Measure, for measures are better

A guess is no help to knowing

A paper published in Nature on 10 February 2013 could destroy the global warming scare.

It’s called Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends and the Abstract is available on our side of the paywall, along with the Supplementary Information. However, I’ve also obtained a copy of the paper (800 KB) and it’s fascinating. There’s a larger version (3 MB), not so heavily compressed and less murky.

Until now, the only way to measure human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has been to calculate the theoretical amount of CO2 produced by burning various carbon-based fuels and adding them up. But this paper uses actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels. Then these data are compared with the calculated emissions.

What do you think it means?

151 Thoughts on “Measure, for measures are better

  1. Rob Taylor on June 1, 2013 at 12:14 am said:

    Before you embarrass yourself any further, RT, here is the abstract: kindly indicate which of their findings “destroy the global warming scare” – or whatever small part of it remains after Willis “crushed” it so convincingly in your last post…

    “International efforts to limit global warming and ocean acidification aim to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2, guided primarily by national and industry estimates of production and consumption of fossil fuels. Atmospheric verification of emissions is vital but present global inversion methods are inadequate for this purpose. We demonstrate a clear response in atmospheric CO2 coinciding with a sharp 2010 increase in Asian emissions but show persisting slowing mean CO2 growth from 2002/03. Growth and inter-hemispheric concentration difference during the onset and recovery of the Global Financial Crisis support a previous speculation that the reported 2000–2008 emissions surge is an artefact, most simply explained by a cumulative underestimation (~ 9 Pg C) of 1994–2007 emissions; in this case, post-2000 emissions would track mid-range of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios. An alternative explanation requires changes in the northern terrestrial land sink that offset anthropogenic emission changes. We suggest atmospheric methods to help resolve this ambiguity.”

  2. Gary Kerkin on June 1, 2013 at 9:46 am said:

    Rob, if I read the paper correctly in the quick perusal I have just made, then haven’t you missed the implication of Richard’s question (“What do you think it means”)?

    The point is that the few actual measurements (i.e. empirical) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere indicate that it’s composition in the atmosphere has been increasing over the last however many years (albeit that publicity about it reaching 400ppm came from Hawaii where the measuring station is close to a volcano which continually emits gases very high in carbon dioxide!). I doubt anyone disputes that the burning of carbonaceous fuels adds to that composition and this paper may well be a very good guide to how that amount is estimated.

    But that the composition is rising in itself is not necessarily a problem. It can only considered to be a problem if it contributes to warming of the atmosphere and even then, only if that is a problem.

    The most compelling evidence that warming is not likely to result from increasing carbon dioxide composition in the atmosphere is that the trend from estimates of global average temperature has not increased in the last 16 or so years, a fact recognized by several authorities.

    I therefore take the answer to Richard’s question to be that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic sources has not caused additional warming of the atmosphere and therefore casts doubt on the theory.

    So I doubt that you publishing the abstract, for which he provided a link, warrants your claim that he is embarrassing himself.

  3. Rob Taylor on June 1, 2013 at 10:46 am said:

    Gary, I would certainly be embarrassed if I, say, were to pontificate endlessly on about All Black selection procedures whem in fact, I know nothing about the subject.

    I do, however, know enough to recognise my own ignorance, and thus avoid making a fool of myself. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the scientifically illiterate who cling to climate change denial sites such as this one.

    As an example, your statement above shows your woeful ignorance of elementary physics – the difference between heat and temperature. Perhaps you could read an elementary text before you embarrass yourself any further?

    “The most compelling evidence that warming is not likely to result from increasing carbon dioxide composition in the atmosphere is that the trend from estimates of global average temperature has not increased in the last 16 or so years, a fact recognized by several authorities.”

    RT, I’m still waiting to hear your explanation of how, if “water always melts the ice it is in contact with”, that the polar sea ice grows in winter, or that the ice ages ever happened!

    Perhaps you’re just too busy “smashing”, “annihilating”, “extirpating” and “destroying” the myth of global warming, but here’s another question to ponder: why is malaria expanding its range northwards into Europe, even threatening the UK?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3325067/Malaria-warning-as-UK-becomes-warmer.html

  4. Thomas on June 1, 2013 at 10:55 am said:

    “The point is that the few actual measurements (i.e. empirical) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere indicate…”
    Now Gary, where did you get that idea from that CO2 is measured only in a few places again?
    FYI: http://co2now.org/Know-CO2/CO2-Monitoring/co2-measuring-stations.html

    What you don’t grasp is that the paper is NOT at all commenting about the TOTAL CO2 content measurements in the Atmosphere, which are plentiful and mare all over the world, also in NZ, NO, what the article proclaims is that we need to do more to measure the industrial components of CO2 in the atmosphere to differentiate any natural source from industrial ones. The paper is addressing this and concludes that we are tracking at the middle of IPCC projections. So far nothing too new and the rhetorical headline by RT is rather misleading as people will jump to the headline (RTs intention) and overlook the question (also RTs intention as I have little doubt). If RT does not comprehend the article then he should not rush to the press and put sensation and spin on a paper that he has – to his own omission ( he does not know what the paper means) – not comprehended.

  5. Magoo on June 1, 2013 at 11:06 am said:

    Found that water vapour yet Rob? AGW fails to work without it.

  6. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 11:15 am said:

    The Met Office have issued a response to the Keenan questions here

    The interesting graph for me is Figure 1, which shows no change in radiative forcing since about 2000.

    Yes, at the same time, CO2 emissions continue to rise.

    The overall change in radiative forcing since 1900 looks to be 1.5 W/m2

    [EDIT]

    I see that Lord Donoughue of Ashton responds in comments on the BH thread

  7. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 11:49 am said:

    The radiative forcing also seems to flatline between 1910 and 1950, when a warming period occurred, then becomes quite noisy but trending upwards between 1975 and 1998 during the late 20th C warming period, then flattens off during the 21st C, corresponding to the lack of surface warming

  8. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 11:55 am said:

    Malaria? Sheesh talk about Gish Galloping

    [EDIT]
    I see that the Telegraph article is written by a “political correspondent” who has picked up some NGO propaganda and extrapolated that to mean that Malaria might come to the UK within 5 years (I thought they stopped writing this tosh around 2007)

    Meanwhile The Beeb reports the coldest spring in 50 years in the UK.

  9. Rob Taylor on June 1, 2013 at 11:57 am said:

    AGW is working perfectly well without your little straw man, Magoo, because AGW is observed in action by a multitude of independent observations in the real world; pull your head out from under the covers and take a look:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

  10. Gary Kerkin on June 1, 2013 at 12:08 pm said:

    Why is it that those who do not like being challenged resort to insulting remarks. You’ve taught thermodynamics have you, Rob? I always thought temperature was an indicator of the quantity of thermal energy contained in a body. Is this incorrect?

  11. Bob D on June 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm said:

    Yes, I found that interesting. What they’re doing is back-fitting the real results to their “models” and then pretending they predicted it all along.

    To show this, have a look at the difference between Fig 1b and the fifth box (ANT) in Fig. 2, which charts the anthropogenic CO2 temperature response. Note that they don’t match, the radiative forcing drops, as you say, after 1998, and there are no volcanic forcings at work over the period. Yet the ANT response keeps rising monotonically. What else could cause the drop after 1998? Only solar, yet Hansen (2005) shows solar TSI variation to be minimal compared with the ANT line (0.22 vs 2.75 W/m2).

  12. Bob D on June 1, 2013 at 12:26 pm said:

    Also, Fig. 3 is plainly cherry-picking. Note two things that stand out immediately. They point out that stratospheric cooling is predicted by the IPCC theory, yet fail to mention the other part of that – the lack of the predicted tropospheric hot spot. Also, they show a chart of Arctic sea ice extent, and not the Antarctic, ‘cos it’s growing.

  13. Thomas on June 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm said:

    Indeed Gary, (at least if you exclude phase changes such as melting or evaporation) and as you can see, the heat content has been rising in the biggest thermal mass in our climate system: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    Now as the vast majority of the oceans is vastly colder than the surface temperatures in the tropics, where the majority of the heat influx happens, warming of the oceans will continue. Ocean heat content lags behind the temperature development of surface temperatures.

  14. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 1:57 pm said:

    The other explanation is aerosols, but that is also admitted by Hansen to be a guess based on little data.

    The ANT graph shown by the Met Office is pure circular reasoning, and it doesn’t, as you point out Bob, even add up

    This theory looks shakier by the day. I thought I had seen it all until I saw these RF graphs

  15. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 2:42 pm said:

    >”Now as the vast majority of the oceans is vastly colder than the surface temperatures in the tropics, where the majority of the heat influx happens,”

    Huh? “vast majority”? “vastly colder”? Implied air => sea sensible heat flux? Citations/observations please Thomas, this is radical stuff you’re purporting here. Not even the IPCC have established exactly “where the majority of the [non-solar] heat influx happens after 25 years of speculation.

    But well yes, the majority of the SOLAR heat influx to the ocean happens in the tropics and air temperature is warmer due to direct solar heating and “[in some tropical locations] the [surface air] is [a little warmer (air say 35 C, sea say just over 30 C at the most)] than the [ocean] surface temperatures so an air => sea thermal gradient can exist but not predominantly so that air => sea heat transfer occurs (that process is highly unconventional anyway, but not impossible – post coming up on this). But the vast majority of the oceans [are a little warmer] than the surface [air] temperatures by about 3 C on global average so the predominant planetary thermal gradient is sea => air especially at polar/sub-polar regions where heat gained by the ocean in the tropics is lost to the atmosphere after circulation taking anything up to 100 years (see below).

    >”…warming of the oceans will continue.

    Not if energy input is declining it wont. Warming at depth will continue due to propagation from the upper layer but the upper Pacific and Atlantic are cooling (see graph previous comment from Mike Jowsey).

    >”Ocean heat content lags behind the temperature development of surface temperatures.”

    But only because it takes a very small heat transfer from ocean to warm the atmosphere due to the respective specific heat capacities and the apparent atmospheric lead is only due to the very fastest responses from the subsurface of ocean (there’s been citations of diurnal studies of this here at CCG recently that show empirically how heat moves horizontally from and down below the subsurface thereby setting up an atmospheric lag behind ocean. Below the subsurface there’s considerable lag (see below). Observed atmospheric temperature today is more an indicator of solar input to the ocean over a dozen years ago than it is of “temperature development of surface temperatures” – whatever that is.

    Ocean heat content actually LEADS the temperature development of surface temperatures because the system is: sun input => ocean heat sink => atmosphere temperature lag. You are completely at odds with established planetary thermal inertia Thomas. Trenberth:-

    The thermal inertia of a 90 m layer can add a delay of about 6 years to the temperature response to an instantaneous change (this time corresponds to an exponential time constant in which there is a 63% response toward a new equilibrium value following an abrupt change). As a result, actual changes in climate tend to be gradual. With its mean depth of about 3800 m, the total ocean would add a delay of 230 years to the response if rapidly mixed. However, mixing is not a rapid process for most of the ocean so that in reality the response depends on the rate of ventilation of water between the well-mixed upper layers of the ocean and the deeper, more isolated layers that are separated by the thermocline (the ocean layer exhibiting a strong vertical temperature gradient). The rate of such mixing is not well established and varies greatly geographically. An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10–100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics. Consequently, the oceans are a great moderating effect on climate changes.

    http://www.oco.noaa.gov/roleofOcean.html

    Abdussamatov (2012) calculates planetary thermal inertia (atmosphere lagging sun/ocean) at 14 +/- 6 years from thermodynamic principles and Scafetta obtains 12 years statistically.

    Thomas (in the kindest way), it is very clear that you have no clue whatsoever about the sun-ocean-atmosphere thermally lagged system. Neither have you acquainted yourself with the scientific literature pertaining to it. If you insist on putting your oar in on that basis of ignorance, you’re really just making a fool of yourself.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm said:

    Andy what am I actually looking at in the following Met Office figure (sorry, I’m a bit late on this)?

    Figure 1: (b) Radiative forcing, Wm-2 [blue line]

    1) Is this an implied forcing derived from observations?

    2) Is it an aggregation of external forcings so that a rising forcing has been offset by falling forcing(s)

    I haven’t seen this before, it’s contradictory. ANT rising, 1(b) flatlined since 1998. I’m thinking, once I understand this graph, I’ll be saying the same as you – “I thought I had seen it all until I saw these RF graphs”.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 3:30 pm said:

    >”What else could cause the drop after 1998? Only solar, yet Hansen (2005) shows solar TSI variation to be minimal compared with the ANT line (0.22 vs 2.75 W/m2).”

    Solar change since peak in 1986ish wont show up in atm temp for a while yet, Peak level was maintained pretty much right up to 2011/12. It’s only after then that solar starts to take effect but with some delay. CMIP5 left TSI at early 21st century peak levels right out to 2100 – duh.

    The other factor missing is 60 year cyclicity (or any oscillations e.g. PDO, AMO, NAO) and the change of phase, positive to negative, around the turn of the century. Not sure how that should be incorporated though because it’s not something that fits RF methodology.

  18. Rob Taylor,

    RT, I’m still waiting to hear your explanation of how, if “water always melts the ice it is in contact with”, that the polar sea ice grows in winter, or that the ice ages ever happened!

    The ice is solid H2O; the water is liquid H2O. What causes this difference between the two forms? It’s their temperature, give or take a little leeway to account for “impurities” in the H2O. When a colder object contacts a warmer object, which way would you expect the thermal energy to travel? When the ice receives “extra” thermal energy, would you expect its temperature to rise or fall? When the temperature of ice rises, does it becomes more likely to freeze the (warmer) adjacent liquid water or more likely to get closer to melting? You see where I’m going with this?

    So the question probably arises in your mind: “What causes the ice to form in the first place?” That’s a very good question. What’s the answer?

    There is some freezing possible under water, I think, depending on salinity, but most of the ice forms from water in contact with a sub-zero atmosphere. Because, by definition, as I have some fun with above, water is warmer than ice. The air is almost always colder than the water.

  19. Rob Taylor on June 1, 2013 at 4:13 pm said:

    The above is yet more tosh, mumbo-jumbo and pseudoscience from willfully ignorant idealogues with their heads in the sand and their derrieres exposed for the amusement of all.

    Here’s what real scientists conducting real observations with real ships, planes and satellites say:

    Royal Society
    It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

    Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.

    Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them.

    The Society has worked on the issue of climate change for many years to further the understanding of this issue. These activities have been informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines.

    Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations.

    http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/

    NASA
    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

    The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources…

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    NOAA
    Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth’s climate is changing.

    This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming.

    It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well…

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

    and NIWA
    Human induced climate change is one of the widest-reaching hazards facing New Zealand.

    It significantly influences how the risks from many hazards are likely to change in the future.

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/natural-hazards/hazards/climate-change

  20. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm said:

    Commenter “Nullius in Verba” (on the BH thread) gave a good summary of the Met Office paper

    What we’re really asking is whether there is more warming than expected from natural variation, which is why they talk about ‘significant warming’. And it is quite true that you can’t tell just by looking at the data. You have to know what the normal background variation looks like. If your only clue to what the normal background looks like is the same bit of data that you’re asking the question about, that might or might not have a signal in it, you can’t deduce anything. If you build your background noise model assuming there’s no signal, you’ll find no signal. If you build your model assuming there’s a signal of a particular form, you’ll find a signal of that form. It’s circular reasoning. You need to input some extra information or assumptions from outside.

    I should add that there is quite a lot of “natural variation” in the Met Office graphs since CO2 attribution doesn’t start until 1950

  21. Rob Taylor on June 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm said:

    Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities with an article from the Telegraph, Andy, rather than your favourite, the Daily Fail, but here is the report itself:

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/NationalPressReleases/2012PressReleases/120911Climatechangewillmeanincreasedhealthrisksin/

    Of course, it’s only written by a panel of health experts which, inexplicably, did not include any witchdoctors, voodoo priests or climate change deniers, but it’s still worth a read:

    Dr David Heymann, Chairman of the Health Protection Agency, said: “There is no doubt that climate change poses a wide range of challenges to public health in the UK.

    “From increased risks of heatwaves through to potentially greater exposure to air pollution, indoors and outdoors, and potential changes to established pollen seasons, there are many issues all of which need further research and attention if we are to adapt to, or mitigate the effects.

    “We are confident that this report will provide all Government departments with the further information they need to properly prioritise areas for future work and protect the UK public from the significant looming health challenges that climate change presents.”

    This report, which uses the latest UK climate projections published in 2009, also includes a more detailed analysis of the effect rising temperatures will have on death rates in hot and cold spells.

    Using new models, and taking population changes into account, the report predicts that by the 2080s there may be on average more than 12,000 heat related deaths a year in the UK – compared to about 2,000 a year now.

    It also suggests that;

    Premature deaths and respiratory hospital admissions related to ozone exposure may increase as a result of climate change.

    The warmer climate will mean that the UK pollen season may start earlier and last longer.

    Climate change may lead to increased risks to health from building overheating, and biological and chemical contamination indoors.

    Populations of exotic mosquitoes, which could spread chikungunya and dengue fever, are establishing in Europe, and the chances of these mosquitoes establishing in the UK will increase with changing climatic conditions.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 5:42 pm said:

    >”…it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years”

    November/December 2009 – getting out of date now Rob.

    What’s the Royal Society’s explanation as to the “very likely” dominant cause of the global warming that HASN’T been taking place over the last 10+ years?

    That explanation would be one “develop[ed] through vigorous debates between experts” and “there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals” wouldn’t it? Especially given “climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations”.

    Should be a no-brainer.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 5:59 pm said:

    >”….most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position”

    That wasn’t always the case Rob:- [RC, the comments below repeat “I” and “my”, which confused me until I checked the references. It turns out they’re not your comments, although you don’t make that clear. You’ve contributed just six words and the remainder has been copied and pasted from John O’Sullivan. We’re not writing an encyclopedia here. I think we should offer insights and ask questions, linked elsewhere, sure, but not copied in bulk like this. I “borrow” articles myself, somewhat freely, but I say what I’ve done. – RT]

    Breaking: U.S. National Academies Find Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

    This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier.*

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/breaking-u-s-national-academies-find-greenhouse-effect-doesnt-exist/

    U.S. National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part Two)

    Glenn Tamblyn (climateandrisk.com) and John Cook (skepticalscience.com) were among a myriad commenters apoplectic with rage about my article yesterday. * Their outrage was because I showed that no American science academy, at least till 1979, gave the idea of the greenhouse gas theory the time of day. In fact it was never even mentioned in a key report to Congress that year. So much for ‘settled science’ I said.

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/u-s-national-academies-and-the-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-two/

    US National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part Three

    This article is the third in a series that traces the back story of the (non) greenhouse gas theory.* Their purpose is to expose the truth that this so-called ‘settled science’ never appeared on any national science academy’s radar until the 1980′s.

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/us-national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-three/

    National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 4

    Not only are there so many assumptions made about what is the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) but what strikes me most about these discussions is how believers in the ‘theory’ avoid addressing why, if this is all ‘settled science,’ there is no standard definition. Moreover, the closer we look at it the less it is clear just how this ‘theory’ even operates. Pointedly, despite around $100 billion spent on climate research, this cornerstone of the man-made global warming science hasn’t even been validated by any objective test in earth’s atmosphere.

    What has triggered the furor is my analysis of the seminal 13,000-word report from 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences. The study is often referred to as the Charney Report and was commissioned by the U.S. Government to supposedly explain how carbon dioxide (CO2) will impact future climate. From our modern perspective – 33 years on – it seems incredible that such an in-depth report should fail to mention the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). This is especially incongruous being that climatologists will glibly tell you the theory has unimpeachable provenance stretching back 150 years to the formative era of radiative physics and Arrhenius and Tyndall.

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-4/

    National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5

    This article contrasts and compares two of the most important peer-reviewed climate studies of their day – one generation apart – to expose bogus greenhouse gas claims. We see how short the time frame was when consensus science switched from declaring the greenhouse gas effect as junk to claiming it as a trigger for an impending climate apocalypse.

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-5/

    National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6

    This article summarizes the brilliant essay of Marjorie Mazel Hecht that offers one of the most compelling insights into the back-story of how a clique of U.S. academics sold a Malthusian population control scare story.* Their aim: to use man-made global warming as the front to introduce drastic worldwide population control.

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-6/

  24. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm said:

    Thomas I get the impression (my inference) from your statement quoted below that in your understanding the atmosphere drives ocean heat content:-

    >”Ocean heat content lags behind the temperature development of surface temperatures”

    If my impression/inference is correct – where on earth did you get that idea from? It is an upside down notion with no basis in conventions, laws, or observations.

  25. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 6:26 pm said:

    Fascinatingly content-free propaganda from our leading science institutions.

    Is it surprising that young people can’t be bothered learning science anymore?

  26. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 6:45 pm said:


    It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

    So it is CERTAIN, 100% probability. Yet we had warming episodes in the previous 50 years that are unaccounted for, and we have 15+ years of no warming and no increase in forcing over the same time period, that are also unaccounted for, yet we are certain

    Colour me unimpressed.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 7:18 pm said:

    >”You’ve contributed just six words and the remainder has been copied and pasted from John O’Sullivan”

    Yes, PSI’s revelations re Charney Report – anathema to Cook and Tamblyn – support my six words, that was all the words I needed.

    The addition of the article intros to the titles was an afterthought because the titles didn’t indicate content

    >”We’re not writing an encyclopedia here. I think we should offer insights and ask questions, linked elsewhere, sure, but not copied in bulk like this. I “borrow” articles myself, somewhat freely, but I say what I’ve done. – RT”

    What exactly, was the difference between my reply and the comment by Rob Taylor that I was replying to? He contributed:-

    “The above is yet more tosh, mumbo-jumbo and pseudoscience from willfully ignorant idealogues with their heads in the sand and their derrieres exposed for the amusement of all.
    Here’s what real scientists conducting real observations with real ships, planes and satellites say:”

    My reply was NOT to what Rob contributed himself however (nothing of substance to reply to), it was to selected passages he “copied and pasted from [Royal Society and NASA]”

    Rob’s comment – 37 lines.
    My reply – 55 lines including the quote I was addressing from Rob’s copied articles, my comment made longer by the additional 17 or so lines of the Part 4 intro which includes the naming convention (the “Charney Report”) not included in Part 1 intro – did you know prior to this what the “Charney Report” was about RT, or even that such a contentious document existed? [No. Thanks for that. – RT]

    Rob followed his 37 line comment with another 28 line comment, 25 of which were “copied and pasted from [HPA Press Release]” for total of 58 lines (33+25) “copied in bulk”. Yet I get pinged for 52 lines “copied and pasted” but Rob Taylor doesn’t for 58.

    Why the double standard? [Look, I didn’t like his lack of effort much, either, but he made it clear it wasn’t his own writing, you didn’t. My concern was first the lack of attribution and then the length. People complain about length, but do you want me to keep silent on it? – RT]

  28. Magoo on June 1, 2013 at 7:25 pm said:

    HAHA, that’s hilarious Rob. No warming in 16-23 yrs, failed computer models, no tropospheric hotspot, no positive feedback from water vapour, collapsing CO2 markets, oceans starting to cool, official climate sensitivities lowered, a failed attempt to revitalise Kyoto, etc. Is there anything that was predicted that has come true?

    No wonder you’re so ignorant if you place your faith in skeptical science, it’s the last bastion of the desperate. Well you don’t have to see the truth if don’t want to but everyone else is, including the IPCC and the climate science community. It must be hard for those who spouted such absurd rubbish about AGW to back down now that all those global warming predictions have failed so badly. No wonder the warmist trolls all have such bad attitudes in the climate blogs, they’re looking like complete idiots, and even thought they know it deep down some of them just can’t bring themselves to admit they were wrong. The rest of us just think they’re bad jokes.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 7:43 pm said:

    >”[RC, the comments below repeat “I” and “my”, which confused me until I checked the references. It turns out they’re not your comments, although you don’t make that clear…]”

    Actually I was using the “:-” writing convention after my initial six words.

    E.g. from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:-

    Common uses of colons

    To announce, introduce, or direct attention to a list, a noun or noun phrase, a quotation, or an example/explanation.

    Dashes

    …….let’s take a look at some ways to put dashes to work in your writing.

    To set off material for emphasis.

    http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/semi-colons-colons-and-dashes/

    I’ve written and read piles of business reports that use this convention.

    [You drive your points home with a sledgehammer, RC. But you didn’t say who wrote it, simple as that, so I thought you did. My mistake, clearly. – RT]

  30. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 8:03 pm said:

    Rob


    Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities with an article from the Telegraph, Andy, rather than your favourite, the Daily Fail, but here is the report itself:

    First of all, give me one reason why “The Daily Fail (sic)” is my favorite

    Secondly, give me one reason we should believe any of these so-called medical “experts” who base their extrapolations of disease on unverified models.

  31. Mike Jowsey on June 1, 2013 at 9:18 pm said:

    They should be spending their time looking into the medical ramifications on a population should the climate get colder. Warm is good, cold is bad: bad for food production, for energy consumption, for elderly, young, sick, poor, bad for homeless people, for travel, for livestock.

  32. Andy on June 1, 2013 at 9:43 pm said:

    By the way, in Roger Pielke Jr’s book The Climate Fix, he gives us a fairly good reason not to trust organisations like WHO

    In his particular example, they cited some health related numbers and gave no attribution to anthropogenic climate change

    Shortly after, the WHO doubled all the numbers and attributed them to AGW

    In essence, these guys are just making it up as they go along

  33. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2013 at 10:54 pm said:

    >”…he made it clear it wasn’t his own writing, you didn’t. My concern was first the lack of attribution”

    >”….you didn’t say who wrote it, simple as that, so I thought you did”

    OK fair enough, sloppy on my part. Must state author or source org, etc in future e.g. “From PSI:” would have been helpful.

    >”I was using the “:-” writing convention”

    I’ve looked this up for usage and concede that it has probably been poor form for some years depending on where it is used. One discussion group on this topic has an answer:

    “According to Nick Marten’s The Secret History of Typography in the Oxford English Dictionary, a colon followed by a dash is a typographical mark that the OED refers to as the dog’s bollocks:”

    And the University of Sussex has a strong opinion on the matter,

    “The colon [is] never preceded by a white space; it is always followed by a single white space in normal use, and it is never, never, never followed by a hyphen or a dash — in spite of what you might have been taught in school.”

    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31060/is-it-proper-to-use-a-colon-followed-immediately-by-a-hyphen

    But another comment in the thread says:

    “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a colon followed by a hyphen, but I have seen it followed by a dash, especially before beginning a long list. @Marcin’s answer mentions court documents, and I think that’s where I’ve seen it too.” – TRiG Oct 20 ’11 at 17:18

    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/31060/is-it-proper-to-use-a-colon-followed-immediately-by-a-hyphen#comment84250_31060

    “It’s correct, because it is a recognised, well-known usage. However, it is redundant, and in most situations not the correct best or right usage. I would only use it where there is an established convention for its usage, such as in certain court documents.” – Marcin Jun 22 ’11 at 19:14

    http://english.stackexchange.com/posts/31063/revisions

    # # #

    “Redundant” is not quite right, the colon and dash are quite different in purpose. I’ve only got a hyphen on my keyboard that I can see so I’ve been using that. Mostly the use now days is in this form following a colon:

    – Item 1
    – Item 2

    Or other symbol e.g.

    > Item 1
    > Item 2

    Or bullet pointed list . A subtle variation on “:-“. I suppose blog convention is best for blog comments though, force of habit will be hard to change.

    [This is very long, and off-topic, I think. Are you taking the Mickey, RC? The purpose of the colon is to introduce. It never needs a horizontal line, short or long. Only the hyphen, as you say, resides natively on the keyboard. The en and em dashes can be generated on the PC, as can all extended ASCII characters, with Alt codes entered on the numeric keypad. Hold down the Alt key, press 0151 on the keypad, release the Alt key and the em dash — appears at the cursor. Alt+0150 produces the en dash –. Alt+0176 produces the degree symbol °. Easy. Now back to global warming. – RT]

  34. Rob Taylor on June 2, 2013 at 5:39 am said:

    Don’t be disingenuous, Andy, your “15+ years of no warming” relies on a carefully cherry-picked interval for one of the 3 surface temperature data sets – the one with the least coverage of the Arctic, where warming has been greatest.

    Remove any one of those oh-so-carefully-selected factors, and an unmistakable warming signal leaps out of the data.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

  35. Andy on June 2, 2013 at 11:08 am said:

    The other Inconsistency in the various Met Office screeds that are linked here

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/1/more-from-the-wrong-files-josh-224.html

    In their blog post response to Keenan, they repeat the mantra that the climate was driven primarily by anthropogenic means since 1850, yet in the graphs in the accompanying PDF, the ANT part shows a mainly flatline and then ANT starts around 1960 .

    The warming around 1930s is quite prominent yet shows little correlation with co2 or forcing.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2013 at 12:09 pm said:

    SkS doing a bit of cherry picking of their own – no RSS or UAH in Figure 4.

  37. Rob Taylor on June 2, 2013 at 12:42 pm said:

    ROFL, Richard – you quote approvingly from JOHN O’SULLIVAN, the serial fraudster and would-be identity thief:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan

    JOHN O’SULLIVAN, [snipped]?

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/leyland-joins-the-uber-cranks-signs-up-with-serial-liar-osullivans-vanity-science-group/

    JOHN O’SULLIVAN,, who even Christopher Monckton has described as “confused and scientifically illiterate “?

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/176-lord-monckton-replies-to-john-o-sullivan-s-open-letter.html

    You really are dredging the bottom of the barrel, RC, and that hollow sound is all that is left of your own credibilty.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2013 at 12:50 pm said:

    Figure 6: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Figure8.jpg

    Their 2010 average anomaly AFTER “removing” El Nino was about +0.29 C.

    Latest ENSO-NEUTRAL April 2013 UAH anomaly is +0.1, down 0.5 C from +0.6 in 2010.

    http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    The April 2013 UAH datapoint is about equivalent to a little less than 2005 (+0.9 = +0.29 – 0.2) on F&R11, Figure 6.

    In other words, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) is junk.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2013 at 1:50 pm said:

    >”ROFL, Richard – you quote approvingly from JOHN O’SULLIVAN”

    You can fact-check the articles yourself Rob, e.g. Part 1:

    “Acting on their suggestion this author obtained a download copy from the NAS website and ran it through a full word search to confirm the numbers. Readers can check for themselves. There is ZERO mention of any greenhouse gas effect as a factor on our climate.”

    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/breaking-u-s-national-academies-find-greenhouse-effect-doesnt-exist/

    Note: “Readers can check for themselves”

    That’s you Rob.

  40. Alexander K on June 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm said:

    Andy, this may seem a bit extreme of me, but anyone, including Rob Taylor, who quotes the ridiculous ‘97% of Climate Scientists’ or similar ‘97% fictions, gets scrubbed from my list of those I might take seriously on the basis that anyone who relies on one proven piece of nonsense in a discussion automatically reduces their own entire argument to nonsense.
    Richard Tol, himself very much a part of the IPCC machine, blew SkS’s silly Cook et al paper on the 97% nonsense and proved, and showed his workings in doing so, that Cook et al should have used the figure of 98%, which their thesis came up with after Tol eliminated mistakes!
    Cook and his cohort seem to get their science and their maths from ‘The Hitch-hikers’ Guide to the Galaxy’ which is, of course, both highly entertaining and totally fictitious.
    As to the title of this thread, this is why I use a good quality max-min thermometer and an agricultural-quality rain guage. Both may not be entirely accurate, but much superior to guessing!

  41. Magoo on June 3, 2013 at 6:02 pm said:

    Wrong again Rob (do you ever get it right?). According to Sks, all the temperature datasets show a lack of warming for between 15-23 yrs – both satellite and surface based records.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    ‘Data sources: GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT, RSS, UAH, BEST.’

    No warming trend greater than the +/- error margins from the following dates:

    GISTEMP 1994
    NOAA (Land/Sea) 1994
    HADCRUT3 1993
    HADCRUT4 1994
    BEST 1998
    NOAA (Land) 1997
    RSS 1990
    UAH 1994′

  42. Thomas on June 3, 2013 at 6:46 pm said:

    Mike, if you are actually interested on the ocean heat content, I recommend this site:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    and this graph in particular.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

    Now it will take something very significant don’t you think, to change the trend that you can see.

  43. Thomas on June 3, 2013 at 7:28 pm said:

    RIchard said: “Thomas, this is radical stuff you’re purporting here….. (commenting on my assertion that the majority of the ocean is much colder than the surface temps).”
    Richard: the average depth of the oceans is around 4km or so. The vast majority of the ocean waters is much colder than the surface layers and as you pointed out, it takes a long while for the oceans to catch up to the new climate reality we are creating.
    Further Richard, and this is where you are loosing the plot: Ocean heat content change is the result of two flow: Energy in (mostly in the topics but increasingly in the more and more ice free arctic summers!!) and Energy out (mostly due to cooling the high latitudes.) And here AWG is playing its game: Reduction of the outflow of heat to space. The high arctic amplification of AGW and its resulting much stronger warming there. Ocean heat content is rising over all due not to more solar radiation being absorbed, no its due to less cooling.
    You can confabulate about ocean heat content as much as you want and declare its cooling or whatever but the picture is rather different:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
    Just meditate over this. If you indeed think that NOAA is lying to us with that graph, have a rant at them…
    good luck!

  44. Thomas on June 3, 2013 at 9:55 pm said:

    Richard: Changes in Ocean heat content are the result of imbalances between the inflow and the outflow of energy. AGW is reducing the heat outflow. When you look at the global maps of the Earth temperature anomaly you can see where the biggest impact is made. It is also where the net cooling of the planet happens. Earth Energy balance versus latitudes

    Ocean heat content will lag behind any surface climate change obviously, due to the giant heat capacity of our oceans. Does this really surprise you?

    Richard, you once again burrow yourself into details of ocean/atmosphere interface science, interesting as that may be, while you refuse to see the bigger picture. Funny that. Tell me, if you modify the gas content of the atmosphere by adding GHGs, how come you think that this is not going to affect the temperatures, oceans included? Not only do you have to explain why this should not occur, you must also explain where all the extra heat over the past century has come from! Good luck.
    Oh, and don’t tell me the oceans have not warmed over the last century. We have debated this. The oceans added about 7×10^22 J over the last 10 years alone. Unless you accuse NOAA of lying to us, you must admit that. The “up-tick” on the graph is especially steep over just the past half year according to NOAA. The constant repetition of the mantra that the oceans have been cooling over the last years seems not to show in the global summary. In fact, the opposite seems to be occurring, with global ocean heat content to 2000m rising unabated.

  45. Thomas on June 3, 2013 at 10:01 pm said:

    Richard, just for good measure, the vast majority of the energy imbalance due to AGW ends up rising the ocean temperatures (oceans huge heat capacity, etc….) and one and for all: Ocean heat content has been RISING and especially sharply also over the past 6 month.
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
    If you think NOAA is lying to us, write to them!

  46. Andy on June 4, 2013 at 9:17 am said:

    Hi rob,
    Can you tell me why Hadcrut has the least coverage of the Arctic?

    Why don’t they use the thermometers in the Arctic that GISS uses?

    Is it perhaps that there aren’t any, and the data gets interpolated?

  47. Andy on June 4, 2013 at 10:34 am said:

    Thomas, the uptick is irrelevant as the data in blue has been smoothed and the data in red (i.e with the uptick) hasn’t.

    The data you present shows an increase in ocean heat content. Is it statistically significant (for which you need a statistical model)?

    i.e is the warming trend statistically different from random fluctuation?

  48. Thomas on June 4, 2013 at 10:42 am said:

    Oh dear Richard…. “Latest ENSO-NEUTRAL April 2013 UAH anomaly is +0.1, down 0.5 C from +0.6 in 2010.” So what?
    In 2000 it was -3.5 on the graph you cited… did you expect an ice age to come for a year…? Would you have bet on that number to have significance? You would have lost your shirt!

    When will you finally understand that short term fluctuations are meaningless noise? What is the linear trend through that graph (climate4you that you linked above)? Perhaps from -0.3 to +0.3 from 1971 to 2013 (eye balled from that graph)? Now lets see: 0.6 Deg of warming in aaah… 34 years = 0.17 Deg/decade give or take a few hundreds…. quite close to the generally projected trends isn’t it? So what was your point again?

  49. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 10:58 am said:

    Thomas, it actually hasn’t been because of AGW that the deep ocean is warming. We’ve shown you on several occasions that the deep ocean warms and cools on a different timescale. The upper ocean isn’t warming, and neither is the atmosphere. This shows that the CS is very low. The deep ocean is still warming from surface warming that occurred in the past, up to 1,000 years ago. In the future, this too will stop.

  50. Doug Proctor on June 4, 2013 at 11:26 am said:

    Andy –

    The difference between the Arctic coverage of HadCru and GISS, to the best of my understanding, is that GISS infills the no-data based on trends observed in those Arctic stations that exist, and infills completely, whereas HadCru infills less completely and based on general global trends rather than the trends obvserved in the few stations that exist.

    GISS and Hansen say the Arctic is the hotspot/future of the Earth, and so favour the option that increases the temps, and GISS/Hansen like to have North America dominate the Northern Hemisphere trend (in everything). HadCru favours the European dominance, which has had cold times while NAmerica has had hot times.

    We all give the benefit of the doubt to the side we prefer. The difference with Hansen et al, is they give the benefit of doubt to EVERYTHING is the climate system that they can. Which is why the corrections and adjustments are so strongly warming.

  51. Thomas on June 4, 2013 at 11:45 am said:

    Bob: The NOAA data (see graph linked above) show the total heat content of the oceans from 0 to 2000m. It has been rising and especially also in past year. Just look at the graph.
    If the total heat content has been rising, that means that summed up over the ocean, more heat has accumulated and further warming has occurred.
    Again, if you think you know better and if you believe the NOAA data are in error and can prove it, write to them, publish your findings.
    For now, I prefer to trust the NOAA accounting over Bob and Richards view of the matter.

  52. Thomas on June 4, 2013 at 12:00 pm said:

    For those obsessed with temp trends, go here:http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
    And choose your temp series of choice.
    Of cause if you want to hide the warming trend from your eyes you could choose periods like 1998 to 2012 or other suitably cherry picked intervals. I however prefer the big picture, for example 1970 to 2012.

  53. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 12:52 pm said:

    Thomas, look at the breakdown chart, by depth.

  54. Magoo on June 4, 2013 at 1:07 pm said:

    Try working your way backwards from 2013 Thomas, until the temperature trend is more than the +/- error margins – it shows you how long there has been no statistically significant warming.

    To save everyone time I’ve already gone to the trouble as can be seen in my post above at June 3, 2013 at 6:02 pm.

    GISTEMP No warming in 19 yrs
    NOAA (Land/Sea) No warming in 19 yrs
    HADCRUT3 No warming in 20 yrs
    HADCRUT4 No warming in 19 yrs
    BEST No warming in 15 yrs
    NOAA (Land) No warming in 16 yrs
    RSS No warming in 23 yrs
    UAH No warming in 19 yrs

    1970-1980 shows no statistically significant warming. There is only warming from around 1980 to a maximum of 1998 (18 yrs), followed by no warming for between 15-23 yrs (average 18.75 yrs). Only an imbecile would trust a 50% strike rate – flipping a coin is just as accurate.

    PS, don’t forget to adjust the dates in the autocorrel option. Have fun.

  55. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 1:13 pm said:

    Thomas,
    I’ve already pointed out to you that according to James Hansen, any anthropogenic warming trend cannot be distinguished from natural variation prior to the 1990s. So to use the 1970-present chart to prove anything is pointless.

  56. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 1:25 pm said:

    For example:
    NOAA data by depth.

    Or you can do it yourself.

  57. Magoo on June 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm said:

    Hi Bob. Do you have a source for the Hansen quote? I know it exists as I’ve seen it before on several occasions, but I can’t seem to track it down anymore (must be using the wrong search terms). Cheers.

  58. Thomas on June 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm said:

    Sure Bob, and? I see Increased transfer of excess heat from the surface to the lower layers. Overall the heat content has increased without any doubt. That increase of heat content comes from somewhere. Unless you invoke magic, it must have come from changes in the net energy transfer of Earth with the outside. The solar flux has not increased but we know that we are adding GHGs to the atmosphere that increase the GH effect of the atmosphere and thus reduce the heat outflow until the temperature and heat content stabilize at a new level. While this process is continuing, temperatures and heat content rise.
    We see what we would expect.

  59. Thomas on June 4, 2013 at 1:56 pm said:

    Tell that to the North Pole Magoo…. that there was no warming in xx years. Whatever version you prefer.
    And then take a dive and tell that to the Oceans, that the rising heat content is just an imagination perhaps….. and the 7×10^22 J added there are nothing really, just a statistical fluke. And Magoo knows better anyway, so we should stop looking at data from NOAA. [snipped]
    Have fun on the climate escalator…..

  60. SimonP on June 4, 2013 at 2:43 pm said:

    That is seriously screwy logic.

  61. Andy on June 4, 2013 at 2:50 pm said:

    Whilst we are on the climate escalator, the Met Office response to Keenan which we have discussed before is here

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/2/3/Statistical_Models_Climate_Change_May_2013.pdf

    Figure 1 shows 20th C warming and forcing

    There was a cooling period pre 1990, then a warming period to 1940 ish, then a cooling period to around 1975, then the warming period to 1998

    The forcing graph on the same figure seems to have some correlation with the late 20th C warming

    However, the early 20th C warming has little or no anthropogenic attribution (see Fig 2 where the inferred anthro warming component starts at 1960)

    Therefore, we have a warming episode in the early 20th C not attributed to humans, yet of similar magnitude to late 20th C warming.

    We attribute late 20th C warming to CO2 because we can’t find anything else to attribute it to, yet we can’t explain the early 20th C warming (or cooling)

  62. Magoo on June 4, 2013 at 2:59 pm said:

    Cheers Bob.

  63. Magoo on June 4, 2013 at 3:00 pm said:

    Thanks Bob.

  64. Magoo on June 4, 2013 at 3:17 pm said:

    Just using the trend calculator that you recommended Thomas. Are you saying there is something wrong with it now, or is it because it doesn’t say what you want it to say? Why do you choose to take the temperature record from 1970?

    BTW, did you ever get around to finding the evidence for positive feedback from water vapour (i.e. tropospheric hotspot) Thomas? Doesn’t matter what the North Pole and the ocean are doing if there’s no positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour does it? After all, the maximum it can warm without WV feedback is 1.2C per doubling of TOTAL CO2 levels, which is hardly a problem, let alone evidence any melting ice or warming oceans can be attributed to anthropogenic causes. No tropospheric hotspot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no amplification of the warming attributed to CO2 = no AGW, except a tiny amount due directly to CO2.

    Warming is not evidence of why it has warmed. You need the tropospheric hot spot to show the anthropogenic cause.

  65. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 3:29 pm said:

    Thomas:

    “I see Increased transfer of excess heat from the surface to the lower layers.”

    Mechanism? Even the experts are stumped when trying to explain exactly how the warm water sinks. Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg: “In such periods, the heat is taken in more strongly by the deep oceans. We still cannot explain why this is so.”
    However, unlike the warmists, the sceptics have been able to explain this all along. The upper ocean surface was heating until about the year 2000 due to mostly natural causes, most likely to do with increased solar insolation reaching the oceans, possibly linked to cloud cover. We know that a 1-2% drop in cloudiness has a greater “forcing” than all the anthropogenic GHGs.
    Since 2000, this has reversed, and the upper oceans are now cooling. The deep oceans are still reflecting the earlier warming, but slowly the heat will work its way back up out of the deeper layers. This is a slow process, however, and will take years to complete.

    As a check we would expect the SST values to be dropping if the sceptics are right, and rising if the warmists are right. The reason is that the sceptics maintain that the planet is able to shed excess heat easily and relatively quickly, while the warmists believe that CO2 in the atmosphere traps the heat in the troposphere, and because the atmospheric CO2 is long-lived the effect will continue even if we reduce emissions now (Hansen, 2005).

    What are the SSTs doing? They’re dropping:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

  66. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm said:

    Just how likely is a 1-2% decrease in cloudiness? Well, it happened over China from 1954-2005 (-1.6% per decade):
    http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/573/2012/angeo-30-573-2012.pdf

  67. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 4:15 pm said:

    >”if you are actually interested on the ocean heat content,”

    Yes very, especially basin data.

    >’I recommend this site:”

    Thanks, seen it lots of times. Lots and lots of basin data. Here in fact:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

    But why do YOU ignore that page Thomas?

    Inconvenient data, doesn’t suit your – oft repeated – meme?

  68. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm said:

    Cloud height has an effect as well. The higher the average cloud height, the warmer the surface temps, in general. Since the year 2000 the average global cloud height has been dropping.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050506/abstract

    The clouds have always been rogue elements in the IPCC models – they weren’t modelled at all well, and the effect of cloud feedbacks is hugely unknown (see AR4).

    So how the IPCC could state that they fully understood the climate enough to rule out all influences on 1976-1998 warming except CO2 is unclear.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm said:

    >”The vast majority of the ocean waters is much colder than the surface layers”

    Yes, but only the surface interfaces with the atmosphere.

    >”Ocean heat content change is the result of two flow: Energy in (mostly in the topics but increasingly in the more and more ice free arctic summers!!) and Energy out (mostly due to cooling the high latitudes.) And here AWG is playing its game:”

    Energy in has been at the highest level in over 1000 years. Energy out has not kept up with energy in, hence accumulation. Energy in has now started to decrease. No need to invoke any other mechanism. There’s a post coming up on ‘The ‘Improbable IPCC Mechanism’ too.

    >You can confabulate about ocean heat content as much as you want and declare its cooling or whatever but the picture is rather different:”

    No anthro signal whatsoever in the upper Pacific and Atlantic (and 700m is a considerable depth BTW). Pacific:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/01-argo-era-pacific-ohc.png

    Then there’s the CO2-forced model failure wrt OHC:

    http://i56.tinypic.com/9amivl.jpg

    All in all, AGW is out in the cold when it comes to ocean heat.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm said:

    >”Changes in Ocean heat content are the result of imbalances between the inflow and the outflow of energy.”

    Good, we agree on that.

    >”AGW is reducing the heat outflow.”

    So you subscribe to the Minnett theory from the ‘Skeptical Science Offside’ post Thomas? And you DON’T agree with Rahmstorf and Schmittner? There’s a post coming up on this too ‘Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli’.

    >”Ocean heat content will lag behind any surface climate change obviously, due to the giant heat capacity of our oceans. Does this really surprise you?”

    No, I’ve given you the lags from Trenberth, Abdussamatov and Scafetta, 6 and 10 – 100+ years, 14 +/- 6 years, and 1 and 12 years respectively, all from different methods (Trenberth’s undisclosed).

    >”you once again burrow yourself into details of ocean/atmosphere interface science”

    Of course I do, and so does the literature I’ve cited because that’s where all the components are measured, analyzed and quantified.

    >”you refuse to see the bigger picture.”

    Rubbish. I see the bigger picture perfectly well (at millennial scale BTW, do you see that picture Thomas?).

    >”Tell me, if you modify the gas content of the atmosphere by adding GHGs, how come you think that this is not going to affect the temperatures, oceans included?”

    The effect in the atmosphere this century is evidently non-existent. And there has NOT been an anthro ocean heating mechanism actually specifcally identified, measured empirically in-situ, documented with supporting thermodynamic calculations, and therefore quantified, in 25 years of the IPCC looking for one. The upcoming post ‘The Improbable IPCC Mechanism’ covers this.

    Any posited anthro ocean heating mechanism has also been evidently completely ineffective (actually a cooling mechnism) in the case of the upper Pacific and Atlantic.

    >”Not only do you have to explain why this should not occur,”

    No that’s a redundant exercise as I’ve stated before when you asked this previously (don’t you remember Thomas?).

    >”you must also explain where all the extra heat over the past century has come from! Good luck.”

    Not just the past century Thomas, over 4 centuries since 1600s of Grand Minimum solar input to Grand Maximum solar input. Simple.

    >”Oh, and don’t tell me the oceans have not warmed over the last century.”

    I haven’t and I wont. It is a no-brainer that water warms when energy input is increased.

    >The “up-tick” on the graph is especially steep over just the past half year according to NOAA.”

    80% of that uptick occurring in the Indian ocean.

    >The constant repetition of the mantra that the oceans have been cooling over the last years seems not to show in the global summary.”

    Of course doesn’t, it’s an AGGREGATE that includes Indian Ocean data skew. But the upper Pacific and Atlantic are clearly cooling (for the umpteenth time).

    And global surface sea temperature (SST) has been cooling too since around 2002:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend/plot/none

    The fastest responses being at the surface, this is entirely consistent with the solar deficit:-

    http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=640&h=475

    But totally inconsistent with rising CO2. Or are you denying that Thomas?

  71. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 5:35 pm said:

    Richard, just for good measure, the vast majority of the energy imbalance due to AGW ends up rising the ocean temperatures (oceans huge heat capacity, etc….)

    Hand waving tosh. Citations, literature, proof Thomas. If you’ve got it you’re way ahead of the IPCC.

    >”and one and for all: Ocean heat content has been RISING and especially sharply also over the past 6 month.”

    On aggregate, but basin-by-basin, depth-by-depth identifies WHERE warming is, and where COOLING is too.

    >”If you think NOAA is lying to us, write to them!”

    No argument with the global aggregate Thomas, that’s your strawman. But about that NOAA – UKMO EN3 OHC disparity………

  72. Bob D on June 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm said:

    Thomas:

    “Magoo, trends from short periods such as the last decade will not be very indicative of the future path of temp developments. Staring at the last decade and declare AGW over is a very short sighted (literally) bet.”

    And:

    “When will you finally understand that short term fluctuations are meaningless noise? “

    And then this clanger:

    “Ocean heat content has been RISING and especially sharply also over the past 6 month.”

    So a decade is way too short to detect cooling, but we can see increased warming over only 6 months. Lol.

  73. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 5:53 pm said:

    >”Oh dear Richard…. In 2000 it was -3.5 on the graph you cited… did you expect an ice age to come for a year…? Would you have bet on that number to have significance? You would have lost your shirt!”

    Err, no Thomas, it was -0.35?

    http://climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    What is the linear trend through that graph …….So what was your point again?

    The point is that Foster and Rahmstorf’s 2010 trajectory AFTER “removing” ENSO (rather steeper than the “linear trend through that [UAH] graph”) has been proven to be junk by subsequent data to April 2013 in ENSO-NEUTRAL conditions. Repeating:

    “The April 2013 UAH datapoint is about equivalent to a little less than 2005 (+0.9 = +0.29 – 0.2) on F&R11, Figure 6.”

    Foster and Rahmstorf will have to update their analysis because their 2010 trend is waaay too steep. And their trend will progressively flatten as similar UAH/RSS etc data comes in i.e. their rationale has failed because they assumed the data would follow their “underlying anthropogenic global warming signal” after 2010 – it hasn’t.

  74. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm said:

    >”Overall”

    How do NODC compile “overall” Thomas?

    Basin-by-basin, depth-by-depth.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 6:03 pm said:

    >”I however prefer the big picture, for example 1970 to 2012.”

    Really Thomas? That’s your “bigger picture”?

    Try back to 1850 for an even bigger picture:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/plot/none

    Now Thomas, where does CO2 fit in that picture?

  76. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm said:

    >”The solar flux has not increased”

    Thank you Thomas, in fact it has decreased. This explains cooling SST and cooling upper Pacific and Atlantic OHC.

    aGHGs don’t on the other hand.

  77. Thomas on June 4, 2013 at 11:01 pm said:

    Richard: You asked for CO2 in the picture:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/offset:-310/scale:0.01/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1960/mean:50/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1960/mean:50/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1960/mean:50/offset:-10/scale:0.5

    I added ocean surface temps (hadsst3gl) and arctic sea ice index (/nsidc-seaice-n)
    CO2 data in woodfortrees is available from 1960 (1958) onwards.
    Scaled and off-setted to fit into the singular Y axis provided by woodfortrees.

  78. Simon on June 5, 2013 at 1:02 am said:

    Thanks for the reference. I couldn’t find the statement that anthropogenic warming trend cannot be distinguished from natural variation prior to the 1990s? Also note that the paper is 25 years old, there has been considerable refinement since then.

  79. Simon on June 5, 2013 at 1:06 am said:

    Looks like a good fit to me. Richard should try introducing CO2 as a variable in his multi-order polynomials 🙂

  80. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

    Simon:

    “I couldn’t find the statement that anthropogenic warming trend cannot be distinguished from natural variation prior to the 1990s?”

    He says it on numerous occasions, including in the abstract.

    I’m not going to repeat myself, you can read about it here, for starters:
    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/anthropogenic-ocean-heating-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-203745

  81. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 10:32 am said:

    Simon:

    5.2.1. Geographical distribution.
    Averaged over the full decade of the 1980s, the model shows a tendency toward warming, but in most regions the decadal-mean warming is less than the interannual variability of the annual mean. In the 1990s the decadal-mean warming is comparable to the interannual variability for many regions, and by the 2010s almost the entire globe has very substantial warming, as much as several times the inter annual variability of the annual mean.’

    ‘5.3.2. July maps
    In the 1980s the global warming is small compared to the natural variability of local monthly mean temperature; thus any given location is about as likely to be cooler than climatology as warmer than climatology, and, as shown in Plate 6, the area with cool temperatures in a given July is about as great as the area with warm temperatures. But by the year 2000 there is an obvious tendency for it to be warm in more regions, and by the year 2029 it is warm almost everywhere.’

    ‘We concluded earlier that the magnitude of global mean greenhouse warming should be sufficiently large for scientific identification by the 1990s’ (page 9357).

    You are right about it being out of date Simon, all the models are out of date due to their dismal failure:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png

  82. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 10:40 am said:

    Just to confirm what Andy wrote about the 1960s, Hansen (2005) says the following about anthropogenic GHG forcing:

    “The planetary energy imbalance in our model (Fig. 1C) did not exceed a few tenths of 1 W/m2 before the 1960s.”

    In other words, the whole “since the industrial revolution” argument is nonsense, if anyone wants to use that.
    Hansen (1988) then states that the trend 1958-1985 is zero, and says that the expectation is that the anthropogenic component will start to be scientifically detectable (to a 3σ level – 99%) in the 1990s, and grow until by this decade the warming will be obvious to the man in the street.

    Hasn’t happened. Far from 3σ warming, over the last decade we’ve been cooling. Oops.

  83. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 10:42 am said:

    If Hansen is correct, then there has been around 8 years global warming attributable to the anthropogenic CO2 forcing (1990-1998), followed by 15-23 yrs of no warming. Oops.

  84. SimonP on June 5, 2013 at 11:49 am said:

    Hansen is talking about the period 1958-1988. That twenty year period was insufficient to say conclusively that the warming was not due to normal variability. He then goes on to predict that the warming would become statistically significant in the 1990’s. His prediction was correct. One again, you are disingeneously misinterpretating what is written. You can’t use cherry-picked short (< 30 years) time periods to make definitive statements about climate trends. Maybe I should post the Skeptical Science escalator again……

  85. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm said:

    Simon:

    He then goes on to predict that the warming would become statistically significant in the 1990′s.

    No he doesn’t, read it again. He’s not talking about starting points, he’s talking about over the decade.

    His prediction was correct.

    Oh boy. And you accuse me of cherry-picking.
    Yes, Simon, he was correct for the 1990s. I’ve already said that. But you can’t just stop there, with a period that ended with the largest El Nino we’ve seen for ages. If that was the case we’d still be back at the year 2000.
    You clearly aren’t a scientist, so let me explain how science works. Scientists develop hypotheses and use them to make predictions. The predictions are then tested to determine whether the hypotheses are valid. If the predictions fail the hypotheses fail too. This is why most credible scientists are very cautious when making their predictions.
    Hansen made predictions in 1988. On the basis of those predictions the IPCC was born in the same year, and has continued to follow those predictions ever since, and the whole thing has become politicized.

    This, as it turns out, was premature, since the predictions were valid for the first 10 years, but then failed for the next 15 years. Remember the prediction was not for a decade of warming followed by no warming for almost double that – it was for a decade of warming followed by ever-increasing warming.

    Not a flatline.

  86. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm said:

    And by the way, Simon, 1958-1988 is thirty years, not twenty. So your argument falls flat in any case.

  87. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm said:

    Simon:
    Re: the escalator.
    According to Hansen, the skeptical science escalator shows that those who subscribe to AGW do so based purely on 8 years of warming (1990-1998). The rest of us base our beliefs on the rest of the temperature record – i.e. long term rising, but not due to anthropogenic causes.

    If we refer back to the sks trend calculator again in conjunction with Hansen’s views about the anthropogenic cause of warming only being noticeable from 1990, we have the following:

    GISTEMP 4 years warming due to man’s CO2 output (from 1990)
    NOAA (Land/Sea) 4 years
    HADCRUT3 3 years
    HADCRUT4 4 years
    BEST 8 years
    NOAA (Land) 7 years
    RSS 0 years
    UAH 4 years

    Average: 4.25 years warming due to mankind.

    Over the last century we have seen approximately 4.25 years of warming attributable to anthropogenic CO2 output, the rest is natural.

  88. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm said:

    I might just add, before I get accused of cherry-picking, that Hansen is an environmental activist who has quit his NASA job so he can take a more active part in AGW activism, and skepticalscince.conjob are unashamedly raving propagandists for the AGW cause.

    Due to their activist and propaganda leanings, neither Hansen nor sks can be accused of a bias against AGW so the idea of cherry picking dates is something you’d need to take up with Hansen, skepticalscience.conjob, GISTEMP, NOAA, HADCRUT, RSS, UAH, BEST.

  89. SimonP on June 5, 2013 at 3:31 pm said:

    So only 4.5 years of this is “natural” variation?

  90. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 3:53 pm said:

    There, fixed.

  91. Richard C (NZ) on June 5, 2013 at 4:01 pm said:

    >”Richard: You asked for CO2 in the picture:”

    Reading comprehension problems Thomas?

    The picture you’ve provided is 110 years short of the picture I asked for.

    But I note HadSST3 and GISTEMP are diverging from CO2 in your (somewhat truncated) picture, why is that?

    Seems to be a problem with HadSST3 1960 – 1975 too. Could it just be Thomas, that you’re mistaking natural cyclicity for anthropogenic influence?

    Also, CO2 doesn’t explain 2000 – 2005 SIE. Or 2005 – 2010 SIE.

    Now,about that bigger picture; the HadCRUT4 one back to 1950.

  92. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 4:33 pm said:

    Simon:

    No, not 4.5 years natural variation. According to Hansen, all of that warming in your graph EXCEPT 4.5 years is natural – only the warming from 1990 onwards is anthropogenic, which is an average of 4.5 years of warming. Bob D’s ‘fixed’ graph above shows what Hansen attributes to AGW.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on June 5, 2013 at 4:38 pm said:

    >”Richard should try introducing CO2 as a variable in his multi-order polynomials”

    Good idea Simon. But I don’t think the fit will be as “good” as it “looks” to you now. Here’s the spreadsheet for HadSST2:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/HadSST2.xls

    First page has a polynomial fit to 30 yrs since 1982. Shows pronounced cooling since early 2000s.

    The next page is more interesting and will probably get you very excited initially Simon. An EMD analysis of the same 30 year period as for the polynomial fit. The residual, at first glance, looks almost like CO2. But unfortunately no, the rising inflexion only begins 1993 – sorry.

    You might take some notice of IMF 5 Simon. That would be the negative phase of natural oscillation beginning early 2000s. Climate science is just catching up with that, took them by surprise apparently.

    But the crunch comes in the 162 year EMD analysis. The negative inflexion in the residual not only invalidates Dr Nicola Scafetta’s rising quadratic assumption but it is almost exactly the opposite trajectory to CO2 – sorry again.

    You lose Simon (despite :-)). Isn’t it amazing how superficial appearances can be so very deceptive?

  94. Richard C (NZ) on June 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm said:

    Should be – “Now,about that bigger picture; the HadCRUT4 one back to [1850]”

  95. SimonP on June 5, 2013 at 4:50 pm said:

    You guys should be presenting this stuff at the NZ Climate Change Conference.
    http://www.nzcccconference.org/programme
    There’s a spot left open, after dinner entertainment.

  96. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 4:58 pm said:

    Maybe Hansen could present his own findings at the conference. Then again he might be busy organising some Greenpeace rally or something.

  97. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm said:

    Quite funny, I noticed this:
    “Jim Salinger, Salinger Climate Services”

    Climate consultant, woulda thunk it?

  98. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 5:16 pm said:

    Ah yes, the climate change conference. Is that where they all get together and try their best to ignore the following:

    Failure by all the computer models.
    A total lack of warming for between 15-23 yrs.
    A lack of any evidence for positive feedback from water vapour.
    The missing hot spot.
    Failure of the carbon markets.
    Failure to renew the Kyoto protocol.
    How Europe’s carbon trading schemes have resulted in a rise in CO2 emissions.
    How the USA’s CO2 emission have fallen even though they didn’t sign up to Kyoto.
    How to stop the decline of appearance fees for international climate lectures.

    And finally, what they’re all going to be doing for a job soon when the funding for AGW research dries up. Perhaps they could take a look at James Hansen’s career direction – standing on the sidewalk in a sandwich board that reads – ‘Repent thy CO2 sins, for the end is nigh!!! (donations much appreciated)’.

  99. Bob D on June 5, 2013 at 5:20 pm said:

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools.”

  100. Richard C (NZ) on June 5, 2013 at 5:55 pm said:

    >”…the residual not only invalidates Dr Nicola Scafetta’s rising quadratic assumption…”

    Even so, Scafetta’s quadratic LEADS carbon dioxide by some 20 – 25 years:

    CO2 vs GAT

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/CO2%20vs%20GAT%20R2.xls

  101. Richard C (NZ) on June 5, 2013 at 7:30 pm said:

    Scafetta’s empirical forecast still making the IPCC look silly even with a dodgy basis:-

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/scafetta-forecast.png

  102. Thomas on June 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm said:

    Richard, calm down.
    Here is the bigger picture back to 1850
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1850/offset:-310/scale:0.01/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1850/mean:50/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850/mean:50/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-10/scale:0.5

    Now what exactly was your point about the bigger picture here?

    And who is that Scafetta guy? Is he putting his money on a bet that temperatures will be cooling?

  103. Andy on June 5, 2013 at 9:16 pm said:

    Thomas, the “bigger picture” back to 1850 shows global warming yet most science institutions including the Met Office don’t attribute CO2 into the equations until post 1960s. So your “bigger picture” is worthless

  104. Mike Jowsey on June 5, 2013 at 9:26 pm said:

    Is he putting his money on a bet…

    Thomas, would you bet next month’s income on a weather forecast for the next ten days from now? If not, then why should NZ spend billions on global warming predictions that forecast the next 87 years? Here, I am talking about general circulation models, so don’t try to differentiate between weather and climate. If you can’t trust a climatologist’s prediction for this winter, then why trust one for a century?

    Rare bets have been accepted by warmists, to their detriment. Look it up.

  105. Thomas on June 5, 2013 at 9:32 pm said:

    Perhaps the non-attribution of CO2 prior to 1960 is done out of an abundance of scientific caution?

    What you would say if the Met Office was pointing to the rise of CO2 since the industrial revolution and most certainly since the start of the 20th century and attributed that to the warming trend that seems to present itself from the start of the 20th century?

    But if you can not agree that CO2 these days is a causative agent of climate change, why do you bother talking about the first half of the 20th century?

    Anyway don’t you get a sense of desperation here, when proclaiming that GW has stopped some 15 years or whatever ago, when you look at the bigger picture? You asked to go back to 1850, so I did.

    Me thinks that the further you step away from the fine detail of the annual or decadal noise in the temp signal, the clearer the message becomes…..

    And above all, remember, only a small fraction of the annual energy imbalance ends up warming the atmosphere, the vast majority warms the oceans. And there too, its pointless to bicker about this or that basin but you must look at the big picture of the integrated heat content. Earth does the integrating for you. No need to sweat over short time frames or regional symptoms….

  106. Andy on June 5, 2013 at 9:36 pm said:


    But if you can not agree that CO2 these days is a causative agent of climate change, why do you bother talking about the first half of the 20th century?

    So what caused the warming of the early 20th Century Thomas? Do your schoolchildren ask these questions of you when you are “teaching” them about AGW?

  107. Simon on June 5, 2013 at 10:01 pm said:

    Mankind has been spitting out CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Scientists don’t tend to attribute human emitted greenhouse gases definitively to 1900-1950 warming because they are usually operating within 95% confidence intervals. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t probably (as opposed to almost certainly) having an effect.

  108. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm said:

    Thomas:

    ‘But if you can not agree that CO2 these days is a causative agent of climate change, …’

    Not many people believe that which is why the term ‘climate change denier’ is wrong, but without the positive feedbacks to triple the initial warming effect of CO2 there is no AGW. The vast majority of these feedbacks are supposed to come from water vapour but there is no evidence of it:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-8-14.html

  109. Mike Jowsey on June 5, 2013 at 10:14 pm said:

    On average there is one Argo buoy per 320km x 320km, or 102,400 square kilometres. Average depth of world’s oceans is 3.6km, therefore on average each Argo buoy is sitting somewhere in 368,640 cubic kilometres of water. Nevertheless, this is the best sampling rate we have ever had. But it’s only been around for 10 years. Prior to that it was mainly shipping lane samples, erratically with a bucket or XBTs. I tend to put more weight on the best data available, less weight on unreliable data with greater uncertainties.

    Here’s a graph which shows the picture. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-0-700m.gif

    So the “trend that I see” in the Argo data is close to zero in ten years. Where is all that extra heat going Thomas? It ain’t in the air, and it ain’t in the sea.

  110. Magoo on June 5, 2013 at 10:18 pm said:

    Thomas:

    ‘Perhaps the non-attribution of CO2 prior to 1960 is done out of an abundance of scientific caution?’

    It’s done because our CO2 levels didn’t start rising strongly until around 1960 (see figure 1 below):

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_Emissions_Levels_Knorr.gif

    Ewww, I used a skepticalscience.conjob link. I better wash my hands.

  111. Mike Jowsey on June 5, 2013 at 10:56 pm said:

    Magoo – roflmao
    … brilliant!

  112. Bob D on June 6, 2013 at 10:08 am said:

    Simon and Thomas,
    Please stop just making stuff up as you go along. I’ve already given the peer-reviewed journal references to you several times, I’m not sure why you both keep trying to avoid this issue.
    1) In Hansen (2005) he states quite clearly:
    “The planetary energy imbalance in our model (Fig. 1C) did not exceed a few tenths of 1 W/m2 before the 1960s.” For this reason the effects of anthropogenic CO2 were negligible prior to 1960.
    2) In Hansen (1988) he once again states quite clearly that he only expects the anthropogenic influence to be discernible (decadal mean warming greater than interannual variability) from the 1990s onward.

  113. Richard C (NZ) on June 6, 2013 at 3:02 pm said:

    >”Here is the bigger picture back to 1850″

    Whaaaat? Where’s CO2 before 1960?

    FYI here it is (as from above AGAIN):

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/CO2%20vs%20GAT%20R2.xls

    What is your explanation for temperature LEADING carbon dioxide?

    >”Now what exactly was your point about the bigger picture here?”

    That your CO2 case falls apart and actually disproves itself in the bigger picture.

    >”And who is that Scafetta guy?”

    Dr Nicola Scafetta, author and co-author of numerous papers, cited by others. Don’t you read the scientific literature Thomas? And rather more of a scientist than the entire IPCC modeling community apparently.

    >”Is he putting his money on a bet that temperatures will be cooling?”

    No, and you obviously haven’t a clue, going by that question, where his forecast fits in to warming/stasis/cooling scenarios even after I’ve explained the flaw in his rationale.

  114. Richard C (NZ) on June 6, 2013 at 3:09 pm said:

    >”Me thinks that the further you step away from the fine detail of the annual or decadal noise in the temp signal, the clearer the message becomes…..”

    This far?

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png

    You’re right Thomas, that’s a VERY clear picture.

  115. Richard C (NZ) on June 6, 2013 at 3:18 pm said:

    >”…its pointless to bicker about this or that basin”

    Because it doesn’t suit your meme? “This or that basin” happens to be the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean – don’t they even rate in the warmist mind?

    >”…but you must look at the big picture of the integrated heat content”

    We look, but there’s no proof of anthropogenic cause and there are other factors to consider. If the posited anthropogenic forcing is not acting in a globally uniform way on either upper ocean OHC, SST or SLR, it’s not acting – period!

    >”No need to sweat over short time frames or regional symptoms….”

    Basin-by-basin, depth-by-depth makes you sweat does it Thomas?

  116. Thomas on June 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm said:

    Richard, no, not that far….. We had way to many significant differences hundreds of millions of years back. You know, major continental drifts, significant volcanic phases, evolution of species and very significant changes in the carbon cycle as well as solar output and many more.

    However a paper in 2012 clearly implicated massive CO2 release from thawing permafrost in significant warming events some 50 million years ago:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10929.html

    But how about we look this far: (the last 400.000 years)
    http://nordpil.com/static/images/carbon_dioxide_and_temperature_historic_trends_full.png

    Oh, and don’t start again with the Temperature led CO2 mantra. Detailed analysis has given a much clearer picture on this too:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

    And perhaps once more the last history since 1880:
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

    Now as Simon already pointed out, certainly even before 1960 CO2 played a role in the overall temp development of the planet. But of cause, as Hansen pointed out, back then the temp changes were not strong enough to allow making that conclusion with the amount of confidence we have today after the warming that followed. But now, with hindsight, we can be a lot more confident about attribution of AGW to the temp trend before 1960. In fact, when removing the calculated GHG forcings natural variation remains.

    You guys are really clutching at straws. Kind of desperate really.

  117. Thomas on June 6, 2013 at 3:59 pm said:

    Magoo, do you need help reading the graph you linked to?

    Please explain why your statement “he vast majority of these feedbacks are supposed to come from water vapour but there is no evidence of it:” is supported by the graph:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-8-14.html

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation