The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world's oceans....
"There is other research out there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting," [said Prof Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales].
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds....
May 20, 2013
"Since 1998, there has been an unexplained 'standstill' in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere."
"But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
166 comments:
In other words, they still don't have a fucking clue.
They don't know what they claim to know.
Like all government experts.
"The ocean ate my homework."
There's a certain level of hubris in drawing real conclusions about changing climate just given the sheer number of known independent variables involved in climate modeling, let alone unknown variables.
Al Gore made millions because he was at the right place at the right time.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has given me nothing but trouble. We seek the still point at the center of the spinning world and end up vibrating on the multidecadal oscillation. I'm going back to bed until things settle down.
Actually, there are reputable scientists who argue that the data predicts we are heading for a period of global climate cooling.
I thought the science was settled.
Apparently not.
"Natural cycles:" the enemy has been isolated and targeted!
There is also a certain hubris in insisting it is caused by man, or that man can stop it, considering all the extreme climate change that has happened naturally during our planet's history. Maybe we'll get to that point someday, but I will remain skeptical until meteorologists are 95% accurate about tomorrow's weather.
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
In other words: "We told you over ten years ago that we knew everything we needed to know about climate science, and made predictions based upon what we knew, and those predictions overstated the problem and were incorrect, and did not account for certain variables like the oceans, but we are still correct, despite the fact that time has shown us not to be correct."
Also: "Can I have some more grant money, please? It's for your own survival."
Hell, a federal government employee can't even hide intimidation of taxpayers competently.
Telling climatic fortunes? Pfui.
@Chef Mojo: ABSOLUTELY!!!
Well, one of Obama's promises came true.
There was no standstill last winter around here, it was like way totally cold.
Everything is always consistent with their models. The fact that they do not see the problem, is the problem.
Re: Æthelflæd
There is also a certain hubris in insisting it is caused by man, or that man can stop it, considering all the extreme climate change that has happened naturally during our planet's history. Maybe we'll get to that point someday, but I will remain skeptical until meteorologists are 95% accurate about tomorrow's weather.
I don't know that that's the appropriate criterion to be using. Local day to day variation could just be a lot less predictable than long-term changes, sort of like brownian motion vs. Newtonian physics.
Can anyone name a single prediction that these "scientists" have gotten right?
About temperatures?
Snow?
Storms?
Anything at all?
John Henry
Climate modeler James Annan is baffled by the "consistent with previous estimates" claim:
This looks like a pretty unreasonable attempt to spin the result as nothing new for sensitivity, when it is clearly something very new indeed from these authors, and implies a marked lowering of the IPCC "likely" range. Although the paper does not explicitly mention it, the "likely" range for equilibrium climate sensitivity using the full 40y of data seems to be about 1.3-3C (reading off the graph by eye, the lower end may be off a bit due to the nonlinear scale). So although the analysis does depend on a few approximations and simplifications, it's hard to see how they could continue to defend the 2-4.5C range.
(Via Bishop Hill, who adds some graphical evidence of his own here.)
"Actually, there are reputable scientists who argue that the data predicts we are heading for a period of global climate cooling."
When I was a junior in HS ('71. I'll give you a moment to do the math.), my very earnest chem teacher announced that he and his wife had decided to not have children because they believed they would live to see them starve. In the '80's. Due to the coming ice age. I'm certain his faith in what is now called "climate change" remains unshaken by reality. And his childless old age.
What's the leading cause of global warming??
Government grants!!
The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world's oceans....
So they missed one whopping, bull-moose, mother-of-all-variables...but they're still confident. How can they know aren't other variable/complexities/interactions that they missed?
How much longer will it take before this is laughed off like cold fusion?
"The ocean ate my homework."
Lance wins deh internetz.
all the awareness raising had an effect.
rising, falling, flatlining. needs moar socializms!
1. Their models made certain predictions.
2. The predictions were wrong.
3. The models are still correct.
This is your basic GW creationism.
The scary part is, you read articles and opinion every day that acts as if GW is real and the facts continue to prove it and we have consensus.
Apparently, the actual climate disagrees with the consensus and the models.
Inconvenient.
The underpants gnomes strike again!!
Standing still?
5 years ago the IPCC data showed a 0.3 to 0.3 degree decline (out of a total 0.8 degree rise).
In other word's, about a quarter to a third of all warming had disappeared or reversed.
Now they say it is "standing still"? Now they say that temperatures have not cooled since 1998?
As Cray Bernette might say:
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCKS!!!
John Henry
but I will remain skeptical until meteorologists are 95% accurate about tomorrow's weather
Or, alternatively, you could wait until Al Gore starts screaming about the impending global cooling and put all your money in air conditioner stock.
You'd make a killing.
So like they just noticed the Oceans now?
I still say having an obese man accusing everyone else on the planet of overconsuming is a marketing flaw.
The Nenana Breakup in Alaska is approaching the record for the being the latest in history.
The latest breakup in the 97-year history of the Ice Classic is on May 20, 1964 at 11:41 a.m. Alaska Standard Time. The Tanana River ice and the forecast for the next few days leads her to believe this year's winning time will be later than that, Forness said.
"It's supposed to get cold again and it's still staying below freezing at night," she said.
This is a river that is used as a sign of the state of the climate. There is 97 years of history. Today is the latest the ice has persisted. Somebody should tell the polar bears.
No sign of that "persistent warming."
Here's the regression line through global temp data for the past 16 years. Funny, that slope looks positive to me, and is significant at .06. Toss in an El Nino dummy and it clears .05.
ScottM wrote (quoting Lance):
"The ocean ate my homework."
Lance wins deh internetz.
Yep. That beats mine.
Also, remember how the 400PPM of CO2 was going to be the end of the world?
How the Earth was going to spontaneously combust if that level was reached?
Well, we reached it last month.
And had snow.
In May.
In England.
Not for the first time in X years.
For the first time ever.
But it's just weather, right?
Per Cray, once again:
FYYFF
John Henry
Ignoring variations in solar radiation helps the AGW hustlers as well.
I'd fear an ice age more then heating up.
imagine Tab hiring Oprah as their spokesperson.
It's China and India's fault cos of the pollution.
SoCal wants to ban beach fires because of the pollution?
Killing California Dreamin' that's for sure.
Add a solar variable, R2 goes up as well as significance of the time variable.
Those idiots* just forgot to consult with jimspice
*Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens & Myles R. Allen
The Danes, Japanese, I think Ozzies have all said, ummm, it's not gonna be as hot as we thought.
The Russians have consistently said you're being hosed.
"Can anyone name a single prediction that these "scientists" have gotten right?"
None of those, but I'll bet they were pretty close on the amount of grant money available if they could scare the rubes.
Hey JimSpice,
Got anymore info about that regression line? Where the average numbers come from? They don't look right to me but since there is nothing telling what they are, it is hard to say.
Every other chart showing global warming has shown variation from the mean, not total average temp like this one does.
Also, since there was a rise from 97 to 98, then a decline, wouldn't it be more honest to start the regression at 98 instead of 97?
In other words, thanks for posting data instead of blather. The data is useless without some more info, though.
John Henry
Prediction: Over the long term, the world will be warmer than it is now. It will also be cooler than it is now, and we will have another ige age. Many more will die from a cool earth than a warm earth. Those are certainties.
Humans will adapt to whatever comes by migrating, or we won't be able to adapt to some internal catastrophe like a global plague or an external catastrophe like a massive meteorite stike and will die off.
This model cost 3 minutes to prepare and its predictions will hold true.
They have no idea.
So current models are wrong and can't explain the warming. Current data will soon fall below the low range of predictions proving the models are badly flawed, but the long term predictions are correct?
Got to save those jobs in climate change research at all costs.
"The ocean ate my homework."
That's awesome!
~~~
I too have read some convincing theory predicting we are entering a cooling period. It's pretty clear we don't know which way it will go, but most evidence seem to indicate that both sides are right sooner or later.
The thing is, what happens if the evidence does become clear that cooling is the threat rather than warming? Do all these people have to reverse their recommendations, and call for increased carbon emissions, government subsidy of gas guzzlers, and mandatory huge community bonfires. Sounds like a great time.
Of course I have no doubt that the same people would say that carbon emission and anything involving economic activity is still the problem, because that's always been the issue, not the temperature. Global warming is just the excuse.
Ugh, who the fuck cares anymore. These rancid fools want us to spend or redistribute untold trillions on stemming the tide of heat without any regard to anything else and that is assuming if any of it is a fiction they have fabricated or based on a larger system they are wholly unaware of. They can never answer what the surface temperature of the earth should be while we have bigger issues to deal with. The science isn't what bothers me. It's the 'imminent peril' they've labelled it as being which is false and stupid. It isn't.
The science is settled.
They don't know the answer.
Here is the problem with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph; it does not accurately reflect the Medieval Warming Period, or the subsequent Little Ice Age.
If they can't accurately depict the past with the proxy data, how on earth do they expect us to believe their models can predict the future!?!
the 400 ppm was a transitory measurement.
I still say having an obese man accusing everyone else on the planet of over-consuming is a marketing flaw.
LOL
sounds like a fancy way of saying "derp we can't explain it"
Well, the oceans-as-heat-sink is problematic also. It should be noted that NONE of the methods we currently use to measure ocean warming show any appreciable warming. AGW types have been forced to stoop to claims that "somehow" it is all being sequestered in the very bottom ocean depths--those areas that we conveniently cannot now reliably measure. Of course this goes against all logic and facts as the ocean depths (mariana's trench, etc.) are historically the very coldest parts of the ocean.
So global warming is now hiding in the oceans and it could jump out almost at anytime and really screw up the climate!
Who makes this stuff up?
Balfegor said...
"I don't know that that's the appropriate criterion to be using. Local day to day variation could just be a lot less predictable than long-term changes, sort of like brownian motion vs. Newtonian physics."
One of Life's Great Principles is that when you have proved yourself faithful in the small things, you get more responsibility. Or at least, it ought to be. In this case, it seems the only principle followed is the Peter Principle. Oh, and grant money plus a killing to be made in the carbon offset market scam.
If you want to believe it is easier to tell what is going to happen with the planet's climate over the next 100 years, rather than whether it is going to rain locally tomorrow, well then, I am guessing you must have a Ph.D in something. As the saying goes, there are some things only a
Ph.D can believe. It is hard to convey tone sometimes, so take this as good-natured ribbing, not a personal attack.
And had snow.
In May.
In England.
Snow in England? Hell we had snow in Arkansas!
The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.
So they missed the role of the oceans, they are clueless about the role of the clouds and they ignore the sun's contribution.
What a joke. Another institution (science) destroyed by thr far left.
You know what's cool?
Turns out that cosmic rays have something to do with the positive and negative charged ions in clouds that make up thunderstorms.
How fuckin awesome is that?
Didn't see that comin did ya?
jimspice = bitter clinger
In real science, when the data does not fit the theory, the theory (and derived models) are considered invalid and discarded. Then you start over.
In climate science, when the data fails to validate theory and models, you discard the data and double-down on the theory.
"But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates."
May be, but it proves that their culprit, the human who is supposed to cause the coming apocalypse is innocent of the charges.
Sorun said...
Al Gore made millions
"Millions"? Big Al makes close to a billion, including tens of millions of our money that his buddy Obama gave to his tiny Spanish "green" energy company.
"I thought the science was settled."
Science is only ever settled...for now.
That's why it's science and not religion.
To the extent this has anything to do with science, its a fact the single biggest factor in global atmospheric temperature is what the sun is doing. Not by a little but a lot. In the short run a good volcanic eruption can be a big factor as well.
bagoh20 said..
The thing is, what happens if the evidence does become clear that cooling is the threat rather than warming? Do all these people have to reverse their recommendations, and call for increased carbon emissions, government subsidy of gas guzzlers, and mandatory huge community bonfires.
Sounds like heaven.
Climate scientists have discovered three pesky sources of uncertainties: the oceans, the atmosphere, and the Sun.
Greenhouse gases have increased. Temperatures haven't. How can this not impact long term models unless you're are purposely avoiding tweaking your model honestly?
A retired NASA scientist I know gave me his technical analysis, "It's all b******t".
Al Gore said we only hand 10 years to implement a solution on on GG emissions or it will be too late. I'll be glad when that 10 years is up so we can't just go back to doing what we used to be doing.
If the world really understood how these complex multiple regression models were developed and their inherent potential inaccuracies for predictive use, we would all be a little slower to advance massive changes in our way of life to circumvent the problem.
Beorn: "Here is the problem with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph; it does not accurately reflect the Medieval Warming Period, or the subsequent Little Ice Age."
This was by design.
As was the "loss" of all the underlying data (raw measurement data) from the East Anglia CRU.
So, lets see if we understand what has happened:
The CRU gathered all the raw temp data (much of which was in totally unacceptable locations: for instance, outside heat vents in buildings in cities!)
The CRU then "massaged" this data.
Then the CRU "massaged" the data again.
Then other "researchers" used the massaged data to build their models.
The models were proven to be inaccurate (due to their inability to be run backwards and hit known datapoints.
The CRU was sued to release all the raw data so as to understand what numbers were being fed into the model (since a lot of the models were not made available either!)
The CRU fought this for years, and, after finally losing in court they were going to have to give up the info.
At that precise moment, all the raw data was "lost".
"lost".
So, apparently all these whiz kids "forgot" to back up their data.
Something every 7 yr old computer kid knows.
"lost".
How......convenient....
Cookie: "Science is only ever settled...for now"
The "science" behind the AGW scare was never really science.
It was politics by other means.
Something every good unreconstructed Stalinist like cookie should know.
When the models used can accurately recreate the climate of any random 500 year period, then I might stop laughing long enough to give a skeptical look at the predictions for the next 50 years.
When the models used can accurately recreate the climate of any random 500 year period, then I might stop laughing long enough to give a skeptical look at the predictions for the next 50 years.
Bill: "Do all these people have to reverse their recommendations, and call for increased carbon emissions, government subsidy of gas guzzlers, and mandatory huge community bonfires."
Absolutely not.
They will advocate for policies that increase governmental control over private individuals.
Every time.
With one exception: Abortion.
Of course, that exception does not take into account the "little" individual who is harmed.
I just read that Popocatepetl is about to blow. Makes Mt. Helens a pimple in comparison. That'll affect world climate for sure.
The devil in the blue dress made me ... um, sorry, wrong political crisis.
To see much longterm significance in a 15-year variation within a 140-150,000 year cycle is just silly.
It is interesting, and we need to learn a lot more about the earth's climate, but this far climate computer modeling is in its infancy, and we should stick with what we know from other sources until the modelers get a whole lot better at what they do.
"The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world's oceans."
Is this just a throw-away assertion or do they actually have data? My understanding was that there's a lot of uncertainty regarded how much heat is being absorbed by the oceans.
But when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates.
Uh huh. Meanwhile, I am considering moving south. (You need to keep ahead of the advancing glaciers.) I only wish global warming were a fact.
Es ∙ ti ∙ mate: noun: An approximate calculation or judgment of the value, number, quantity, or extent of something.
I teach estimation for a living. An estimate is just another way of saying 'guess.' The data doesn't support their guess... therefore the data is wrong??? WTF???
Progressivism, with all of its branches, is a religion, requiring belief in the absence of proof. There is no there there.
This is hilarious if you ignore the ongoing religion of ClimateChange which sees counterfactuals as supporting data.
Re: Æthelflæd:
If you want to believe it is easier to tell what is going to happen with the planet's climate over the next 100 years, rather than whether it is going to rain locally tomorrow, well then, I am guessing you must have a Ph.D in something. As the saying goes, there are some things only a
Ph.D can believe. It is hard to convey tone sometimes, so take this as good-natured ribbing, not a personal attack.
No offense taken -- I don't have a PhD and I'm not a weather scientist in any event. That said, I did go to an science and engineering school, so the concept of small scale randomness and large scale predictability seems practically common-sensical to me.
More on point, the fact that there hasn't been any net warming for 15 years seems to me like a strong reason to doubt the current model; the fact that we can't predict weather at the micro level simply does not.
All that said, though, I still have my doubts about the reliability of the calculations used to generate a "global" temperature -- it would seem to me that the responses of different local climates to global climate change could potentially differ so much (consider, e.g. the effect of the gulf stream) that the placement of your measurement points would have a huge impact on what the data shows. My suspicions that there's actually a huge garbage-in, garbage-out problem with the quasi-empirical side of the field as a whole have never really been allayed.
This is hilarious if you ignore the ongoing religion of ClimateChange which sees counterfactuals as supporting data.
The chaotic nature of the system ensures that the long-term "picture" is less consistent than short-term predictions. This problem is exacerbated because the system remains incompletely characterized and unwieldy to model.
Anyway, they went from claiming global cooling to warming to climate disruption to change. This "scientific" enterprise is at best a philosophical exercise with real-world ambitions to advance political, economic, and social standing.
Also, normal is not a single number, but a distribution. It may vary from the recorded average by as much as 20 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit in any given region on any given day.
These people should focus on redistribution of wealth through trillion dollar deficits. They are far more likely to succeed in devaluing capital and labor through official fraud, thereby marginalizing their competing interests, than convincing a majority of people to replace science with philosophy.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there are computer models.
Is this just a throw-away assertion or do they actually have data?
It does sound like -- absent a citation -- that straws are being grasped at.
There are plenty of methods of inferring temperature related to sound propagation, which is proportional to water temperature.
The fact that such a citation is not reported in the BBC article linked to is one more reason I dislike science by press release.
This is the comment thread wherein confusion between the concept of weather and climate is demonstrated.
Ve know all zere iss to know about ze climate, und it iss getting vorse, ve know vat ve talk about.
MM: I was camping by Eagle River about a week ago. It got pretty cold (and it snowed). Is there any online database I can look up recent weather data (especially temperature)? I'm just wondering how cold it got. (I did have to melt the water in my water bottle, so I know it got at least that cold.)
I expect that at some point in the (near?) future, it will be much easier to forecast climate than weather. I don't think we're there yet.
Balfegor said...
" All that said, though, I still have my doubts about the reliability of the calculations used to generate a "global" temperature -- it would seem to me that the responses of different local climates to global climate change could potentially differ so much (consider, e.g. the effect of the gulf stream) that the placement of your measurement points would have a huge impact on what the data shows. My suspicions that there's actually a huge garbage-in, garbage-out problem with the quasi-empirical side of the field as a whole have never really been allayed."
Agreed.
The dog ate their homework.
It's always been a total fraud and the con men are scared of being caught now. So they keep churning out new fancy worded guesses as if any science was ever there in the first place. It is a shameful thing to lie that much for that long for money.
It's the Sun, dammit.
Astronomers have been saying this for years. "Climate Scientists" are too narrow minded to listen.
Drago:
A human life evolves from conception to grave. The people who adhere to the "Theory of Evolution" reject evolutionary principles when they may harsh their mellow. They do not consider it sufficient to tolerate some dysfunctional behaviors, but instead seek to normalize them when it suits their purposes.
They have, in particular, normalized abortion, and thereby caused a general devaluation of human life, because they want women to remain available for sex and taxation. They promise women, and men, to fulfill their dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification without perceived consequences. They exploit these and other differentials and gradients to advance their own political, economic, and social standing.
The principles comprising the left's ideology are the foundation for a philosophy of death. The 20th century is notable for the unprecedented number of bodies in the streets left from their "people's revolution." The 20th and 21st century is notable for the unprecedented number of bodies left in the toilets from their "sexual revolution."
Good enough for the Marxists, displaced Left, true-believers, hippies, collectivists, and various others who need something to believe.
Something tells me the subtlety and doubt involved in the sciences is kind of a proxy to these people.
ricpic said...
I just read that Popocatepetl is about to blow. Makes Mt. Helens a pimple in comparison. That'll affect world climate for sure.
There are 4 to 5 active volcanic events happening anywhere in the world at some given time right now. The dumping of toxins into the atmosphere they spew outperforms anything that man has ever done. Ever.
new and improved Snake Oil!
The Sun laughs are your carbon emissions, puny human creature.
Why'd the ocean just now start taking up all that excess heat? Why wasn't it doing it before?
Silly ocean.
This is the comment thread wherein confusion between the concept of weather and climate is demonstrated.
With the advent of the "undeniability" of Global Warming, its faithful (those with something to prove) have never made much of an attempt to educate the masses as to the difference. So by establishing the precedence that a hot July is evidence of AGW, the confusion is quite understandable. The difference is that the AGW religion still has the burden of proof. Same as it ever was
Once upon a time, it was said that "everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." Well, the progressives' answer to that is, "Let's transfer vast wealth from productive countries to third world cesspools, with us as rent seeking parasites." Thus, fat ex-Vice Presidents get to be fabulously wealthy jetsetters who are able to obtain hanjobs from masseuses around the world.
Let's go back to doing nothing about the weather.
Anthony:
They're looking for a missing "link." They may find it for warming, but they haven't yet. They should begin their research with fully characterizing the system, rather than massaging their models when the output is uncorrelated with physical evidence.
Anthony said:
Why'd the ocean just now start taking up all that excess heat? Why wasn't it doing it before?
Silly ocean.
No, not silly. Racist ocean. This is because the ocean does not like the fact that a black man is president.
It is doing this to embarass Obie.
So there!
John Henry
But if we give them some more money they'll be able to figure it out.
But if we give them some more money they'll be able to figure it out.
So by establishing the precedence that a hot July is evidence of AGW, the confusion is quite understandable.
It's not confusion so much as purposeful ribbing after years of OMG SUMMER IS HOT = GW.
I am not surprised that we can't predict the near term weather, and I'd be shocked if we had the data and capability to model the long term climate.
I'm just still surprised that after tens of $B and decades of supercomputing we can't reliably predict hurricane seasons. Or hurricane path(s).
Hurricanes are the single mostly widely documented and studied weather/climate in modern human history. And they surprise us every year.
Once we can get that right, I'll be more sanguine about our modeling and predicting capabilities.
-XC
Maybe the oceans are using the heat to throw off neutrinos.
@OMike, If you go to the National Weather Service website for Green Bay:
Link
and click on the 'Local' link under 'Climate' in the table on the left-hand side, you'll see links to climate resources for some stations up nort' Nothing for Eagle River, but Rhinelander is there. They were 19 last Sunday!
This link might take you there directly.
Original Mike: "Is this just a throw-away assertion or do they actually have data? My understanding was that there's a lot of uncertainty regarded how much heat is being absorbed by the oceans"
There is not supporting data or even viable hypotheses as to how this could occur.
They are totally spit-balling here and are, in MM's words, just grasping at straws as the glaringly obvious gaps in their "settled science" becomes too blatant to ignore and hide.
Thanks, MM! Sunday/Monday was the night I was interested in. Do I read this right; that the old record low was 25?
Stayed up with the telescope until dawn. It was a pretty good observing night. Good thing I know to bring my warm clothes for May camping in Wisconsin.
Lysenkoism is a cruel thing. But then all collectivist tyrannies are cruel things...unexpectedly of course.
Mann made weather with faked data put into models with arbitrary feed back loop guesses then declares an end to any further discussion, or else, needs to be exposed for what it is. It's armed robbery raised to a religion.
Carbon is not dirty or impure. We use carbon to fliter out impurities, We are carbon, salt water and a smidge of calcium.
The "Climate" is a non existent concept anyway. Only the temperatures measured by instruments at a place at a time are real. They faked the data plain and simple. IT WAS A SLICK FRAUD.
And the teperatures are going down as is sea level. The only measurement going up is the polar bear population.
Maybe the oceans are using the heat to throw off neutrinos.
If that were the case, and we caused it fairly recently, I would have expected to see visiting starships by now.
Climate alarmist theory is always correct. It can predict anything, after it happens.
If anyone is interested in this stuff, there was an interesting meeting in the Subcommittee on the Environment, here..
There are three people who testified, Dr. Judith Curry who is a "Luke Warmer," and she thinks there is a good chance warming will pause for another 20 to 30 years, Dr. William Chameides, who believes warming is catastrophic, and that we need to spend > 1% of GDP right now to stop it, and Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, who believes AGW is significant, but we don't have a solution to do anything about it, and we ought to put say $40B a year into research to come up with better cheap C02 neutral solutions, that China and the developing world will adopt.
It's really interesting to see the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on this issue. The Democrats are either really stupid, or have some other agenda, because you will see if you watch the video, Wind and Solar are not slowing C02 emissions in Great Britain at all (in fact increasing), and the cost in Europe is horrendous and doesn't do anything.
The Republicans on the other hand sometimes, and oddly, seem quite concerned about energy costs even for the little guy, but also seem more concerned about sharing the costs.
The democrats are like children, whereas the Republicans are like a stern, cantankerous uncle who has seen it before.
It is not news that the earth has not been warming since 1998 (fifteen year span) for those who have been paying attention. Even the elite global warming alarmist "scientists" Trenberth and Hansen have acknowledged this. Even the hyper global warming alarmist BBC is reporting this.
MadisonMan mentioned something about measuring the temperature of water using the speed of sound. I don't believe that this is used in Argo, the most reliable (by far) system for measuring ocean temperatures. The initial installation of Argo sensors was not completed until 2007, so there are about 6 years of somewhat reliable data, nowhere near enough to model the climate.
As far as the "missing" heat being stored deep in the ocean, that has not been proven and is most likely not true. It is just a speculation at this point.
Here is an informative article, "More on Trenberth's missing heat", by Bob Tisdale:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/15/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/
"@OMike, If you go to the National Weather Service website for Green Bay:"
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Water vapor satellite images. I've been looking for this.
For those who don't read Tisdale's article, here are the conclusions:
"Back to Roy’s statement, “But I remain unconvinced by arguments that depend upon global deep ocean temperature changes being measured to an accuracy of hundredths or even thousandths of a degree”:
First consider that the ARGO floats have had “complete” coverage of the global oceans since 2007. The Earth’s oceans and seas cover about 361 million square kilometers or 139 million square miles. There were 3566 ARGO floats in operation in March 2013. If the floats were spaced evenly, then each ARGO float is sampling the temperature at depth for a surface area of approximately 101,000 square kilometers or 39,000 square miles—or an area about the size of Iceland or the State of Kentucky.
Second, consider that the ARGO era is when the sampling is at its best, but before ARGO temperature sampling at depth was very poor. Refer to the following animation. Temperature sample maps at 1500 meters (6MB). There is little observational data at depths of 1500 meters prior to ARGO. In other words, we have little idea about the temperatures of the global oceans to depths of 2000 meters and their variability before ARGO.
Third, on top of that, consider that ARGO floats have been found to be unreliable, hence the need to constantly readjust their observations.
Do we have any idea about the variability of the temperatures and ocean heat content of the global oceans to depth? Simple answer: No.
For more information on the problems with Ocean Heat Content data, refer to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be? and NODC’s Pentadal Ocean Heat Content (0 to 2000m) Creates Warming That Doesn’t Exist in the Annual Data – A Lot of Warming."
Bob also says the raw data from the argo sensors does not support any claims of warming and that any warming is the result of ex post facto "adjustments" to the data.
Steve Koch:
As far as the "missing" heat being stored deep in the ocean, that has not been proven and is most likely not true. It is just a speculation at this point.
Now that the Warmistas have blamed their poor predictions on the oceans absorbing a lot of heat, they have to decide what past heat temperatures are. We need Michael Mann to create a new paleo reconstruction for ocean temperatures.
Here is the problem. I don't know whether or not the earth is warming up in a dangerous way due to C02 or not. The ocean heat absorbing thing is awesome for climate scientists in the following way. So long as they can convince energy is absorbing, then it is possible for it to be released over a relatively short period of time into the atmosphere. And wouldn't that be terrible!
Traditional Guy said:
The "Climate" is a non existent concept anyway. Only the temperatures measured by instruments at a place at a time are real.
I know what you are saying but even this is not really true unless:
The thermometer is calibrated
The person uses the proper technique technique to read it. Yes, technique is important in reading a thermometer precisely.
Look at the new data from Western Antarctica that purports to show warming there. (Bird station?)
1, count 'em one, single station for an area 10% larger than Alaska.
More than 30% of the readings missing.
Instruments exposed to antartic weather since 1950 or so without being recalibrated.
FYYFF!
(Not you, Trad Guy. Just the warmist scientists in general)
John Henry
According to Tisdale, the average argo sensor is measuring an area about 200 miles on a side, down to more than a mile deep. The sensors go up and down but that is a huge volume of water for one sensor to measure.
There is dark matter and there is warm matter, but there is no warm dark matter.
Sound speed in water depends on temperature, pressure and salinity.
Usually it's fast at the surface, has a minimum a little way down and then rises with pressure all the way to the bottom.
This causes sound to trap in that channel beneath the surface and spread like 1/r instead of 1/r^2 for distance traffic.
"There is dark matter and there is warm matter, but there is no warm dark matter."
You don't know that any more than the authors know that heat is hiding in the ocean.
John,
Great points. Having collected tons of physical sensors measurements for an extremely professional elite engineering company for many years, I know how important it is to calibrate sensors and keep the histories of those calibrations. Doing proper calibrations of surface sensors does not seem as important in the global warming alarmism industry. Their approach seems to be to adjust measurements until they match the model.
traditionalguy:
That's a relevant point. The concept of climate is attributed to an indefinite region over an indefinite, and, in fact, arbitrary and varying period. The system exhibits irregular periods over the long-term, which ensures that short-term forecasts will remain more reliable than long-term predictions.
The current standard for distinguishing between weather and climate is highly arbitrary. This is because they model the system as a random process, rather than as a chaotic process, which would reveal that long-term projections are unreliable and of low quality.
The central feature of science, and its distinguishing feature from philosophy (or religion), is that it is necessarily practiced within a limited frame of reference and for obvious reasons.
The central feature of science, and its distinguishing feature from philosophy (or religion), is that it is necessarily practiced within a limited frame of reference and for obvious reasons.
Religion or Science practice over long periods of time? I recall hearing that Africa had been stable as a population for exceedingly long times (tens of thousands of years) before Western Civ came in and made a mess of it in less than a thousand years. And people have been around such a short time since life began, and civilization even less. We truly are at the "Beginning."
"Long" or "Short" are relative terms, and I would suggest relative to what is being measured. For instance, some chemical reactions happen very quickly, in micro-seconds.
What Capital S Science should do is provide models that have predictive power with regards to observation. And Good science, as opposed to say Climate Science or perhaps String Theory, is they will have experiments that can disprove the theory.
In any event, there has been plenty of discussion lately about issues with Science, reproducibility of studies, etc. I suspect that for research, some fields have reached the limits of what people can handle in terms of complexity (for Organic Chemistry/Pharmaceuticals), the size of the problem (such as Science Climate), or the limits of our ability to understand (Quantum Mechanics, and perhaps physics in general).
n.n....Thanks for your high quality commenting. I admire your ability.
Our 'community' of politicized scientists has been publishing predictions of rising temperatures, with a precision of a tenth of a Celsius degree - as if they knew in advance what the earth would do.
The politicians believed them, alarm was taken, and much stir was made, with vast sums allotted to grants to climate scientists.
Not one of those predictions of temperatures rising jointly with the atmospheric CO2 level indicated that the rise would flatten for fifteen years.
Time for us to elect some politicians who will demand a refund of those vast grant disbursements, to be disbursed instead to the skeptics who didn't line up at the trough to cash in.
The science got abducted by the politics and the greenies resulting in an unexplained confusion on the part of the public, or at least that part which is even mildly interested. Greenies and politicians use every catastrophic weather event as an example of what man has done to the climate. The public meanwhile freezes its ass off in May. Then we are told that only morons equate weather and the climate when only a few moments before we were told the opposite. Quite a number of preposterous suggestions for altering our economic system or way of life are hitched to this idea of warming/change/climate/weather. Stand by because the "unexplained standstill" will resolve itself as some point.
I first read of this at Der
Spiegel's english site, then the Economist and now BBC.
NY Times? WaPo? Time Mag?
Crickets. I hear crickets.
Since 1989 the alarmist community has been shackling its credibility to the results of several software models.
As a rule these models have had grievous flaws, from the stuff they just couldn't do (like evaluate the effect of clouds) to the stuff they did badly (simple coding errors).
The people who put these things together were not trained programmers or engineers, they were by and large academics who were making it up as they went along and knew little about basic software development requirements like quality assurance testing and data validation. Garbage in garbage out. And it truly was garbage.
What we're seeing now is the death of the models.
There's probably much to critique about the recent papers on CO2 sensitivity that are actually based on real, empirical data: they're working with small amounts of data over short time periods. The odds are pretty good that if you expand the horizons you'll have even lower sensitivities (though a broader range of error as well.)
Some of the authors are alarmists, and they'll do what they can to spin the results as supporting their cause, but the end result is that they've destroyed the credibility of the limited and buggy models on which the warmist case has been based for so long, and that's a very good thing.
The claim that the extra energy retained in the earth's thermal system due to increased CO2 levels is going into heating the (deep) ocean instead of air temperatures is based on a reported 0.02C average increase in ocean temperatures between 700 meters and 2000 meters below the surface over this period. To make this claim with a straight face, one must believe that we can get proper representative sampling and measurements to within a few thousandths of a degree.
We have only been sampling the deep ocean in any kind of systematic way for less than 10 years now, with the ARGO buoy system. As nice as that system is, the coverage of the oceans is still incredibly sparse and quite uneven, as these buoys move along passively in ocean currents, periodically submerging deep and then rising to the surface.
The first results from these floats showed cooling in the oceans, which set off a frantic search to explain why. In the end, much data from the cooler end of the readings was rejected as erroneous, resulting in a very slight warming trend. These corrections might very well have been appropriate, but I don't see the climate science establishment rushing to review any findings that show rapid warming.
In addition, comparisons of the new ARGO data to older forms of data collection are very questionable, at all depths. Even in shallow water, the "official" record shows a jump at the transition point in 2003 when other measurements did not show anything unusual. And for the deep ocean, they are comparing with virtually non-existent data from before 2003. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the claim.
The first results from these floats showed cooling in the oceans, which set off a frantic search to explain why.
I've noticed whenever there is an error, it has always been in the "It's warmer than we thought" department. Perhaps when it is cooler, it doesn't get noted. Or perhaps errors that would yield cooler temps, they aren't found.
For decades, scientists told us to reduce the amount of salt in our diets...
Just last week, front page of the NY Times....scientists announce that there's no health benefit in adopting a low-salt diet.
"Go ahead, order a side of fries" is the lead in the Daily News story.
If they are suggesting that there is some unknown mechanism that would heat the deep oceans without showing up anywhere above that, then I'm highly skeptical. To think that there is heating way down in the ocean depths with no interface of heat where it travel from sounds like an excuse thought up via a process of elimination that eliminated anything that makes sense or was provable.
Bagoh:
I think the idea is that there are currents and there is mixing. The mixing may be changing, as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation just oscillated (I think that's the one). The idea is the heat is being transported deeper into the oceans, where it will lurk, until it comes up all at once and bakes the earth.
OMG... you mean the world has not had any heating or cooling in 10 years?
WE ARE GONNA DIE!!!
It's the perfect storm. Global cooling and Global warming at the same time!!
Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!
And it's Bush's fault.
traditionalguy:
I do try to be objective. Sometimes my ego prevails, but those times are, I believe, rare and far between. It is my interest to have a fair hearing for everyone and everything.
I do try to be objective. Sometimes my ego prevails, but those times are, I believe, rare and far between. It is my interest to have a fair hearing for everyone and everything.
Fairness is important, though I still think you are a bit mixed up on the "long" and "short" in the science business.
Dante:
I am claiming that the system exhibits a chaotic behavior. It's processes are bounded, but otherwise indeterminate. Withing limited frames of reference, they can be reasonably predicted or modeled as random processes. The chaotic nature of the system is due two causes: it is unwieldy and incompletely characterized. We may eventually acquire sufficient knowledge and skill to make accurate forecasts, or perhaps predictions, but we will never know if our awareness is complete.
My interest in science, however, is not its philosophical aspects, but its practical contribution to elevating the human condition. For example, I am less concerned about actual changes in the Earth system, than in our ability and effort to adapt to known and predictable variations within "reasonable" periods (i.e. "climate").
The reason I am less interested in the philosophical aspect of science is that I know our ability to sense or perceive the character of our environment is limited by our existence within it. We are permanently constrained within the "set" which contains us. For that reason, I do not judge philosophy or religion by its articles of faith, but by the principles each engenders.
As for Africa... Well, their problems began a long time before the arrival of Europeans, and they are not unique to that continent. The same issues of involuntary exploitation (e.g. slavery), denigration of individual dignity, and devaluation of human life were and are common throughout the world and throughout history. I find it amusing (and infuriating) that people would stoop to exploit and manage to escape scrutiny for their exploitation of a selective history and reality.
Oh, well. Limited frame of reference. Myopic vision. Short-term gain. Perhaps this is the inviolable character of not only nature but also humans.
I have 2 questions.
Insty linked to an article earlier this year which said, and I only read the headline, that the earth's core is hotter than we thought.
If the oceans are warming, what makes them think this is all from above?
2. About El Nino, they think that might release this build-up of heat?
I'm looking at a list of El Nino years.
97-98 was the strongest ever recorded.
Then we has 02/03, 06/07 & 09????
So why didn't it happen yet?
Dante:
I did not and do not presume to define a valid universal frame of reference. The appropriate frame of reference is context sensitive. Sometimes it species specific. Sometimes it is determined by geography. Sometimes it is limited by the models we conceive to represent natural phenomenon.
Oh, another question, how can the atmosphere not be heating up yet we have the "warmest FILB on record" be true?
Dante:
When it's cooler, then it's below average. When it's warmer, then it's above normal. These are semantic games designed to direct perception through manipulating emotion. It's nonsense and it denies the true character of the system they are describing. And worse, it challenges reasonable adaptation to known and predictable variations through misallocation of resources.
In other words: even though the evidence doesn't back up our theory it's still right. So there.
" The idea is the heat is being transported deeper into the oceans, where it will lurk, until it comes up all at once and bakes the earth."
Yea, I got that, but first there has to be excess heat added somewhere, and that somewhere has to be at the surface if it's climate related, and the data isn't really showing that. Unless they are suggesting that this mystery mechanism just happens to be instantly and perfectly removing the exact amount of heat missing from their models. That's a little too convenient for me.
Paul,
"Global cooling and Global warming at the same time!!"
When Global Cooling overtakes Global Warming the technical term is "Global Occluding." The last time it occurred was the Great Flood, in Genesis.
I believe we would be smart to continue to look at facts and have strong skepticism not just to the Green Global Warming Religious/Fascist Left folks but also the Goobers that see no problem at all with 20 billion people on Earth burning all the carbon fuel they can find because "Jesus gave us unlimited resources and will make all pollutants go away with time".
Facts.
1. The global warming models have failed to track, though 97% of scientists believe the models are worth having and further refining.
2. We have to address global overpopulation. Facts are that regions will likely run out of fresh water before "global warming" has a huge impact...but it is idiotic to think that "miracle high tech and Growth!" will make all the world wants to have for each person be they 3 billion or 20 billion, magically available.
3. CO2 is not in equlibrium. It is 400ppm now. It is going to keep rising until we reach a stable human population with carbon use such that C02 generation mechanisms match CO2 removal mechanisms. People that dismiss this loss of equilibrium are unwilling to say when the risk in CO2 rise would be unacceptable and we need mandatory population reductions, dramatic lifestyle changes, rapid adaption of nuke power...
Also to recognize that slow moving, vast events cannot be turned on a dime and if we conclude we are in enormous danger of CO2 reaches 995 ppm, momentum and use may lock us in to reaching that point if we are already at 850 ppm in 2050.
Cedarford, then the only honorable thing for all environmentalists is to kill themselves. One who argues for reducing the population should be willing to lead the way.
Any scientists out there at this late stage of the post?
If so I’ve got a question . . .
From the poorly written article that begged more questions than it answered.
“The IPCC reported that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C. But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.”
So then, the new analysis midpoint expected temperature increase is 1.450C (0.9 – 2.0C) and the old midpoint is 2.0C (1.0 – 3.0C). That is a reduction of 0.550 degrees centigrade. The hypothesis is that the oceans are absorbing the difference.
Question then: What would be the expected amount of heat absorbed (increase in temperature) in the ocean’s 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of salt water that would explain the difference?
I ask this because I seem to recall that water is an exceedingly poor conductor of heat. And, while the oceans are big, I realize that the atmosphere is bigger, but considerably less dense.
Cedarford - oh, not the 97% garbage again.
If you research the origins of that, what you find is a highly dubious study that found that 97% of 'climate scientists' supported the premise that climate change was largely caused by human activity.
The problem with that of course is that 'climate scientist' is not really a discipline, it's a self-selected tag for a field that overlaps real scientific disciplines like physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
Just as you'd expect someone who chose the job description 'diversity counselor' to lean in a particular direction, you'd likely expect someone who self-identifies as a 'climate scientist' - rather than, say, a physicist, or a dendrologist, or a geologist, or an atmospheric chemist - to be pushing an agenda.
Yea, I got that, but first there has to be excess heat added somewhere, and that somewhere has to be at the surface if it's climate related, and the data isn't really showing that.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Climate Scientists have proven anything. But, the very cold deep oceans could suck up a lot of energy before they got close to atmospheric temperatures. Also, surface temperatures have been rising, a tiny bit.
But, it doesn't take much ocean heat to suck up a lot of excess energy, which makes it difficult to measure, and in some ways of thinking, convenient to continue the narrative.
Meanwhile, the idea of man made global warming makes perfect sense. It's a fun property of C02/Methane, and others. But, to make it a problem, you have to have a multiplier on it. The multiplier is anyone's guess.
Anyway, if you have the time, checkout the link I put above on the congressional hearing.
I'd be curious to hear what you have to say about it. It's about 45 minutes or so, but on the other hand the Democrats want to spend trillions on it, and subjugate people to the government even more.
Cedarford:
We have to address global overpopulation. Facts are that regions will likely run out of fresh water before "global warming" has a huge impact.
Peek water? Don't be so certain:
Say goodbye to reverse osmosis and hello to Lockheed Martin's Perforene
Re: Jay Vogt:
The internet tells me that the specific heat of ocean water is approximately 3.983 joules / gram degree centigrade. And that the density of seawater approaches 1.028 grams per centimeter squared. That's enough to generate an approximation of the heat energy in joules necessary to produce a given uniform warming over the entire ocean, using your approximation of the ocean's volume.
Cubed. Centimeter cubed.
I get about 3 Yottajoules but Wikipedia says 1 Yottajoule is about enough to heat the total volume of water on earth one degree centigrade, so I must be an order of magnitude off.
Balfegor said.... so I must be an order of magnitude off.
No worries, happens to me all the time.
Thanks for working through that.
Well, the contest is over, with the latest ice breakup in the 97 year history of the event.
Don't worry, that's not "climate', that's just weather. It's only "climate" when it does what the warmenists want.
This behavior is described as being "wedded to a hypothesis".
So the heat is actually there, it's just not in circulation. It's been hidden away, locked up...
OK, I've worked out the answer.
It's obviously the Republicans' fault that the readings don't match the theory, which must be correct.
The heat has been sequestered.
Post a Comment