions”, if you are having a mental block (you haven’t responded so I assume so) I think I can help out.

      1) Ques: What proportion of ocean heating in Joules is anthropogenic (if any)?

      Ans: from the NOAA study S. Levitus, J.L. Antonov, T.P. Boyer, and Cathy Stephens, 2000. “Warming of the world ocean,” the “bottom line” conclusions claimed by the study are these:-

      (1) The world ocean has exhibited coherent changes of heat content during the past 50 years, resulting in a net warming.

      (2) There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing.

      2) Ques: If you do ascribe a figure for 1), what is the mechanism for it?

      No answer possible if there’s “no determination” but the supposed mechanism is as Dr. Robert E. Stevenson puts it:-

      ….modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters to move into the depths of the oceans, and remain sequestered there for long periods of time, would turn to the physical mechanism of this vertical circulation system. Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water, made dense by an increase in the sea’s salt content, would sink.

      It does not happen!

      The primary physical factor in determining the density of sea water is the temperature (Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming, 1943). In the open ocean, top or bottom, salinity differences are measured in a few parts per thousand. Thermohaline circulation takes place where the surface waters become colder than the waters beneath. The large vertical movements occur in polar seas, where accelerated radiation makes the surface waters greatly colder than the deeper waters.

      In these waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9°C, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying “thermal lag” is going to take place. It is clear that there’ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting specter.

      The claim Dr. Stevenson describes pertains to the halosteric (salinity) component of sea level change and thanks to NOAA NODC’s bodacious new Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content page we can look at 9. Comparison of Halosteric Sea Level Anomaly 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer

      0-700 halosteric sea level fall since about 1987.

      0-2000 halosteric sea level fall since about 1991.

      Bad news for the modellers.

      Unfortunately, not being au fait with things warmist, I can’t help with the bonus Hansen question “Bonus if you can provide us with Hansen’s anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism”.

      I was kinda hoping you would come up with something for that Nick.

    • Nick on 15/02/2012 at 8:35 pm said:

      Hi Richard C,
      No “mental block” as you suggest, just incredulity that you would ignore actual measurements of the earths surface heat flux in favour of numbers that are described by the authors as “speculative” or as I read it, made up. Still that is your prerogative so never mind.

      As for the mechanism for heat transfer into the ocean depths the thermohaline circulation you describe is perfectly adequate to explain raising temperatures in the deep ocean without resorting to salinity differences.

      Consider for example what happens to existing thermohaline circulation when the surface temperature is increased and less cold water surface water sinks to the bottom. The result is more (relatively) warm water remaining in the ocean depths, resulting in increasing temperatures even though no warm water is descending. Temperatures are increasing because less cold water is descending.

      Richard T,
      You seems to think that no heat is being accumulated in the ocean because surface temperatures have not significantly increased over the last few years however as Richard C points out the ocean depths are continuing to warm so why do you consider only SST to be relevant?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2012 at 11:28 pm said:

      Surface flux is irrelevant, we’re talking about superheated water at 60 – over 400 C being pumped in mostly at 2000 – 2500m. Surface solar flux only ever heats the upper ocean to about 30 C at most and only in the tropics.

      But if there’s no anthropogenic “determination” (as NASA put’s it), who cares about ocean heat?

      And with SST and SSL both falling, there’s even less to care about.

      Relax, Nick. Go for a swim.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 8:25 am said:

      Here’s some après-swim reading Nick.

      Argo Data Confirms El Niño/La Niña Caused By Underwater Volcanoes

      Published by AJStrata

      Last week I postulated [Linked] that the El Niño/La Niña effect was not due to solar or atmospheric conditions, but actually caused by underwater volcanic activity along ocean ridges off the West coast of South America. To see whether my theory held water I decided to look into the Argo Float data to see if there it was showing a warm upwelling of water in this region. I apparently was correct.


      It is infeasible that El Niño can arise from atmosphere and sun alone by warming this mass of water. Neither air temp or solar radiance change enough to cause this phenomena.

      At this site you can watch animation of nearly 5 years of Argo data on the tropical region of the Pacific Ocean. It is fascinating and proves my earlier conclusion that the warm waters of El Niño arise from the eastern pacific and travel west – not the reverse as is the current (now defunct) theory


      Now some may ask why didn’t Argos detect the upwelling deeper (1000m)? The answer is in fluid dynamics. The hot spot is very narrow above whatever thermal vents are the source of this warming. The Argo floats are not very dense in this region. So the warm column of water upwelling has to spread out as it rises, making it more likely to be detected by the Argos floats. By the time it hits the surface the warm water really spreads out over top of the cooler layers below.

      As this March 2009 surface image shows there are two upwellings in the area, but the one off Costa Rica is missed at the lower depths (again likely due to the density of sensors being so low in this area). And there appears to be a 3rd upwelling off the coast of Peru.

      The activity of Nicaragua and Costa Rica is right along the Cocos Plate. The Peruvian region I highlighted in the previous post and is linked to the Pacific Rise. Higher volcanic activity in these areas clearly cause more warm water to rise and heat the surface, creating the conditions for El Niño. Lower activity allows the cooler currents to dominate, bringing on La Niña.

      Also at WUWT

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 8:59 am said:

      From the WUWT comments:-

      Martin Hovland says:
      February 15, 2012 at 7:28 am

      Megaplumes from the Carnegie Ridge cause El Niños?

      In 1988 we published a book on seabed features dealing with fluids leaking up from the sub-seafloor, including so-called hydrothermal vents. By 1988, the first ‘Megaplume’ had been observed in the East Pacific Ocean (see Anderson, 1987), over the Juan de Fuca spreading ridge. A large plume of anomalously warm water was discovered measuring 19 km across and about 1 km in height (above the seafloor).The top of the plume was about 1.3 km below the ocean surface. The enormous excess heat in the plume was estimated to represent about 10 billion kWh of energy. The venting, which terminated after about 10 days, was found to be equivalent to the yearly output from 2000 small (normal) hydrothermal vents. Based on this observation, we speculated that there may be a close link between mantle convection, and/or the subduction of heated ocean crust slabs, and regional ocean surface warming (Hovland and Judd, 1988, p. 258),.

      Thus, the main driver for for the El Niño would be hot water contained in the a-seismic Carnegie Ridge, located between Galapagos and mainland Equador. The warm water mass would be released as a 10-fold Megaplume due to a regional earthquake or some tectonic disruption. The erratic nature of the El Niño is also a reason supporting this hypothesis.

      – Anderson, I., 1987. ‘Megaplumes’ tips the balance in the oceans. New Scientist, 112, 1540/1541, 24.
      – Hovland, M., Judd, A.G., 1988. Seabed pockmarks and seepages: Impact on Geology, Biology and the Marine Environment. Graham and Trotman, London, 295 pp.

      For further information on Megaplumes see also:

      And on the Carnegie Ridge:

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2012 at 1:50 pm said:

      More reading Nick:-

      A compendium of recent studies of the Kermadec Trench:-

      ‘The Kermadec volcanic region: An overview of geological discoveries from the last decade’


      ‘Submarine massive sulfide mineralization and hydrothermal activity along the Kermadec Arc, the world’s most hydrothermally active’

      Matthew I. Leybourne,
      GNS Science, Lower Hutt

    • Nick on 17/02/2012 at 4:12 pm said:

      Hi Richard C,
      The Davies and Davies paper deals with hydrothermal surface flux. I’m not sure why you are referencing solar surface flux,

      Do you really think AJStrata’s blog post which claims to overturn a well understood physical theory credible? Maybe you could put on your sceptics hat for a moment and see if you can find a few of the glaring problems with his “Analysis”. I’m happy to give you some hints but as a sceptic I’m sure you would relish the challenge.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/02/2012 at 9:47 pm said:

      “The Davies and Davies paper deals with hydrothermal surface flux. I’m not sure why you are referencing solar surface flux”

      Good point, neither am I. TF&K neglect geothermal surface heat flux (probably what I was thinking) but I think D&D09 uses 47 TW, or about 0.09 W/m2.

      Douglass and Knox 2009 use similar:-

      3.3. Flux from the interior of the earth
      Pollack et al. [11] studied 24,774 heat flow measurements at 20,201 worldwide sites. They determined a global mean heat flux of 87±2.0 mW/m2

      Pollack, Hurter and Johnson 1993 (pre-ARGO):-


      We sum separately the contributions of the oceanic
      and continental terrains and calculate a mean heat flow
      for oceans and continents of 101 +__ 2.2 and 65 – 1.6
      mW m- 2, respectivelyT.h esev alues,w henw eighted
      by their respective areas, yield a mean global heat flow
      of 87 – 2.0 mW m -2, or a global heat loss of 44.2 x
      10•12 W. The uncertaintierse presenat reallyw eighted
      standard errors of the mean. Of this heat loss, 70% is
      lost in the oceans and 30% from the continents

      Note in Figure 4 that global heat flow is NOT uniform and “ESTIMATE” = wild ass guess (WAG).

      So by their “estimate” (unchanged since 1993), into the ocean goes 87 – 2.0 mW m -2 * 0.7 = 61 mW m -2 or 0.06 W m -2 and 44.2 x 10•12 W * 0.7 = 31 x 10•12 or 31TW.

      Don’t you think that might be a bit low Nick? I do and so do a growing number of others:-

      Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux

      Written by Joseph A Olson, PE | 25 April 2011

      Freed from the ridiculous assumptions about Earth’s fission rate, we are now able to debate the causes of the periodic fluctuations in fission that are the root cause of the El Nino/La Nina effect. There is an obvious solar cycle trigger to these fission induced ocean temperature changes.

      The first hydrothermal vent was discovered in 1877, they are still being discovered and no-one knows yet the venting changes (“forcing” as the IPCC puts it) that occur over time i.e. the science is NOT settled.

      “Do you really think AJStrata’s blog post which claims to overturn a well understood physical theory”

      Huh? What “well understood physical theory”?. And didn’t you read the screed of other posts up-thread?

      Also another screed here now (time has moved on a bit Nick):-

      If you still think El Nino is a “well understood physical theory” after reading that screed then I really am not interested in continuing this conversation.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 12:12 pm said:

      Nick if you want to put your case that sea levels are rising, why not put your oar in at WUWT (104,339,677 views and counting)?

      You certainly wouldn’t be the only warmer/lukewarmer there (see Pierre-Normand and R. Gates below) and you may even score a point or two.

      The relevant and topical post would be ‘Sea level still not cooperating with predictions’. I suggest a reply to phlogiston:-

      phlogiston says:
      February 16, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      “ENSO fluctuations can be seen as noise in the overall upward trend in sea level rise over the past few decades.”

      Warmistas really hate the ENSO. Why? Because it points to the non-survivability of simplistic back-of-envelope CO2 dogma in the real, complex-chaotic world. Bob Tisdale has shown – and this is not a controversial opinion in oceanography – that ENSO is the dominant mechanism determining global climatic variations on the scale of decades. Certain large ENSO evens are associated with step changes in global temperature which Bob Tisdale has further shown are the ONLY source of significant climate change in recent decades.

      So dismissing ENSO as “noise” really is burying your head in the sand and outright denial of the complex processes of the real world. I love the ENSO. It is real and it is big, it is a real nonlinear oscillator, its been around a long time and its not going to go away.

      And/or Werner Brozek:-

      Werner Brozek says:
      February 17, 2012 at 7:57 am

      Thank you again Pierre-Normand and R. Gates.

      “The Global OHC data through December 2011 is shown in Figure 6. Even with the recent correction and uptick in the two quarters of this year, Global Ocean Heat Content continues to be remarkably flat since 2003″

      The above quote is about the top 700 m. So IF there is a lot more heat further down to 2000 m, then the next El Nino should be huge after a double La Nina if you are correct. Time will tell.

      And/or phlogiston again

      phlogiston says:
      February 17, 2012 at 8:57 am

      Werner Brozek says:
      February 17, 2012 at 7:57 am
      Thank you again Pierre-Normand and R. Gates.

      The above quote is about the top 700 m. So IF there is a lot more heat further down to 2000 m, then the next El Nino should be huge after a double La Nina if you are correct. Time will tell.

      This waiting for el Nino which has been going on for several years now, has a certain “waiting for Godot” ring to it.

      Then JJ

      JJ says:
      February 17, 2012 at 1:46 pm

      Werner Brozek says:

      The above quote is about the top 700 m. So IF there is a lot more heat further down to 2000 m, then the next El Nino should be huge after a double La Nina if you are correct.

      El Nino is a surface phenomenon, and it is localized to a specific area of the Tropical Pacific. Global OHC below 700m is irrelevant. We know that the 0-700m in this area is currently not recharging the heat given up in the last El Nino, as it typically would during a La Nina. Prayers for a huge El Nino based on mid depth ocean warmth would seem to rest on a bunch of heat sitting below 700m in that area of the eastern Pacific, and a mechanism to get it up top in a way that raises near surface temps.

      Is it there? If so, how did it get there?

      And what are the El Nino “triggers”?

      I’m following the thread so I might see your input?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/02/2012 at 1:40 pm said:

      Over at the AJStrata thread Bill Illis has posted this useful summary:-

      Bill Illis says:
      February 17, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      The Trade Winds are directly related to the temperature of the equatorial Pacific in the upper 300 metres.

      If it is colder in the East Pacific then there is little convection and little cloud and little rain in the eastern 2/3rds of the Pacific (almost none in fact). If the West is warmer, then there is more convection there and more rain and so on. So a cold East, warm West and the Trade Winds then blow stronger, which draws up even more cold water from below and then the winds blow even stronger and it becomes a self-reinforcing oscillation.

      Eventually all the colder water is blown to the West, which pushes the warm water down and it recirculates back underneath in the Equatorial Pacific UnderCurrent which then eventually surfaces in the East at the Galapagos Islands. Now we have a warm East and a cold West and opposite convection cells. The Trade Winds then slow down and the warm water remains at the surface and even sloshes back to the East and viola, an El Nino.

      A self-reinforcing oscillation (up to a limit at which time it reverses and becomes self-reinforcing oscillation in the other direction).

      The El Nino (which is now at 150 metres depth and between 135E and 160W) is coming sometime.

      The second link is to an animation of the status of the coming El Nino centred (warmest) between PNG and Nauru with a face at the Line Islands below Hawaii.

      Fine. But what will the intensity of it be? And what are the magnifying factors? Remember that there was no El Nino after the last La Nina, ENSO just stayed negative and we’ve had a double-dip La Nina.

      Also the warmest water is only at 150m so it’s a surface phenomenon as JJ points out last comment above. The big Warmist bogyman (your nightmare) is OHC at 700 – 2000m building up globally somewhere (I’m not saying it isn’t but it’s not anthropogenic in origin anyway).

      So where exactly is the AGW scare-story in either surface or mid-ocean?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/01/2012 at 12:13 pm said:

      “Which data set do you refer to when you mention “falling readings from thermometers”?”

      Here’s one, HadSST2:-

      Moving average falling since deployment of the ARGO network.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/01/2012 at 1:18 pm said:

      Hadley Centre SST data set (HadSST2)

      Rayner, N.A., P.Brohan, D.E.Parker, C.K.Folland, J.J.Kennedy, M.Vanicek, T.Ansell and S.F.B.Tett 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in sea surface temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 data set. Journal of Climate. 19(3) pp. 446-469 (pdf ~17 Mb),5


      From the 1950s onward, ICOADS contains data from the World Ocean database (Levitus et al. 1994; 2000), specifically from subsurface ocean profilers and ocean stations. From the late 1970s onward moored and drifting buoys are also included. Latterly these have made up a very large proportion of the total number of observations in the database due, in part, to their much greater frequency of reporting relative to ships and also to the often delayed reporting of ships’ data and the general decline in the numbers of reporting ships

      International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set

      The International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) offers surface marine data spanning the past three centuries, and simple gridded monthly summary products for 2° latitude x 2° longitude boxes back to 1800 (and 1°x1° boxes since 1960)—these data and products are freely distributed worldwide. As it contains observations from many different observing systems encompassing the evolution of measurement technology over hundreds of years, ICOADS is probably the most complete and heterogeneous collection of surface marine data in existence.

      Release 2.2 (1784-2004):

      October-November 2005: ICOADS.DM observational data and monthly summaries made available for 1998-2004 to replace the 1998-2002 ICOADS.RT products. Thus for this release, products for 1784-2004 were entirely ICOADS.DM based. Specifically, this included replacement of some Ocean Data Acquisition System (ODAS) data received via the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) with these DM sources:

      * Worldwide drifting buoy data from Canada’s Marine Environmental Data Service (MEDS).
      * Tropical Pacific and Atlantic moored buoy data, for the TAO/TRITON and PIRATA arrays, from NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC).
      * US moored buoy and Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C-MAN) data from NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center (NDBC).

      Canadian Argo

      Canadian floats report through the Service ARGOS satellite communication system to the Marine Environmental Data Service (MEDS) in Ottawa. Data are received every six hours, processed automatically and subjected to duplicate checks and data quality control. They are then transmitted to the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) and Argo Servers within 24 hours. The data are also made available to principal investigators (PI) and posted on a MEDS website within 24 hours. The delayed mode data from PI’s is also sent to us for duplicate checks, data quality control and storing in MEDS database

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2012 at 9:06 am said:

      Email 611, May 2008: Former navigator informs Phil Jones how critical sea surface temperatures were gathered: “…peering at the thermometer with a weak torch in the middle of a gale, spilling most of the water, making up readings, copying what others had written before (as it was dark, blowing a hooley and you couldn’t be bothered to go onto the bridge wing)”

    • Nick on 31/01/2012 at 4:57 pm said:

      When you reference HadSST2 for falling temperatures what is your start point? Argo was first deployed in 2000 and your graph shows warming since then. It only shows cooling if you choose your start point from 2002 and 2005. Is this what you meant?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/01/2012 at 5:41 pm said:

      ARGO deployment only BEGAN in 2000, it wasn’t 100% complete until 2007:-

      The running average SST peaked mid deployment coinciding with ICOADS Release 2.2 (1784-2004):

    • Nick on 01/02/2012 at 7:28 pm said:

      Richard C,
      If you take the start point for your trend from 2007 (when deployment was completed) you still see rising temperatures.

      In more general terms when you look at a graph how do you determine if the trend is rising or falling? I ask because we obviously see different things when we look at this data which on it’s own is interesting and I would like to understand where the difference in interpretation stems from.

      I suspect you are going to say that if the highest point is greater than the current value then the trend is down. But I’m not sure this holds water so please go ahead and explain your reasoning.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/02/2012 at 1:50 pm said:

      There’s been no rise since the running average peaked in 2003/4

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/02/2012 at 5:21 pm said:
    • Nick on 02/02/2012 at 6:00 pm said:

      You say this graph

      (Lets stick to the interpretation you originally presented to keep this simple please)

      shows “falling readings from thermometers” because “There’s been no rise since the running average peaked in 2003/4”.

      Using your logic you could claim that the same graph shows rising readings from thermometers because there’s been no fall since the running average had a minimum in 2008 (or 2001).

      As you say ARGO was not fully deployed in 2003/4 so please explain what makes your starting point in 2003/4 more valid than one in 2008 or 2001?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/02/2012 at 6:46 pm said:

      I wasn’t using logic Nick (please follow the reasoning already explained – clearly I thought)).

      ICOADS must have been convinced that there was enough data from ARGO for them to release a new revision.

      But just for chuckles, here’s the trend since 2000:-

      Flat as a strap. But you have said, and I quote:-

      “Argo was first deployed in 2000 and your graph shows warming since then”

      Clearly you have trouble with trends (as does Phil Jones I see – is it a warmist/denier thing?)

    • Nick on 03/02/2012 at 8:27 pm said:

      Richard, you understand that the raw data is different from the three year moving average right? You can’t just change the data set to get the result you want.

      Anyway, I’m happy that I now understand how you managed justify choosing as you starting point the only couple of years from a 34 year data set that show a falling trend. I don’t particularly agree with your assumptions but I’m happy to leave it there. I don’t expect we will be able to see eye to eye on this.

      Have you got any idea on the statistical significance and confidence levels of your falling trend?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2012 at 8:45 am said:

      Nick you are a slave to a warmist mindset. You can only ever see a linear warming trend no matter what you are shown, I show you the flat trend since 2000, you see warming even though there’s been warming-cooling-warming-cooling. I show you that there’s been a falling trend since 2003/4, you see warming.

      Any genuinely sceptical observer worth his or her salt will look at the data from as many different angles as possible using as many different trend methods (imposed and inherent) as appropriate but the warmist mindset has settled on the linear trend because it suits “the cause”. Warmists even project that mindset onto their opposing sceptics; take the perverse piffle in the SkS ‘Down the Up Escalator’ post for example.

      I am only too happy to inspect the trends in a 30 yr dataset because that as I understand is the conventional period in which to view climate and you ask if I have any idea of statistical significance of the recent falling trend in the 30 yr climate period – the answer is yes.

      HadSST2 is the ocean component of HadCRUT3 so HadCRUT3 is basically a damped version of HadSST2. At Climat4you there’s linear and polynomial trend analyses of HadCRUT3 for periods:100 yrs; 30 yrs; 20 yrs; 10 yrs; and, 5 yrs. Here’s the 30 yr analysis:-

      The Polynomial Fit has an R-squared value closer to 1 than the Linear Fit. If we look at Coefficient of Determination in Wiki, we find this:-

      “R2 is a statistic that will give some information about the goodness of fit of a model. In regression, the R2 coefficient of determination is a statistical measure of how well the regression line approximates the real data points. An R2 of 1.0 indicates that the regression line perfectly fits the data.”

      So why would you use a linear trend in preference to the polynomial trend in this case?

      I could extract the inherent data signal with similar results using EMD but nuther story.

      You make comment in regard to moving average. Up-thread I said it was moving average but that was incorrect. The trend is a running, centred average similar to the latest UAH anomaly:-

      Note the additional polynomial and the warning from Spencer:-

      “The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever”. Same goes for linear trends.

      I have not “changed the data”, it’s the warmists that have changed trend extraction methods. Back in 1995 before Jim Salinger received the last payments for the sale of his soul he published a paper: ‘Southwest Pacific temperatures: trends in maximum and minimum temperatures’. None of the graphs in the paper show linear trends, they only show running averages. The linear trends are tabled separately.

      Now the only trend that NIWA shows on the NZTR (bogus as it is) is a linear trend – how times have changed.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2012 at 10:10 am said:

      A quick overview of:-


      Josh riposte to SkS: ‘Down the Up Escalator’


    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2012 at 10:44 am said:

      In regard to the IPCC FAR, FAQ 3.1, Fig 1 (WG1, Chap 3, p253) graph in the Josh riposte to SKS ‘Down the Up Escalator’:-

      The IPCC’s fraudulent statistical technique

      Cook: “Monckton proceeds to make another bizarre claim about the IPCC reports which we’ve never heard before: that they use a ‘fraudulent statistical technique’ to inflate global warming’ … As long as the claim sounds like it could be true, the audience likely cannot determine the difference between a fact and a lie.”

      Reply: Mr. Cook is here accusing me of lying. Yet my email address is well enough known and Mr. Cook could have asked me for my evidence for the fraudulent statistical technique before he decided to call me a liar. He did not do so. Like the hapless Professor Abraham, he did not bother to check the facts with me before making his malevolent and, as I shall now show, baseless accusation.

      The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, carries in three places a graph in which the Hadley Center’s global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset from 1850-2005 is displayed with four arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines overlaid upon it. At each place where the altered graph is displayed, the incorrect conclusion is drawn that because trend-lines starting closer to the present have a steeper slope than those starting farther back, the rate of warming is accelerating and that we are to blame.

      I wrote both to Railroad Engineer Pachauri (in 2009) and to a lead author of the 2007 report (in 2011), and visited both of them in person, to report this defective graph. They both refused to have it corrected, though neither was able to argue that the technique was appropriate. I have now had the data anonymized and reviewed by a statistician, who has confirmed that the technique is unacceptable. In the circumstances, the refusal of the two senior IPCC figures to correct the error constitutes fraud and, when the statistician has been shown the context of the data that he saw in an anonymized form, the police authorities in the relevant nations will be notified and prosecution sought.

    • Nick on 04/02/2012 at 1:40 pm said:

      Richard, the polynomial fit you present shows no statistically significant cooling. The trend might be down for this particular fit but it is statistically indistinguishable from a warming or flat trend (have a look at the thin green lines). I also note that the linear fit on the same graph shows statistically significant warming but I’m happy to discuss what ever data you think supports your claim of cooling.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2012 at 2:02 pm said:

      “….the linear fit on the same graph shows statistically significant warming”

      You REALLY do prefer that linear trend (with the lessor R2 value) don’t you?

      Your approach epitomizes the warmist mindset I described up-thread but OK, what if I do an EMD analysis of the same dataset? I can assure you it will NOT result in anything like a linear warming trend and because it’s the inherent data signal (not an imposed linear or polynomial trend), the statistical criteria are irrelevant.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2012 at 2:28 pm said:

      EMD background and an example analysis here:-

      NZ vs S. Hemisphere temperatures

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2012 at 3:13 pm said:

      Wu et al 2007 referenced at the ‘NZ vs S. Hemisphere temperatures’ post and linked here:-

      Have already carried out an EMD analysis 1855ish – 2000 on the GSTA obtained from CRU here:-

      Shows, Fig. 3. The annual GSTA (thin black line) and its trends (linear trend, thin
      gray line; overall adaptive trend, thick black line; and multidecadal trend,
      thick gray line).

      A 30 yr analysis is unlikely to extract the overall adaptive trend but will extract the multidecadal trend (obviously a cycle).

    • Nick on 04/02/2012 at 8:19 pm said:

      When you say “You REALLY do prefer that linear trend” keep in mind that you have presented all these trends to support your case (unsuccessfully in my opinion), so if there appears to be a bias towards linear trends then it is of your making not mine.

      “what if I do an EMD analysis of the same dataset?”. What indeed. Let me know when you actually have.

      Your inability to present any statistically significant data to back up your assertion is surprising. Are you going to admit at some point that maybe you over stated your position or are we going to continue looking at graphs that don’t show what you claim? We now seem to be considering imaginary analysis that you might do in the future. You are not helping your credibility.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2012 at 7:29 am said:

      My credibility is neither here nor there in the global scale of things (and neither is yours). It is the responsible planning of govts and entities operating in a climate-critical environment that matters.

      I’ve shown by Wu et al 2007 (Scafetta 2010 same) that by inspecting the last 30 yrs data we are only looking at the warm-cool phases of the multidecadal cycle that oscillates about the trajectory of the data. The 90s warming and recent cooling is merely a phase of that oscillation.

      But the argument is NOT over the multidecadal trend. Govts acknowledge that natural variation can and will have a major influence over that time-scale e.g. the UK Met:-

      “Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades”

      NZ MfE CC:-

      “Short term periods with little change or even decreases in climate parameters are likely to be expected from natural variability”


      “….the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.”.

      So a medium term economic risk analysis of an operator that subscribes to the IPCC view (and acknowledges natural variation influence as above) will assign probability factors thus:-

      0.7 warming
      0.1 no change
      0 2cooling

      The trajectory of warming (by whatever cause) has been uninterrupted since the LIA but now the astrophysicists are lining up saying the trajectory will be subject to major interruption starting circa 2014. The UK Met disputes this of course but given this knowledge, the (responsible) medium term risk analysis now becomes (esp for NH):-

      0.33 warming
      0.33 no change
      0 33 cooling

      Obviously as it becomes clear over the next 5-7 yrs which way the shift is going the factors can be biased one way or the other but meantime, operator planning factors in the significant risk (as we see in the NH right now) of cooling.

      The BIG problem for CO2-centric warmists is that if we plot the trajectory of warming versus the C02 Keeling curve, temperature LEADS CO2 by some 20 yrs around the time Foster and Rahmstorf began their incredibly deficient analysis. Chart and Excel Workbook for that here:-

      The trajectory curve uses the quadratic equation for HadCRUT3 found by Scafetta 2010. The same paper and subsequent papers by him and others include predictions of a new trajectory based on the astrophysical interruption predictions.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2012 at 8:32 am said:

      The first risk probabilities above should have been:-

      0.7 warming
      0.2 no change
      0 1 cooling

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2012 at 10:09 am said:

      I’ve wrongly attributed the first quote to the UK Met but it is actually from The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) POSTNOTE Number 400 February 2012, ‘Climate Variability and Weather’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2012 at 12:56 pm said:

      2 examples of irresponsible (negligent) climate risk assessment:-

      1) Highways and Climate Change

      Literature Review: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Assessment, and Adaptation Approaches

      Department of Transportation USA

      Federal Highway Administration

      Office of Environment and Planning

      Their basis? IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) i.e. probability factors:

      1.0 warming (IPCC version)
      0 no change
      0 cooling

      2) UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA)

      The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

      Their basis? UK Climate Projections (UKCP09)

      Their basis? HadCM3 climate model and therefore IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) i.e. probability factors from the outset:-

      1.0 warming (IPCC version)
      0 no change
      0 cooling

      Even though they go to great length to obtain probabilistic projections AFTER their initial assumption:-

      3 The construction of probabilistic climate change projections

      Outright, brain-dead, group-think, negligence.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2012 at 1:45 pm said:

      The POST quote is this:-

      Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades.2

      But following that is this:-

      Then, as the century progresses, the influence of increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations is likely to be of growing importance.2

      The paper referenced is:-

      2 Hawkins and Sutton, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2009.

      This is what Roger Pielke Sr says about Hawkins and Sutton 2009 (abbreviated):-

      Comments On A Scientifically Flawed Paper “The Potential To Narrow Uncertainty In Regional Climate Predictions” by Hawkins and Sutton, 2009

      The authors are making the scientifically unsupported claim that there is less uncertainty in predicting the global average surface temperature several decades from now, as compared with shorter time forecasts of this metric. That is, unlike weather forecasts which deteriorate in skill with time, they are concluding that after a few years of less accurate skill, climate prediction starts to increase after a couple of decades.

      There is no scientific basis for this claim of the improvement in model prediction skill and reduction in internal variability of any climate metric for time periods of several decades into the future.

      This paper should never have passed peer reviewed.

      Cross-posted to Bishop Hill ‘Note it: POST’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2012 at 9:30 am said:

      Have taken on Ed Hawkins of Hawkins and Sutton 2009 at Bishop Hill here (and up-thread):-

  4. Andy on 01/02/2012 at 7:41 am said:

    Renowden has now escalated his rant to the Herald

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2012 at 7:49 am said:



    • Andy on 01/02/2012 at 8:06 am said:

      Although the piece is not penned by GR, and there are no comments enabled on the article.

    • Andy on 01/02/2012 at 8:14 am said:

      Yes $84,000 is slightly more than the annual payrise that ChCh CEO Tony Maryatt turned down

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2012 at 12:07 pm said:

    FYI guys, comments are still being posted under the Leyland Dom Post article. Worth checking from time to time:-

    No additions under the Salinger article but worth checking too:-

  6. Nick on 06/02/2012 at 6:06 pm said:

    Richard, can I assume by your change of subject that there is no evidence for statistically significant cooling and that your original claim of “falling readings from thermometers” is just unsupported speculation? I’m happy to move on if that is the case.

    • Nick, I didn’t change the subject. I wrote the post, but I haven’t so far contributed to this discussion.

      However, there’s evidence at that temperatures for the last few years have been level or at least not rising, and actually falling for about the last three years. (See “Comparing global air temperature estimates”.) I wasn’t concerned with statistical significance, just with the fact of more than momentary falling temperatures in the face of Renowden’s insistence of a continued rising trend and the appalling abuse from the commenters at Hot Topic.

    • Andy on 06/02/2012 at 7:25 pm said:

      According to the Met Office in the UK, the global mean temperature increase over the last 15 years was 0.051 deg C

      Don’t know about cooling though.

    • Quoting a “rise” of 0.051 °C is the same as declaring it could be falling. It’s less than the tremor of a tick on an elephant’s back.

    • Andy on 07/02/2012 at 7:06 am said:

      Indeed, and without quoting error bars on this number it is largely meaningless.

      With respect to the cooling, I was interested by this comment from Norman Page on Bishop Hill (I have taken a small quote from his quite long comment)

      What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a nine year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 15 years with CO2 up 7.9 % and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend since then is negative

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2012 at 8:22 am said:

      The “falling readings from thermometers” that Nick claims to be “just unsupported speculation” would be the post late 2010 values on HadSST2 here:-

      But I’m sure Nick sees a rising linear trend in those values and that being conclusive proof of warming – his faith is unshakeable.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2012 at 1:17 pm said:

      How Nick can dispute that OHC is not building up when SSTs have fallen since 2010 is beyond me.

      The next OHC update is in 2 months time so that should sort out the argument.

    • Nick on 09/02/2012 at 8:20 pm said:

      Please don’t assume you know what I do or don’t see or what I may or may not believe.

      There are an many trends in the data set, linear and non linear, rising and falling. I’m not tied to any particular one but I am interested in how you determine which one you think is evidence of what is actually happening.

      I can’t access your drop box btw. Has anyone else managed to?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/02/2012 at 7:46 am said:

      I’ve put all the .xls files including HadSST2.xls in the ‘Public’ Dropbox folder that you should now be able to access here:-

      If you still can’t get access, email me and I’ll add your address to the shared list. Dropbox then ‘invites’ you by email to collaborate and gives you access via the URL once you accept by email.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2012 at 8:09 am said:

      What change of subject Nick?

      Please review the discussion starting here:-

      Take particular note of:-

      1) Multidecadal oscillations about the trajectory of the data.

      2) The concessions by the UK and NZ govts that in face of reality, e.g. UK govt “Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades” consistent with the recent mid 2000s cyclical inflexion in HadSST2 and HadCRUT3.

      3) The difference between extrinsic trend imposition and intrinsic signal extraction and that statistical error is only relevant in the former – not the latter.

      4) The peer-reviewed papers analyzing both Multidecadal oscillations and overall adaptive trend (trajectory) of HadCRUT3 using both intrinsic and extrinsic trend extraction.

      5) Haggling over a few years of the multidecadal oscillation is a puerile and specious waste of time and not an argument that has any bearing on future trajectory (the govts above accept the reality that natural variability is the main influence at present, why don’t you?).

      6) There are conflicting hypotheses (AGW vs astronomical cycles) at this juncture (next 5 years) as to whether the trajectory will be: a) continued warming; b) flattening; or, c) cooling. At the moment the multidecadal oscillation is in a negative phase (that’s undeniable), but I do not interpret that as cooling in the trajectory (or warming, or flattening). Everyone will have to wait and see over the next 5 years or so, where the trajectory is heading.

      While you are processing all this, I’ll do an EMD analysis (“imaginary” as you put it Nick) of HadSST2 over the last 30 yrs (will probably only show multidecadal oscillation only – not enough data) and another over the entire length of the series (should provide both multidecadal oscillation AND overall adaptive trend i.e. trajectory) and leave it in Dropbox. Then we will be able to track progress of both oscillation and trajectory without the present confusion between the two.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2012 at 9:45 pm said:

      Here’s the “imaginary” HadSST2 EMD analysis:-

      The 30 yr result returned more than I expected given the short series but it’s deceptive. It does serve to support my contention that the most recent trend (IMF 5 (of 5), a multidecadal oscillation) is down since 2003/4 but somewhat meaningless. No doubt you will be delighted Nick that the trajectory accelerated up around 1992.

      Unfortunately (for you Nick), the 162 yr trends tell a different story. The recent multidecadal down trend since 2003/4 is still present as IMF 5 (of 7) but the trajectory is now opposite to the 30 yr trend.with an inflexion and deceleration around 1930.

      The shape of the trajectory will change as new data comes in over the next 5 yrs or so and the point-of-inflexion will move to the right in the cases of flattening or cooling but the curve will obviously straighten out in the case of warming.

      This analysis should demonstrate the clear difference between the long-term trajectory of the data and the transient multidecadal oscillation (natural variation) that has dominated this century.

      It should also highlight the inanity of demanding statistical significance (not applicable in this signal extraction analysis) to the recent falling trend in the oscillation – it’s glaringly obvious that its been heading south since 2003/4 (IMF 5).

      Also worth noting (and a surprise to me) is that this intrinsic EMD trajectory with additional data is opposite to that found by WU et al (the last decade of additional data has made the difference). It is also opposite to the extrinsic polynomial found by Scafetta and plotted here with CO2:-

      Next step is to plot the latest 162 yr EMD trajectory against CO2 – it wont be a good look for CO2 “forcing” though.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/02/2012 at 7:06 am said:

      I’ve updated HadSST2.xls manually to show the commentary above. Didn’t synch automatically for some reason.

  7. Andy on 07/02/2012 at 10:58 am said:

    Since I have ventured into Hot Topic land I have posted some data on wind energy usage (sorry if this is off topic) that seemed to cause convulsions and I was accused of “cherry picking”.

    Actually, I was providing alive snapshot of energy usage in the UK. Wind was down to 0.2% of total at one point yesterday nut has since rocketing back up to 0.5%

    This is the page I linked to

    If you scroll down to “Generation by Fuel Type (graph)” there is quite a nice interactive visual that allows you to unselect the various fuel types and see where the load is coming from.

    Coal is providing over 50%, and it is interesting that CCGT is picking up all the variability. Wind is just a minor player. In fact it is not possible for me to see the difference in the graph with and without wind.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2012 at 12:11 pm said:

      Feeling besmirched Andy?

      They sidestep the obvious that its 0.5% at a critical time – who cares what the wind contribution is when the sun is shining, the birds are singing and the wind is blowing?

      The UK subsidies don’t get talked about a lot either, maybe we’ll hear more about that if and when they’re removed and I’m sure it’s only a matter of time now that the matter has been broached in their Parliament.

    • Andy on 07/02/2012 at 12:32 pm said:

      There’s also the 2km setback issue that is currently being proposed. If you can’t put a turbine within 2km of a residence in the UK, you are truly limited for options.

      I also note here that the 1700 turbines that was estimated by AndrewH to supply NZ’s 20% needs is approx 50% of the total current UK install base.

      I think there is a bit of washover from the UK hype into NZ, even though we don’t have the direct subsidies here. If wind gets a hammering in Britain, I suspect there will be a bit of pullback here because they require quite a bit of upfront investment to get the turbines built (5 times as much steel and concrete per MW generated compared with nuclear, according to Patrick Moore)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation