ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming (AGW) theory is currently the most fashionable climate theory and its proponents have risked much by predicting a continuation in what has been a 150-year general warming trend.
There are already some indications this trend is stalling with no increase in average global atmospheric temperatures for 15 years [1].
For those who subscribe to any one of the many theories that purport to explain natural climate variability the stakes are not so high: whichever way temperatures swing we can claim to be right. Indeed simply claiming that climate change is natural does not constitute a theory amenable to falsification.
There has been some arguing recently over ocean temperatures, in particular heat content, and how it is trending. I am happy to concede the AGW proponents might have one remaining residual warming trend to cling to here.
I’ve been watching the charts of sea surface temperature that have dipped recently [2]. Nothing for the warmists to promote here.
But sea surface temperature is not the same as ocean heat content.
Across at Jo Nova’s blog there is a chart ‘Climate Models versus Argo Data, Global Ocean Temperature’ that shows no increase in ocean heat content. But the chart only goes back to 2003 [3].
A new paper by Sydney Levitus and co-workers entitled ‘World ocean heat content and thermostatic sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010’ is causing some excitement amongst warmists [4]. Key conclusions are:
1. A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
2. One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
3. The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
I can see the linear trend and I’m prepared to trust that one third of the warming has occurred in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean. But the last claim: that the warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. This is an extremely speculative claim.
Clearly Levitus et al. are convinced that carbon dioxide is a key driver of climate change, but aren’t there other more compelling theories.
********
[1] GWPF. April 2, 2012. No global warming for 15 years. http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.html
[2] Climate4You Update March 2012 http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_March_2012.pdf
[3] David Evans. The skeptic’s case. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/
[4] Levitus S. et al. In press. World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2012GL051106 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Just for fun, assume that Levitus et al. are not fabricating data, as Warmists are prone to do. Further assume that ocean heat content data for the years prior to the 2003 deployment of the Argo buoys is sufficiently precise to yield a meaningful trend, and is not just an artefact. How do we explain the apparent increase?
First, we really need to look at volcanic activity from the mid-oceanic ridges and from West Antarctica. Do we have a handle on that?
Second, the graph only goes down to 2000m. Any change in the rate of vertical churning from greater depths would also affect the measurements.
The chart only goes back to 2003 because before that time the available data is totally inadequate to support any particular theory. Even sea surface data is inadequate before 2003. The fact that they go ahead and adjust and average simply shows their ignorance.
What does the vertical axis on the chart mean? Does +4 mean that the ocean heat content has increased by 4% or by 4x 10^22 J or what? What is the basis of the zero line?
If one third of the heat increase occurred in a band which represents one third of the ocean depth (1300/4000) then where did the other two thirds occur. In the top 700m?
By weight there is 290 times as much ocean as there is atmosphere so how does a small increase in atmospheric temperature cause a significant change in ocean temperature?
The oven that is warming us now is a bit slow and some body keeps adding fresh scones
A recent comment sums it up “I enjoy primarily doing journalism and more in-depth writing than being a blogger, especially a blogger in a realm that is really only looking to manufacture doubt about the science rather than fairly evaluating it (which is always more complicated than a few hours work”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/on-manufacturing-doubt-for-levitus-2012.html
Hi Jennifer:
Yesterday I published a post that illustrated the combined sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Oceans from pole to pole (90S-90N, 20E-70W) have not warmed in 17 years.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/what-do-observed-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-and-climate-models-have-in-common-over-the-past-17-years/
The cooling signal in the Pacific is strong enough and the Pacific is large enough to overcome any warming of the Indian Ocean sea surface temperatures over that period. The two oceans basins represent 75% of the surface area of the global oceans.
Anthony Watts cross posted it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/29/tisdale-on-the-17-year-itch-yes-there-is-a-santer-clause/
One of your regular visitors, Neville, asked me how to confirm the results, so I wrote a post that explains where to find the data and how to download it:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/how-you-can-confirm-the-sst-anomalies-for-the-indian-and-pacific-ocean-subset-have-not-warmed-for-17-years/
Hope all is well there with you and yours.
Regards
Bob
Bob also challenged Luke at comment 84 “Unwilling to consider evedence our ABC” post.
But I’m afraid Luke is a classic BS religious true believer and like a true jellyback he’ll just ignore Bob and hope he’ll go away.
Jennifer, and with regards to Bob, I have to say as a common chart monitor; it’s a false premises to employ reversed slope interpretation based on some short term variations.
Tom Curtis illustrates it best here at Skeptical Science,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_and_variation.html
More importantly though; this discussion between Tom and Anthony (down in comments) must be seen to appreciate my concern with such half baked analysis.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html
Willis Essenbach has discussed this Levitus paper a week ago at WUWT. Seems it is based on very little data and ocean sized errors. See post and comments to understand this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/more-ocean-sized-errors-in-levitus-et-al/#more-61979
Willis Eschenbach ( not Essenbach sorry) had an earlier post on this Levitus paper that is also very revealing. His PS question at the bottom is very good. Comments are interesting on this post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/#more-61861
Why climate science is a textbook example of groupthink. Good stuff and so very true, consensus we luv ya.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/why-climate-science-is-a-textbook-example-of-groupthink/#more-62415
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html
And as Derek Smith has pointed to in a previous thread this paper puts the b/s story on ocean heat into context.
Poor old Luke is probably licking his wounds whilst waiting for orders from further up.
Well Willis Essenbach would say that wouldn’t he. As he does about everything else. So tedious.
As for Stevenson – well ho hum again.
There is a big swag of science in the system on energy balance and attribution that will sweep all these dweeby little personal whingers away.
Watts will go down in history as the great disinformation site of all time.
You’re kidding yourselves if you think they know anything.
Get published or perish in obscure irrelevance. But you never do.
Try heating your bath with a hairdryer – that’s what they are inferring.
Who was measuring ocean heat content at 2000m in 1955?
Try sloshing your bath and introducing ENSO – Great analogy mate.
Anyway Meehl has already modelled it – makes sense http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/…/Meehl_Natureclimatechange2011-1.pdf
your link doesn’t work Luke.
sloshing your bath?? Luke the oceans average 4 kilometres deep. The bottom 2 kilometres is at 2 degrees C, just above freezing.
Dear Jennifer. Do you consider yourself an unbiased observer/scientist intent on testing or disproving theories with an objective mind set or rather a portal for the proliferation and distribution of very selective material that serves to merely give your heavily biased, I’m all right Jack, nothing wrong with the status-quo, followers a warm glow.
sorry – http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fasullo/refs/Meehl2011etalNCC.pdf
and it’s not like there are no mixing processes mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/pdf/S/schmittner07agu_intro.pdf
all reported earlier Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceanshttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5732/284.abstract
Comment from: John Sayers May 1st, 2012 at 10:26 am
“Who was measuring ocean heat content at 2000m in 1955?”
This is the $64 question. Unfortunately we don’t have a good answer yet. And according to Willis’ analysis, which I finally got around to reading, the pre-03 data are way too sparse to come to any meaningful conclusion. Using chicken entrails as proxies would be almost as good, and a whole lot more honest.
Oh, wait a minute. I keep forgetting that models are better than data. Silly me! Sorry about that, Luke.
And Mike Mann, if you’re reading this, I was just kidding about the chicken entrails.
Normally I leave the Resident Dipstick to tend his little dunnycart all by himself but occasionally his malignant mendacity needs sunlight
The Trenberth et al Letter, published September 2011 about 8 months ago, that he links to above contains NO empirical data on deep ocean temperatures (ie. > 2000m). The “plausible” findings in the Letter (Trenberth’s word, not mine) are model-based (simulations on putative energy balances), not data-based
The Argo float data used are only for depths above 700m and here is the comment on this from the Letter:
“Observational datasets derived from the Argo float data and 20 other sources indicate that the ocean heat content above about 700m did not increase appreciably during the 2000s, a time when the rise in surface temperatures also stalled”
Amongst the conclusions in the Letter:
“Tracing changes in global deep-ocean heat content indicated by the model results would require better observed ocean heat-content analyses. In particular, observations of deep-ocean temperatures, which are not generally available now but are planned under Argo, also limit our ability to accurately calculate the sea-level”
Roy Spencer published a website comment quite a few months ago on the existing Argo float data, with NO empirical evidence found for deeper ocean heating
Indeed, Trenberth, where is the “missing heat” ??
I’ll wait for verified empirical data. The Resident Dipstick can armwave models unsupported by hard data but he has to do it in the morning light … his only riposte here will be more irrelevant links to “plausible” models, laced with argumentum ad hominen and strawmen bafflegab
Marc
Jen is interested in ideas, evidence and she promotes Socratic discussion where ideas can be contested.
She usually has a perspective and is keen for it to be challenged.
At least we assume that is why she is so accommodating of Luke and Ian Mott.
marc, to answer your question, because Jen may be too modest:
The lady considers herself – and is – an unbiased observer/scientist intent on testing or disproving theories with an objective mind set.
She does allow, it must be admitted, “proliferation and distribution of very selective material”. But what can she do? The climate fashionistas are down to “extreme events” and some crumbly ice in West Antarctica. If an area of air or water gets warm for a bit – which air and water tend to do – they have to wrench that into a global crisis before things cool again. It’s not like they can just re-run a cooling scare, this close to the seventies. Take away their selective material – and what have they got?
Well Larry – on who measured what – you could delve into the World Ocean Database http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOD09/pr_wod09.html and tell us….. gurgle
ianl8888 – just a horrid pig ignorant rant from you really. How utterly insulting. But it’s easier than doing science isn’t it.
Do you people do the most minimal of investigation.
“Take away their selective material – and what have they got?”
that means the entire science literature. It’s easier being ignorant isn’t it. Never read any links Robert – please never – just rant without thinking. Your Antarctica comment is simply amazing. A region that is warming almost faster than anywhere on Earth is reduced to this sort of dribbly analysis.
Robert – had afternoon tea at the home yet? You might get a lammington today do you think?
Luke – your link goes no way to explaining how ocean temp at 2000m was measured in the 50’s.
Nor does it explain the spread of there measurements.
You are a silly bugger with too much time on your hands. Get a real job and do something useful
Denis, Robert – yes you are correct that there are extreme claims coming from extreme quarters, which does great disservice to the honest, tested science that is generated globally. It concerns me that the debate is becoming increasingly polarised by the extremes and that the science is being clouded and good science being discredited and banished to irrelevance. In relation to Jenny and this blog; I don’t think two wrongs make a right!
“Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake
during surface-temperature hiatus periods”
evidence?? since when is the ramblings of a computer model been called evidence??
these guys have a hide!!
Marc
Jen is 100% right in this blog post. She has neatly conceded one point while effectively demolishing the bulk of the AGW theory in an utterly subversive way. Given AGW is the dominant paradigm, subversion is a best tactic.
If you can expose what she has done wrong, by all means explain that to us all in plain english. But don’t just say she is wrong. Explain.
They took away our Arctic Death Spiral. They shall not take from us our West Antarctic Melt! (We, er, don’t discuss the rest of that region, since our gang-reviewed expertise is in warming.) Wherever there is a factoid to be skewed, a short trend to be extrapolated, contradictory data to be ignored, history to be buried…we shall be there! We are…
The Aging Hipsters!
Marc,
That was a rather poorly constructed rhetorical question which you then later followed up with an argument that the majority at this site would likely agree with:
‘It concerns me that the debate is becoming increasingly polarised by the extremes and that the science is being clouded and good science being discredited and banished to irrelevance.’
Sheeesh!!
You think???????
And whats this ‘ heavily biased, I’m all right Jack, nothing wrong with the status-quo, followers a warm glow.’ anyway?
What on earth does that mean?
If you would care to actually read what people are offering, you may notice that Jen and other people here are examining current or ‘real time data’ and plotting it against the projective modelling that is being used as justification to enact ‘urgent and radical’ social policy/reform.
The questions and comments are valid and if you don’t like the way they are sometimes presented then perhaps you may need to look at what I presume you see as the other side of this polarised debate and explain how that behaviour has been any better?
Or maybe….is that what you meant by your highly profound ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ comment?
I see that your resident intellectual thug (name starts with L) is in full flight. Another reason for posting somewhere else.
why – aren’t the rest of us worth posting here?
“intellectual thug” – I’ll take that as a compliment.
sp sauce – well you’d have to examine the data there wouldn’t you.
This is Robert’s short trend – http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/nhem.jpg
what did you get for dinner Robert.
oh go away Luke,.
Luke, I had a home-made minestrone with good South Oz olive oil, from a Greek I know. After an hour’s jog round the farm, it really hit the spot!
Your lamington idea sounds good. I can see you having a lamington party with your action figures, trying to come up with a cool new avatar. Thug indeed!
I promise if you give me a link to a good lamo recipe, I’ll check it out.
As for your other links, I know where Tamino, RC, SS and the rest are. You certainly know how to find the worst of a bad lot.
Luke, read this from YOUR Trenberth paper;
“Observational datasets derived from the Argo float data and other sources indicate that the ocean heat content above about 700m did not increase appreciably during the 2000s, a time when the rise in surface temperatures also stalled.”
and then look again at the red line on the Levitus graph and tell us which one is wrong.
BTW, a paper that mostly cites models is worthless and the references to real data are meaningless in this context.
Hey Luke, guess who runs the World ocean database. Yep, Sydney Levitus. And a quick look at this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project
shows that there wasn’t much reliable data before 2001.
Just what is it that you’re trying to prove with these sleight-of-hand maneuvers Luke?
Luke, how about comparing Tamino’s graph with the latest one here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
I guess that massive uptick was just a bit inconvenient. Talk about cherry picking data!
Derek – please have some respect and cite properly – the paper is Meehl et al.
Levitus et al is a brand new analysis using data hitherto not synthesised. Time moves on and so does science. Just because some sceptic latches into to a previous graphic does not necessarily make it a gold standard.
As for your distaste for models – well I assume you can keep 100 separate processes and counter-intuitive feedbacks in your head at the same time. I’m so impressed.
The point of Meehl et al is that it gives some truck to the hypothesis that heat can be stored in the deep ocean and why ! Surely why is important.
This is not the only paper on this issue – indeed locally Cai has done some most interesting modelling work seeing if models can explain heat penetrating to the deep http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3081.1
Of course you would simply find this obvious and intuitive and have completed in your head.
Furthermore there is considerable new work on magnitude of forcing changes in the recent decade which would leave the fundamental greenhouse warming physics quite intact IMO.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/29/11790.full.pdf+html
and also similar with Church et al on energy budgets and sea level rise. All in all – the whole story fits quite well. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1118/2011GL048794/
I’m sorry Luke but using more models to support other models just wont wash. What none of these guys have is empirical data to support their wishful thinking.
Please give me a rational reason why Stevenson is wrong.
Golly gee Derek – a datum point. By golly – it’s all over. One wiggle and the whole trend is gone. Pullease !
And you’re getting goofier Derek – only 1.5M samples compared to 9M – gee you wouldn’t be able to do any stats on that would you. No reliable data before 2001 – do wank on.
Indeed as Levitus says in his paper and relevant to the graph in the lead here : “Time series for the World Ocean of ocean heat content (1022 J) for the 0-2000 m (red) and 700-2000 m (black) layers based on running pentadal (five-year) analyses. ………. The blue bar chart at the bottom represents the percentage of one-degree squares (globally) that have at least four pentadal one-degree square anomaly values used in their computation at 700 m depth. Blue line is the same as for the bar chart but
for 2000 m depth”
You will notice that data coverage for 2000m is quite good. So try not to just rant and make random accusations eh?
It’s not models you very silly person – Levitus et al is a data analysis. Are you that silly that you cannot see the models have been explored by others to see if they can replicate some of the observed behaviour. It’s an addition to the story. I am simply aghast at you guys. Are you that bereft of any comprehension to not understand the role of modelling?
And for the size and complexity of the models involved to come up with the processes they explain at random is about a gazillion to one.
After correcting old data and new data and excluding some Argo data, Levitus decides the world’s oceans have warmed by 0.09c since 1955.
This is a dodgy enough claim but then to say that it proves AGW from ACO2 is just wrong.
“And you’re getting goofier Derek – only 1.5M samples compared to 9M – gee you wouldn’t be able to do any stats on that would you. No reliable data before 2001 – do wank on.”
Except that more than half of those 1.5 million only go down to 250m, therefore “wank on” yourself.
You still haven’t explained the contradiction between “Meehl et al.” and the red line on the Levitus graph.
Which one of your heroes are you going to side with?
As a layperson I can’t really comment on many of the papers proffered here, but a good read of this one Luke offers
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1118/2011GL048794/
is intriguing. Boiled down, they seem to be saying that although they don’t really have good enough observational data, with enough guesses they can derive a solid result. OK…
However, it does raise a question for me that I am sure has been adequately covered in the science, it’s just I’ve never read anything about it. If the warming surface results in increased evaporation and hence a positive feedback, then surely we can expect increased precipitation. Some argue that the wetter weather of late in Australia illustrates that.
But, if we have more extreme wet weather events, then surely we have a commensurate increase in water sequestration on land through replenished aquifers, dams and snow cover. Indeed, I’ve read that current worldwide snowcover is quite high globally. Given that the paper above includes groundwater depletion as a contributor to sea level rise it seems that the issue is relevant. To what extent would increased land based precipitation affect sea level rise?
oooo – 750,000 then – gee no data there. As I said see Levitus position on coverage and I look forward to your alternative analysis showing he doesn’t have a statistical basis for his analysis. Coz that’s all you’re doing now is making up excuses.
It’s not about “heroes” is about the science. Only sceptics are into the personality drivel.
As for Meehl et al “versus” Levitus et al – there is no contradiction. Levitus is a new 2012 published analysis with new data. The older paper – one of Meehl et al’s references is indeed Levitus’s previous analysis. So don’t be so dishonest Derek – you’re just throwing stuff around now to create a fuss. In fact you’d like science to not progress it seems.
So do we get a thank you for the super-human effort in collating such a massive data set and analysing it – no of course not – all we get from our Derek is a whingey faux sceptic nitpick of “it’s all bullshit”.
Hey guys; In my little effort to verify the 1955 thingy yesterday based on some prior knowledge and recall I did instruments from daylight to dark in the 1960’s; I go so sidetracked with the wealth of information on the web, I reckoned your lot wasn’t worth any more of my time on here.
However; for those new to the game of hide and seek re old records I post some key points for your Google’s.
There was an international conference in Tokyo 1955 that set the seen. Prior to that we had the influence of UNESCO and the JCO coordinating ocean research. Late 50’s we had the Russians and the Geo Phys Year. In the 1960’s there was the Indian Ocean Expedition. At any time post 1955 there was probably several hundred scientists officially funded world wide in various work groups. Australia, although not often mentioned in reports or books on the web was there too particularly in the scramble for recognition, rights to our Southern Ocean, Antarctica etc. I know our ships did a lot of collecting between bases.
You have no case for doubting those early records.
Cheers
Graeme M – good point – Church et al do comment on water in empoundments – saying among other things “Natural exchanges with terrestrial reservoirs average out to near-zero over multi-decadal time periods ” but do make difference on shorter time scales – they reference Chao et al 2008 – Fielder and Conrad 2010 also comment http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/conrad/papers/Fiedler_Conrad_GRL2010.pdf which discusses regional effects of dams
The problem with big wets in Australia – is that if the mechanism is La Nina – they are somewhat balanced by big droughts elsewhere e.g. southern USA and Africa
However there is recent evidence to an enhanced global hydrological cycle – but the issue fior sea level is how the swings and roundabouts in terms of water stored on land (or not) would balance out in the longer term.
Conditions on the Moon are far better understood than those in the world’s oceans. Someone better come up with one heck of a model, using nearly non-existent data, before they try to explain oceans.
Comment from: Neville May 1st, 2012 at 9:23 am
“Why climate science is a textbook example of groupthink.”
Good point, Neville. Groupthink is one modality of the psychology of stupidity. Dietrich Dörner’s book, The Logic of Failure, addresses the larger question from the perspective of what I call Black Box Problems.
The experimental subject is aware that the BBP exists. He then interacts with a computer simulation of the BBP. He makes an input, and observes the corresponding output. He then attempts to learn something from that experience, and has another go at the computer simulation, in the light of his experience. He may or may not solve the problem, or optimize the system, within a reasonable amount of time.
Two of the simulations involve an optimization problem that a city manager is likely to encounter, as well as malfunctioning commercial refrigerators. Four of the nonproductive problem-solving approaches are magical thinking, addiction to the ‘Flow’ experience, the assumption of linearity, and micromanagement of a small part of the picture while ignoring everything else. One can see similar thought processes in government bureaucrats.
Interestingly, small business owners outscored university students in Dörner’s simulations.
gav says this:
“Jennifer, and with regards to Bob, I have to say as a common chart monitor; it’s a false premises to employ reversed slope interpretation based on some short term variations.
Tom Curtis illustrates it best here at Skeptical Science,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_and_variation.html
More importantly though; this discussion between Tom and Anthony (down in comments) must be seen to appreciate my concern with such half baked analysis.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html”
What Curtis shows is the lack of correlation between CO2, which is continually increasing and temperature which is all over the place. The point about the SC little light show is that it mirrors the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature over EVERY time scale.
In respect of the “1/2 baked analysis”; I agree Tom’s conclusions, and indeed all the cheer squad at SC was 1/2 baked; the simple fact is that levitus found a much reduced forcing, compared with that projected by the IPCC; the conversation ended at SC but continued at David Stockwell’s site where anthony posed this question:
“And another thing, Tom has seen fit to lampoon at John Cook’s site my reference to Stefan Boltzmann as a limit to temperature increase by extra CO2;
Tom Curtis at 13:21 PM on 27 April, 2012
anthony @16, predictions of the equilibrium
climate response include the Planck feedback function which you describe (and
which is explained in more detail by Chris Colose here). So your argument amounts to the claim that a prediction which incorporates the Planck feedback cannot be realized because
of the Planck feedback.
I still remain mystified as to why self describe “skeptics” think
that simply citing a well known physical effect which is incorporated into all
Global Circulation Models (GCMs) (as both the Planck feedback and Beer’s Law)
will show the predictions of those GCMs to be false, without any need of
calculation on their behalf. It is as though they thought yelling “But
E=mc^2” would disprove the special theory of relativity.”
Tom has linked to Colose’s piece on climate sensitivity; Colose says this:
“Note that the logarithmic relation suggests that the fractional change in CO2 is what is important, since every doubling produces the same effect.”
This is not correct; for example by AGW’s own criteria:
280ppm to 560ppm = 1.2c rise
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .4 C rise)
560ppm to 1120 ppm = 1.2c rise
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .2 C rise)
1120 ppm to 2240 ppm = 1.2c rise.
(on average each 100 ppm results in a .1C rise).
Colose uses an amount of 1C but the point is the same.
The reason why this negative feedback to heating occurs is because of
Stefan Boltzmann; as the temperature increases the radiation emitted increases in a non-linear fashion as I explained:
From
200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131 W/m^2.
From
300-350K radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2.
But Colose states:
“The temperature response can then be linearly related to a forcing”.
How can that be when the radiation emitted does not have a linear response to temperature?
The answer by Curtis to the finding by Levitus that the current forcing is less than that calculated by Hansen and AGW theory is that Levitus’s forcing figure is less because it is later into the forcing period after the system has already responded to the earlier forcing by producing a greater temperature and therefore there is less forcing to be had because there is less future temperature change to produce further forcing.
A couple of things about this:
1 The temperature since 1750 is MUCH less than would be expected from the AGW forcing; which is, I suppose, why so much interest is in the ‘hidden’ heat in the ocean.
2 If forcing is to be expected to be less, as explained in the 1st paragraph, as the system gets closer to the higher equilibrium temperature then, as an unavoidable consequence, the future temperature must be less too.
This final point makes a mockery of the notions of future, MUCH higher, equilibrium temperatures; unless the heat can be found to be in the oceans. BUT Levitus shows that heat is not in the oceans; or at least sufficient heat to produce the equilibrium temperatures predicted by AGW theory.
A quote from the Vannevar blog after Dorner “seeing events as the results of a time-delayed process rather than unique incidents” is the classic antidote for premature grabs at trend reversal. AGW skeptics are by definition operating from a preconceived view of the official data but we can understand their glee when natural variations obscure the general trend.
Despite Dorner, complex situations can be handled by assuming worst case for all short term events, i.e. failure is at hand and our model could be doomed by a simple oversight with selection of inputs or our design doesn’t cater for time lags. Either way, events can’t be throttled entirely by signal damping. In the practical world, real time analysis is a luxury. On hindsight v foresight, balance is achieved within the group dynamic, something that’s often missing round blogsphere.
luke, will you translate gav; I did catch this:
“within the group dynamic”
Sounds like communism to me.
As for this:
“AGW skeptics are by definition operating from a preconceived view of the official data but”
No, that is wrong; a sceptical outlook is not a preconceived view; gullibility and faith are; and those are the essential qualities of alarmism.
To cohenite above; I recommend a look at some math for the force balance principle where the sensor does not move in theory, i. e. actual deviation is slight but can be amplified as the signal. A common instrument is the D/P cell.
???
Seriously gav, are you saying AGW causes earthquakes.
Cohenite
“luke, will you translate gav”
Good luck with that, I’ve given up reading gav’s posts beyond the first two lines.
I personally believe you need a clairvoyant not a translator.
Gavin, could you please explain to us the mechanism for a warming atmosphere to heat the oceans and then transfer that heat to the deep ocean.
Pretty please?
I’m serious, I’d really like to know.
Good question Derek, however it needs a further qualification; a [non] warming atmosphere.
In measurement of an erratic process, negative feedback is deliberately employed to stabilize the output. A basic concept of any system thus chasing its orifice as in a pneumatic DP cell is the unity gain factor. Several familiar instrument designs are illustrated here-
http://www.iamechatronics.com/notes/general-engineering/274-pneumatic-instrumentation-analogy-to-opamp-circuits
Now; can we look back at GCM’s and find as much from tiny trends in temp , SL etc with all the natural feed backs applied? Don’t expect to find anything over a short run.
The use of force balance instruments, bridges and opp amps to overcome turbulent process measurement difficulties is but a start to understanding the science of climate, but that’s how I approach it after the practice.
Also; monitoring heat shift across boundaries was one of the main reasons engineering grabbed the gear intended for our space exploration. We did a lot of other physics back in industry too. None the least was electrical and we always had optics at hand. Another big influence was the A to D transition and data crunching that followed.
Don’t expect short cuts without the effort
So in other words Gav………you haven’t got a clue.
gav, you say:
“Don’t expect to find anything over a short run.”
Levitus looks at data from 1955-2010 and finds a forcing about 1/6th of the nominated AGW rate.
I mean, that’s plain; don’t you get that?
Meanwhile this giant wind energy con and fraud just goes on regardless. The poor bloody taxpayer is bled dry by these con merchants and union super funds clean up big time.
Bugger all power produced from these clueless eyesores and totally backed up by CF power.
Most importantly Aussies are forced to pay more and more for electricity, while importers of our coal, gas etc get the benifit of cheaper energy.
And not a jot of difference to the climate or temp for this at all.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_subsidies_than_power/
Little Lukey,
when will you present the study that shows why it is appropriate to use such sparse, questionable data to compute historic average temps and compare them to the current marginal data?!?!?!
As usual the Gorebull Warming litchurchur ASSUMES this type of basic information rather than rigorously showing it. We can do all kinds of hinky studies that mean NOTHING by this method, which is what they have done.
It’s time we had a chat about the virtues of patience.
I need to supervise a veteran hunter on a daily basis. Once our dear old tabby senses the presence of a fresh wildlife colony setting up camp in the back yard she gets into a routine that always targets the lot. Her for rodent policy for one by one destruction can take weeks, if not months to implement so my disrupting of that process is likewise tedious. We have a constant battle of wits at the back door because some of our intruders are native. The other companion, a younger cat who sleeps mostly on our pillow seems to know nothing at all about hunting outdoors and is indeed intimidated.
Half a dozen local magpies can be watching the door and waiting to hop in too. This morning, their gang leader a smaller female was eying me having my breakfast through the sliding door. Any one can peck a spec of mince off my finger tip but not before squawking to the stragglers, it’s on again. But the boys stand back and puff up, about twice the size of the girls. There is a pecking order to be established every time. What have these bird brains learned? I actually control the distribution.
For Derek: Project completion follows task management but the strategy can be done on the run. As I sift through the dregs of other people’s lifetime collections, I have plenty of time to consider the what ifs associated with all their gunnnas and mine. De cluttering requires space though. Guess what? Bulky items get sorted first and the fines last. But we can hasten the project if all the metrics go one way and all the imperials another in the first stage of handling. Given there have been many changes in manufacturing even since ww2 the correct line of threads precede the hardware. Now we have the tools, modern v vintage and so we can box them ready for the next client. What’s this got to do with data you say.
Cohenite, you can’t get away from the facts. I consistently claim UHI is a furphy, so is wuwt and we see 1.5C/100Y GLOBAL despite your heat budget fossicing
luke, I blame you for this.
gav, you say:
“we see 1.5C/100Y GLOBAL despite your heat budget fossicing”
Not we don’t; in fact we see a temperature increase over the last 161 years of 0.73C:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/trend
Luke,
I am disappointed.
Firstly because you have not engaged with the Tisdale post May 1st 6.16am (I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not see it because it is at a previous post)
Secondly because you consistently ignore the fact that the statistical work being questioned here has not been updated correctly with ‘real time’ data and that is why it is being questioned.
If we want projective work like this to be a useful tool, then it must be correctly updated.
There is no point in trying to prove the projections and the underlying theory (AGW) are completely correct when ‘real time data’ is not correlating.
I don’t believe the work is therefore useless, but it will be if it is not correctly updated. It will only stray further and further from being useful.
I look forward to seeing the mechanism that transfers IR from atmosphere into the ocean, hundreds of meters.
Luke and Gavin, I think that you’re understating your case; it’s much worse than we thought. Did you know that Global Warming caused the JFK assassination in 1963? It caused Lee Harvey Oswald to reach a catastrophic, irreversible tipping point. If Dallas had had a blizzard on that fateful day, Oswald would have stayed in bed, and the history of the late 20th Century would have been much different. Where was the LIA when we needed it the most?
I would actually expect to see ocean heat content rise. The reason is recovery from the Little Ice Age. It takes a long time to turn over the water in the oceans and it will likely take several centuries for the oceans to warm after several centuries of cooling from the LIA.
It is much easier for the oceans to cool due to colder atmospheric temperatures than it is for the ocean to warm up. The reason is that cold water sinks, warm water wants to stay nearer to the surface. I can cool an ocean much faster by exposing the surface to cold air than I can warm it by exposing the surface to warm air.
Also, that graph is very compressed. There has been very little to no ocean heat content increase over the past several years.
People are not being given the total context in which to view the data. We had several hundred years of some of the coldest temperatures of the Holocene. The duration of the LIA was nearly an entire ocean ventilation cycle. The warming has lasted less than 150 years and the ocean is only about 1/6 ventilated in that time. We still have water in the abyssal deep that last saw the surface during the LIA.
oh, com’on this is the warmest group desperately trying to show that Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat is in the oceans yet Linzden_Choi has shown that the additional heat has pissed off into space, as you would expect it to.
Over at RC, Schmitty is trying to say that its the “flux” that’s important and that heat can pass through the upper layers on its way down to warm the depths without heating up the layer it passes through.
Gav or Luke, could you please please explain this new paradigm in thermal physics?
I know little of deep-ocean heat content, neither do the authors of this piece of speculation-based-on-a-model-based-on-bugger-all it would seem. What I do know is that the National Tidal Centre (BoM) supervises and collects data from a network of modern tide-gauges around Australia and across the Pacific. Those gauges record meteorological data as well as sea-level, every few seconds. Of the Australian sites, about half show no SST rise, or cooling since installation (early 1990s). Several of those that do show an overall rise show cooling since 1999.
The Pacific trend is more pronounced. Most sites show cooling since installation, most of the remainder cooling since 1999. Only Papua New Guinea totally bucks the trend with strong warming since installation in 1994, and Tonga shows a lower rate since 1993. Does warm water sink? (don’t lecture, I know the answer, it’s a rhetorical question).
I should have blogged the charts long ago, and will do very soon. Mea culpa.
Comment from: Luke May 1st, 2012 at 2:34 pm
“Never read any links Robert – please never – just rant without thinking. Your Antarctica comment is simply amazing. A region that is warming almost faster than anywhere on Earth is reduced to this sort of dribbly analysis.”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/believing-the-oceans-will-keep-warming/?cp=all#comment-505730
“Almost faster” – that must mean the same speed or slower, right?
From Tony Price – “Almost faster” – that must mean the same speed or slower, right?
Where are you Luke? – please explain!
By the way Luke – I must say your usual low standards have dropped even lower, probably cant go any lower, but I know you will try.
I suspect you realise you have been a knob for years, but cant back out now. Poor boy
Gavin says at May 1st, 2012 at 8:35 am: “Jennifer, and with regards to Bob, I have to say as a common chart monitor; it’s a false premises to employ reversed slope interpretation based on some short term variations.
Tom Curtis illustrates it best here at Skeptical Science,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_and_variation.html”
Gavin, sorry for replying so late. Your common chart monitoring skills are lacking or you’re employing misdirection. The dataset I presented in the post that Jennifer linked was Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data. That’s a satellite-based SEA surface temperature dataset. Why did you link a post that illustrated BEST LAND surface temperature anomalies and short-term trends for periods that overlap? Do you notice any difference between the dataset in the graph you linked and one I presented, Gavin? Here’s a comparison, just in case you’re having trouble:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2cnwr2v.jpg
The key point of discussion in my post was the lack of warming for the past 17-years (204 months) for the sea surface temperature anomalies for the Indian and Pacific Oceans (90S-90N, 20E-70W). That’s important because it represents about 75% of the surface area of the global oceans. But the post you linked provided overlapping land surface temperature anomaly linear trends(assumption on my part) for periods that look to vary somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 to 9 years. Do you notice any difference between the trend periods, Gavin? Mine was 17 years; theirs was about 8 years.
If you would, since you’re a self-described “common chart monitor”, please use the same Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature anomaly data that I presented in my post, and the same coordinates (90S-90N, 20E-70W), and replicate your nonsensical SkepticalScience graph using 17-year trends, not 7-, 8-, or 9-year trends like SkepticalScience. Here’s a link to the Reynolds OI.v2 SST data through the NOAA NOMADS website:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite=
Or if you’d prefer, the Reynolds OI.v2 SST data is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Gavin, you closed your comment with, “More importantly though; this discussion between Tom and Anthony (down in comments) must be seen to appreciate my concern with such half baked analysis.”
If you believe my analysis is half baked, then you either misunderstand it, or you’re intentionally attempting to mislead the readers here at Jennifer’s blog by misrepresenting what I presented. Either way you’ve missed your target.
Adios
Hi Jennifer: Thanks for posting my email to you. It’s given me a chance to discuss it with at least one of your regulars above.
Regards
Happy Star Wars Day everyone.
May the 4th be with you.
And that “Forth” might sink us all:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/i-feel-a-fail-coming-on-will-tuvalu-survive-super-moon/
It’s supposed to be the fifth but it looks full tonight to me.
But in spite of the perigee moon I see the tides are higher the following month [June 5th] which is the usual month for the night time king tide each year.
Gav, I hope you’ve got some firewood in for the morning.
It’s great having Bob Tisdale drop in with a comment on the lack of ocean warming…. information which will be put to good use.
This is a story you probably won’t see in the msm, the greatest Bering Sea Ice extent in history.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bering_sea_record_ice.png
G’day Bob; forgive me for stirring your pot early in the thread but I did find a NOAA global sst graph, slope = 1.5C/100y for the greater part, approx 1912>present, however it seems to have disappeared since. My point was, global sst shows a warming nearly twice the combined land – ocean ST
If anyone can help, please start here
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
cheers
Gavin says at May 4th, 2012 at 8:40 pm: “G’day Bob; forgive me for stirring your pot early in the thread but I did find a NOAA global sst graph, slope = 1.5C/100y for the greater part, approx 1912>present, however it seems to have disappeared since.”
Is there any reason you’re attempting to change the topic of discussion, Gavin? We’re discussing the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, from pole to pole (90S-90N, 20E-70W) for the past 17 years. We’re also discussing the NOAA satellite-based sea surface temperature dataset known as Reynolds OI.v2 SST data, not their long-term ERSST.v3b data. By your reply, everyone here now understands that you are not capable of replicating the nonsensical SkepticalScience graph that you linked earlier, using the dataset I used, for the oceans I presented, and for the 17-year term shown in the trends of my post. In other words, you are not able to justify calling my post a “half baked analysis”. I kind of expected that, since no one could do it.
You claimed to be a “common chart monitor”. But you appear to have a bad memory. NOAA’s long-term sea surface temperature dataset is ERSST.v3b. It’s available at the KNMI Climate Explorer that I linked for you yesterday. So you could have confirmed your recall of the “a NOAA global sst graph, slope = 1.5C/100y for the greater part, approx 1912>present.” Here’s a graph that shows the warming trend of the “NOAA global sst” anomalies from January 1912 to April 2012 to be about 44% of the rate you remembered:
http://i48.tinypic.com/15dp2dw.jpg
Gavin, you continued with: “My point was, global sst shows a warming nearly twice the combined land – ocean ST.”
Anyone who understands the global surface temperature record knows that comment is blatantly wrong. Global sea surface temperatures warm at a rate that is significantly less than land surface temperatures on a long-term basis and over the course of the annual seasonal cycle. But just to confirm for the readers here that you haven’t a clue, here’s a graph that compares the NOAA Land+Plus Sea Surface Temperature anomalies to their sea surface temperature anomaly data, both on a global basis:
http://i46.tinypic.com/bi556e.jpg
Looks to me like the trend of the sea surface temperature data is warming at a rate that’s about 85% of the rate of the combined land+sea surface temperatures, not twice as fast as you somehow assumed, defying common sense.
Gavin, you concluded with: “If anyone can help, please start here
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/”
You linked the NOAA OCEAN HEAT CONTENT webpage in a discussion of Sea Surface Temperature data, Gavin. They are not the same. The readers here understand that. The sea SURFACE temperature data we’re discussing is presented in deg C. Ocean heat content anomalies is presented by the NODC for depths of 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters in terms of 10^22 Joules, not deg C. They present thermosteric and halosteric sea level anomalies in mm. And they provide salinity data. Nowhere on that webpage would anyone be able to find sea surface temperature in deg C, which is the topic of the conversation you and I are having.
The readers here at Jennifer’s blog, if they weren’t already aware of it, now understand that you have no idea what you’re talking about. No idea at all.
Can I also point out to Gavin that his comment about ‘the virtue of patience’ looks rather naive in the face of the current agenda which is all about urgent and radical reform?
Some patience and some realism would be a particularly good idea Gavin.
Can you explain where that is happening?
Ho hum – more drivel from Tisdale one of the great uniformitarian averagists of our time. Unpublished and ever so shrill. Publish or perish !
Isn’t it interesting that while Bob is running around sticking lines through data he doesn’t understand that REAL scientists are finding significant warming trends that have physical mechanisms. But our Bob has missed the story and failed to bring it to our attention.
A couple of recent examples – the warming Indian warm pool – and this ocean has this thing called a dipole apparently and all manner of interesting twists. Well the warm pool is increasing over decades with relevance to Indian peak rainfall events.
http://www.tropmet.res.in/ochamp/latest_news/24feb/CT1-Surya.ppt for the impecunious
Suryachandra A. Rao, Ashish R. Dhakate, Subodh K. Saha, Somnath Mahapatra, Hemantkumar S. Chaudhari, Samir Pokhrel and Sobhan K. Sahu, 2012, Why is Indian Ocean warming consistently?
Climatic Change Volume 110, Numbers 3-4, 709-719, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0121-x
building of course on classic work such as http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1945.1 and http://eprints.utas.edu.au/4510/ nothing like the fundamentals
Why would one be interested in such things if you were an Indian – hmmm – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/32/11081.full.pdf
Meanwhile back in Aussie for those interested in local ocean warmings of great marine biological significance in eastern Australia and off SW WA http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MF10272.pdf
But very interesting how global circulation patterns shape significant areas of southern ocean warming and why we always can rely on REAL scientists at CSIRO
“Simulations of Processes Associated with the Fast Warming Rate of the Southern Midlatitude Ocean” now this is good stuff
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3081.1
So much warming – such complexity – thank heavens for real scientists. Too much link link – well don’t worry. We can always look at some random graph averaging something about something and have a bex and good lie down.
What can we say but we’re not worthy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0
Time for some music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtoNWSoTgSM&feature=related (for John)
It’s simple really. Except when it’s complex. And remember:
IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!
Luke, how do I make lamingtons go pink? The choc ones are still my faves, but I thought I’d ask. And can I still get Bex powders, or have they gone the way of junket tablets and all that published literature by guys who didn’t want to perish before they got debunked?
Luke at May 5th, 2012 at 8:41 am says: “Ho hum – more drivel from Tisdale one of the great uniformitarian averagists of our time. Unpublished and ever so shrill. Publish or perish !”
You’re really stuck on that outdated argument. Obviously you’re not aware that the publish-or-perish phrase pertains only to those who are paid to publish academic work or who need to publish to further their careers. I’m retired so the latter doesn’t apply, and I’m not paid to present data. I do it to entertain myself. But I would of course accept a donation from you for the education you receive from me. Here’s a link:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=C6Y5VHZNFB9QL&lc=US&item_name=Bob%20Tisdale¤cy_code=USD&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF%3abtn_donateCC_LG%2egif%3aNonHosted
Oh, BTW, thanks for linking the model-based papers about the sea surface temperatures of the Indian Ocean Warm Pool and Australian waters. Unfortunately, we all know that climate models have no basis in reality, so they really have to be taken with a grain of salt, and if it’s a model study about sea surface temperature always make it a cubic yard of salt.
I just happen to have a couple of graphs of the sea surface temperature anomalies for those datasets. Here’s the data for the Indian Ocean Warm Pool:
http://i49.tinypic.com/nf31e.jpg
And here’s the one for the waters surrounding Australia:
http://i45.tinypic.com/29pw3mt.jpg
As you and all of Jennifer’s other visitors will note, the sea surface temperature anomalies of both areas only really warm in response to the significant El Nino events (1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10) that are followed by La Nina events. Between those ENSO events, sea surface temperatures rise very little or actually decline. And that makes sense to anyone who understands the process of ENSO. Do you understand the process of ENSO? If not, here’s a link to Bishop Hill’s comments about my book. About 25% of the book is about ENSO. Maybe you should buy one.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/4/29/bobs-book.html
Luke, one of your closing remarks was, “So much warming – such complexity…”
Actually, it’s not that complex once you look at the data, assuming you understand ENSO.
Now I know you won’t be interested, Luke, but there are a number of Jennifer’s other visitors who would like to see just how badly the models portray the warming of sea surface temperatures for the past 30 years. For them, I’ll link part 1…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/part-1-%e2%80%93-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections/
…and part 2, of a two-part post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/492/
Luke, maybe you should stop relying on those comically bad, model-based, peer-reviewed papers and start investigating data yourself. If you did, you wouldn’t seem so out of touch with reality.
Have a nice day.
The Aurora Energy state of the art, low emission, gas turbine power station in the Tamar Valley Tasmania is deemed to be a ” big polluter” and must pay carbon tax.
This carbon insanity makes me feel sick with worry for my childrens’ future in this country.
http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/pdf/aetv_how_it_works.pdf
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/Public-information-databases/LEPID-for-2012-13-Financial-year/Pages/default.aspx
OK Bob; I looked at your pics and accept my 1.5c/100y was wrong. Now everyone can pick on me besides, her with that buzzing depiller above the ironing board, Bob and Deb. I am a mug hey.
Btw my my first SST ref was from NOAA not SkepticalScience where I linked re short term trending and my half baked comment was aimed at precisely that.
Also; I previously understood that accumulated ocean heat and temperature are different because I did lots of formal physics and engineering, both subjects and practice. Please note; this is the reason I won’t do any form of math or calcs in retirement today. Now let’s start again.
Bob; Given your SST trend @ .066 C / decade (thanks for your detailed reply), can you explain to Jen’s readers how the oceans gain this heat as we should know now at depth they are not much above zero despite the crust getting quite warmer as it goes down. Please have a go at this too, perhaps on another thread.
“Three decades of high-resolution coastal sea surface temperatures reveal more than warming”
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/full/ncomms1713.html
Deb: Howzat? and, I recycle something every day, even if it’s only a bucket of water.
Great track Luke – thanks for posting – it’s better than the original.
Gav,
I will of course defer to Bob and Luke to debate the information in the link you have supplied as it is entirely relevant to the discussion that is developing between them.
I would like you however to explain how that link answered my question about the presence of patience in the current political agenda?
Do you think you answered my question because this is a study that models 30 years of data?
Also stumbled over this one today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-04/study-finds-antarctic-currents-sensitive-to-climate/3990720
Seem like my retort to Bob has been snipped. Oh well. The state of science here I guess.
Geeezzz Luke well why not try again? BTW is that a KKK hoody you’re wearing now?
Gavin says: “Btw my my first SST ref was from NOAA not SkepticalScience where I linked re short term trending and my half baked comment was aimed at precisely that”
As a reminder, my references to SkepticalScience in both of my replies to you on this thread were in response to your comment at May 1st, 2012 at 8:35 am in which you linked one of their posts and wrote:
“Jennifer, and with regards to Bob, I have to say as a common chart monitor; it’s a false premises to employ reversed slope interpretation based on some short term variations.
Tom Curtis illustrates it best here at Skeptical Science,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend_and_variation.html”
Since you were using that SkepticalScience post as misdirection to downplay the findings of my posts that Jennifer linked, I asked you to replicate that SkepticalScience graph using the same Reynolds OI.v2 SST data I used, for the Indian and Pacific coordinates I presented, for the 17-year term. You still have not done so, which means you are not able to do so. No one is, so take heart in that. Yet all of that means your earlier attempt to downplay my posts is baseless–more to the point, it clearly illustrates that rely on misdirection (aka smoke and mirrors) as a debate tactic here at Jennifer’s blog. And that means your comments here have to viewed as having no credibility—at least on the topics you and I are discussing. But if you’ll employ baseless misdirection on one topic, there’s no reason to believe you won’t use it on others.
Gavin says: “Bob; Given your SST trend @ .066 C / decade (thanks for your detailed reply), can you explain to Jen’s readers how the oceans gain this heat…”
Sea surface temperatures rise and fall over multidecadal periods based on the frequency, magnitude, and duration of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. You have to keep in mind a few ENSO basics. First, ENSO is a variable source of thermal energy that is released to the atmosphere and redistributed within the oceans. And, second, the thermal energy is naturally recharged by ENSO. ENSO achieves this recharge through the reduction in cloud cover over the tropical Pacific during La Niña events, which allows more downward shortwave radiation to penetrate the ocean to depths of about 100 meters, warming the tropical Pacific. Three, the thermal energy is stored in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool for release and redistribution by the next ENSO event(s). During multidecadal periods when the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño events exceed those of La Niña events, global surface temperatures and ocean heat content rise naturally. Global temperatures fall when the frequency, magnitude and duration of La Niña events dominate.
Gavin says: “Please have a go at this too, perhaps on another thread.
‘Three decades of high-resolution coastal sea surface temperatures reveal more than warming’
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/full/ncomms1713.html”
Thanks for the link to the abstract of Lima and Wethey. Based on the abstract, their findings make sense. Global sea surface temperatures have warmed over the past 30 years but not uniformly. Nothing to debate there. The sea surface temperature updates I publish monthly confirm that. So there should be no reason to think coastal sea surface temperatures might do otherwise. The rest of the findings expressed in their abstract (there are more “hot” days, less “cold” days, and the “warm season” starts earlier) are basic common sense during a multidecadal period when sea surface temperatures have warmed.
Is there a specific reason you linked that study since it doesn’t address the topic you and I are discussing?
Luke,
I agree with Neville.
Try again.
It is not the first time anyone has been snipped here.
I didn’t see the snipped comment but I suspect it wasn’t because of the ‘state of science’.
A comment of mine was snipped too….it doesn’t preclude you (or me) from continuing this discussion.
Debbie – well of course many don’t see anything they don’t want to. And if you decline to publish in the serious journals you won’t find yourself challenged by serious people.
If you think that centennial warming ( a combination remember of various forcings) is driven by ENSO you probably also believe in Jack’s beanstalk where you can get something really big from nothing.
You would also beware of those from strange lands bringing to Aussies lectures about ENSO and IPO as much of the seminal work on the topic has been done by some of our Aussie warmists.
Debs – perhaps if it quacks like a duck it might be a duck.
So ponder the EOF technique of http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf – just the principal components analysis which does a simple ordination of sea surface data trends you get three basic EOFs (empirical orthogonal functions) when applied two semi-independent data sources – global HadSST2 and night time maritime air temperatures (NMAT). Folland has repeated Parker et al’s work now from 1850 to 2008.
And guess what – we have a large global spatial maps of EOF1 which is the most convincing pattern of a comprehensive global warming (i.e. from all sources – solar, greenhouse, volcanoes, aerosols) – a centennial warming trend everywhere …
A smaller EOF2 – which very much resembles the Pacific PDO and IPO pattern. And a third EOF3 which looks like the Atlantic pattern.
This is just data analysis Debs – very basic analysis – not modelling.
History shows periods of statis in an overall warming pattern.
Other published work shows that warming has sunk to depth in all oceans.
So an ongoing centennial warming signal that has sunk to depth …. hmmmmm
Furthermore regional aspects of periodic behaviour are also interesting – my post above – e.g. the Indian Ocean warm pool have increased in size in concert with long term changes in circulation systems – presumably reorganising in response to changed forcings. Models are a major tool in understanding such things.
There is much to learn including the apparent unpredictability and even the existence of an IPO in reality as a physical mechanism (vis a vis a statistical artefact of El Nino or La Nina debris). http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3868.1 and http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/CD_2006.pdf
Debs – if you don’t publish you don’t expose your ideas to fair criticism by experts.
If you don’t have insight into physical mechanisms – postulated and usually tested in models then your understanding is impoverished and perhaps even naive.
If you don’t get published and feel aggrieved blog the reviewers’ comments and show how you were shabbily treated and reveal the grand conspiracy against you (or perhaps that you just couldn’t cut it). If you’re too busy to publish – well it can’t be world saving stuff can it – not important.
The entire topic of atmospheric & ocean warming/heat storage needs to take into account heat content & heat capacity, in other words the mythical but essential “reality pill”. I’m not a scientist now, but I was one (a very junior one) decades ago. I learned a lot of things then, an important and fundamental one was a true sense of proportion and scale. In general, big things matter, little things don’t. Simplistic maybe, and it has many exceptions, but it’s a good starting point for getting “a handle” on the principles governing science and engineering, and forming a mental picture, a kind of “pie chart” of the factors involved in any system or mechanism.
Last year I posted on topics discussing “A question of scale”; mass is important when densities differ greatly, latent heat is very important when considering the atmosphere, oceans, and ice, specific heat is very important when considering heat transport and storage. On the topic of heat content, and therefore the impact one on another of atmosphere and oceans, I finished by summarising thus:
“So what does all this mean? It means that the heat capacity of the atmosphere is equivalent to just 14.5 x 1.006/3.93 or just 3.7 metres of ocean depth. The ocean’s heat capacity is hundreds of times greater than that of the atmosphere. When he was explaining about the logic of lighter electrons orbiting the relatively massive atomic nucleus (rather than the opposite as had been claimed by some), Ernest Rutherford said “When you’ve got an elephant and a flea, you assume it’s the flea that jumps.”
When considering the internal driving factors in Earth’s climate, the atmosphere is the flea, and the ocean the elephant.”
Since then I’ve found my empirical calculation of equivalent ocean depth vindicated by a scientist who’d taken water vapour and other modifying factors into account, which I hadn’t. His figure was 3.2 metres of ocean depth. Not bad for a beginner (me not him!). No link to his assessment I’m afraid, but here’s mine, if you’re at all interested.
http://mostlyharmless-room-101.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/question-of-scale-2.html
Luke,
I understand you were pretending to answer me when you were really having a shot at Bob Tisdale.
However, seriously, your serious people argument is seriously stupid and you should have noticed that Tisdale had already dealt with it.
No one is saying that models are not a useful tool….you are seriously obfuscating when you claim that.
Most serious people use projective models and take them seriously all the time.
They also understand it is a serious error if they do not update them correctly. That is when they become no longer useful….seriously no longer useful.
Many serious people are also not employed to publish in what you call serious journals. And even if they did publish, it does nothing to advance their chosen careers…which they are of course serious about.
They actually run their own serious businesses or are seriously employed to run someone else’s and they are therefore involved in this debate in their own time for their own serious reasons.
That does not mean that they do not know what they are talking about, they are lacking in intelligence or that they are not serious!!!!!
Instead of shooting the messenger….how about discussing the message?
We are all interested…we seriously are.
That’s just a rubbish response Debs.
Tony is on the money with his question of scale and conclusion.
Bob; your 17 year term is at best an odd choice. Next; your definition “ENSO is a variable source of thermal energy that is released to the atmosphere and redistributed within the oceans” has influence and source confused besides not considering the observed CO2 link that must account for the steady rise in global sst. btw CO2 is the commonly recognized modulator in all climate science.
Last but not least; In addition to failing your construction test, I don’t do formal appraisals of line by line rhetoric as I don’t have the patience or the time for pedantic arguments over details that distract us from the main game. SST remains the key to climate so any long term increase, large or small is about change. Ocean heat capacity dominates the CO2 – AGW issue.
PS; my charge of “half baked” remains.
Gavin says: “Bob; your 17 year term is at best an odd choice.”
Obviously you didn’t read the post that Jennifer had linked. That’s becoming more and more apparent. I explained the choice of 17 years in the SECOND paragraph of the post. Here’s a link again:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/what-do-observed-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-and-climate-models-have-in-common-over-the-past-17-years/
You concluded your comment with, “PS; my charge of ‘half baked’ remains.”
See above. If you didn’t read or didn’t understand the second paragraph, it’s unlikely you read or understood the rest of my post, so your “charge of ‘half baked’” has no value.
Gavin says: “Next; your definition “ENSO is a variable source of thermal energy that is released to the atmosphere and redistributed within the oceans” has influence and source confused…”
I guarantee you my definition of ENSO is not confused. Global temperatures respond to ENSO, not vice versa, Gavin. If you’re not aware, the sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO3.4 region of the eastern equatorial Pacific [that’s where El Nino and La Nina events make their presence known, BTW] have not risen since 1900:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ed4oc5.jpg
And in the last 30 years, they’ve cooled significantly:
http://i50.tinypic.com/mjlq4k.jpg
Gavin continued: “…besides not considering the observed CO2 link that must account for the steady rise in global sst. btw CO2 is the commonly recognized modulator in all climate science.”
“observed CO2 link”, Gavin? Did you just make that up? Sounds like it. And your “commonly recognized modulator in all climate science” is also a good one. Unfortunately for you it has no basis in reality. If you aren’t aware of it, any increase in downward longwave radiation caused by CO2 can only penetrate the top few mm of the ocean surface, and it appears to do nothing more than cause some additional evaporation. There’s no evidence of it having any impact on the sea surface temperature record for the past 30 years. I hope you understand the IPCC’s climate models are the only support that exists for the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Let’s see how well they perform, shall we? Here are a couple of graphs that illustrate trends (deg C/decade) for the Pacific Ocean on a zonal mean (longitudinal) basis for the last 30 years. The CMIP3-archived climate models used by the IPCC for AR4 show most of the Pacific warming taking place toward the equator. IF, great big if, your “observed CO2 link” was the cause of the warming, that’s what the trends would look like for the Pacific, since 1982, from the Southern Ocean to the Bering Strait.
http://i49.tinypic.com/16lkb37.jpg
But the Pacific Ocean hasn’t warmed at the equator, Gavin. In fact, the linear trends since 1982 show no warming in the tropical Pacific from 10S-15N. The observed trends on a zonal means basis reinforce my statement that ENSO redistributes sunlight-created warm water from the tropics toward the poles. That’s why most of the warming is taking place at the latitudes of the western boundary current extensions.
http://i48.tinypic.com/24ch8x4.jpg
That comparison graph confirms for all of Jennifer’s visitors that the climate scientists who created the IPCC’s models do not understand what causes sea surface temperatures to warm in the largest ocean on this planet.
The rest of your comment is simply parroted AGW drivel. It confirms that your CO2-driven AGW belief is not supported by your own research and is likely based on your mistaken belief that climate models show skill. There’s no reason to spend any time replying to it.
Comment from: Bob Tisdale May 5th, 2012 at 10:40 am:
“As you and all of Jennifer’s other visitors will note, the sea surface temperature anomalies of both areas only really warm in response to the significant El Nino events (1986/87/88, 1997/98, and 2009/10) that are followed by La Nina events. Between those ENSO events, sea surface temperatures rise very little or actually decline. And that makes sense to anyone who understands the process of ENSO.”
Sea level around Oz and the in the South Pacific (in general, obviously there are local factors) mirrors that chart
http://i45.tinypic.com/29pw3mt.jpg
you linked to very well. It leads me to deduce, as I have done in several posts, that ENSO is a key driver, and that most of the sea level rise (and fall, let’s not get seduced by visions of a watery apocalypse) can be laid at the door of ocean expansion correlated with the temperature, and that ice-melt contribution is relatively very small. I’ve not attempted to do a direct correlation (it’s tricky at best), but your post has spurred me on. Many thanks for all the work you’ll have inspired me to do – stops me getting bored, and gives me an excuse to stay in the warm in the coldest May week I can remember.
I have a question though – if that heat was sequestered deep in the ocean, how come it only causes expansion when it comes to the surface during El Niño? Can the pressure in the depths compress water and offset the volume expansion? From what I’ve seen on the ‘net, the answer is no; the compressibility of water is very small, even at the extreme pressure at multi-km depths. Perhaps Trenberth knows and is keeping schtum ‘cos it’ll knock his “missing heat” excuse on the head. Perhaps there’s more geothermal activity (volcanoes & vents) than IPCC authors know about, or would care to admit. Perhaps Plimer is right.
Tony – “the compressibility of water is very small” . Apart from the usual issue of dissolved air, perhaps we can muse on the salt content too. but given I’m completely bamboozled by Bob and ENSO, please share this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water
Stay with your Aus SST anomalies pic as it represents rapid climate change between peaks
C’mon Bob; I say it’s you who can’t read and you have given your game away with that “ENSO is a variable source of thermal energy that is released to the atmosphere and redistributed within the oceans”. It’s also compounded by your apparent insistence in analyzing global SST data only about as far back as the last major peak.
Normally I refuse to use blog chat blue, green or similar but I reckoned that recent rebuff on SkepticalScience was relevant to my case above and key to the CO2 – ENSO drift that has been increasingly recognized throughout the published climate science. In particular, it dealt with the preamble leading discussion in Jen’s post. Repeat –
1.A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
2. One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
3. The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs
Correct Gavin – don’t fall for the bait and switch on models. If Bob believes ENSO builds heat over decades he obviously believes in Jack’s beanstalk too.
And Gavin speaking of density – I’m sure you noticed the press reports about the reduction in Antarctic bottom water from real scientists in the real world who publish in real journals
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deep-Ocean-Warming.aspx
I guess it must be volcanoes, the moon, cosmic rays and ENSO hey? 🙂
This is interesting and relevant …
An internal study by the U.S. EPA completed by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson concluded the IPCC was wrong about global warming. One statement in the executive summary stated that a 2009 paper found that the crucial assumption in the Greenhouse Climate Models (GCM) used by the IPCC concerning a strong positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes a cooling effect, not a warming one. Carbon dioxide also causes a slight cooling effect but it so small it could never be measured by man’s instrumentation.
EPA tried to bury the report. An email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Dr. Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbade him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. In a March 17 email from McGartland to Carlin, stated that he will not forward Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator (Lisa Jackson) and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” A second email from McGartland stated “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Dr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to the EPA’s current position. Yet this study had its basis in three prior reports by Carlin (two in 2007 and one in 2008) that were accepted. Another government cover-up, just what the United States does not need.
Eliminate this regulation immediately. This is a scientific tragedy.
“3. The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs”
1.Says who?
2.When it comes to dodgey arguments from your side you don’t have a critical bone in your body.
3.Neither you nor Luke have yet explained how the atmosphere can pump so much heat into the deeper ocean.
Derek; “Says who?” is a cheap shot given Jen’s lead.
Dare I say too; the atmosphere is neither the heat source or heat pump in the context of this discussion.
Google- ‘atmosphere ocean heat pump’ finds this convenient oceanography outline. Note “interface” and the CO2 link also climate variability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_oceanography
Gee Derek – ummmm let’s see – might the ocean be a still millpond – or full of overturning currents, upwellings and downwellings – gee I don’t know. Hard isn’t it.
Graham uncritically believes that Carlin and Davidson are right – HA ! Might they be “economists” hmmm
Have they been taken down – weeeelll http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
http://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/dude-wheres-my-war-on-science/
http://grist.org/article/2009-06-29-epa-suppression-story-grows/
NEXT !
Well Gav, I read your link and some of it’s links but couldn’t find any mention of a mechanism for pulling warm water down into the deep ocean. Try again please.
Luke, you must have a closet full of strawmen ’cause that’s all you keep pulling out. For all of your posturing, you still haven’t produced any empirical evidence that there IS heat trapped in the deep ocean.
Comment from: Derek Smith May 7th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Well Gav, I read your link and some of it’s links but couldn’t find any mention of a mechanism for pulling warm water down into the deep ocean. Try again please.
A clue – evaporation.
Derek it’s what we call “a thermometer”
Derek; in a big crowd you can keep bumping you bum on a neighbor but eventually someone spills out on the fringe and so the hot spot is relieved.
Luke: I was thinking yesterday that we are all wired differently and that’s partly due to the way each one drives the grey matter from within. For my lot, it won’t do stats cause that’s too dry.
Tony; to overcome my handicap, there had to be other ways. For physics one has to be handy with calculus where near enough can be so darn close it docent matter. Several researchers in our near circle actually transitioned M>F and I say that takes a lot of imagination as well as science. We can also say a good scientist has both the practice and the theory right at hand.
For your info I had to apply a lot of visual skill to make up for not having a super quick computer to handle lots of varying signals from a variety of transport mediums, typically, water, gas, slurry, semi solid streams, radio and optical spectrum etc. Assisting research is a bit of an art.
It is no surprise that a section of folk still can’t handle the fact that we may be changing the status quo for all life on the planet. The wonder of it all doesn’t have to be daunting though if we leave each to their own field of understanding for a while but tapping on their door now is a must.
Luke,
I continue to be disappointed in your approach.
You are pretending to engage with people like me or Gavin when you are obviously taking a shot at Tisdale:
from real scientists in the real world who publish in real journals
And if you decline to publish in the serious journals you won’t find yourself challenged by serious people.
Debs – if you don’t publish you don’t expose your ideas to fair criticism by experts.
If you’re too busy to publish – well it can’t be world saving stuff can it – not important.
I don’t know why Jen snipped one of your replies as I didn’t see it before she snipped it, but I would suspect it was because you were still taking this appraoch?
Tisdale did deal with that argument here:
Obviously you’re not aware that the publish-or-perish phrase pertains only to those who are paid to publish academic work or who need to publish to further their careers. I’m retired so the latter doesn’t apply, and I’m not paid to present data.
Is it possible for you to actually discuss the message with Tisdale rather than shooting the messenger via replies or comments to other people?
I’m reasonably sure that if you ask him questions directly he would be willing to answer….because he is answering Gavin.
Debbie – if you’re serious get published. Steve McIntyre does.
Indian Ocean was brought up – the real science on that ocean shows all manner of warming trends and changes. This is of interest. (well to some of us).
As might changes in the Pacific towards weaker Walker circulation and Modoki ENSO also be interesting.
You tendency now to never say anything about the science is almost legendary.
And I think I can communicate with my good blog companion Gavin and support his argument if I choose.
Tony Price asked, “I have a question though – if that heat was sequestered deep in the ocean, how come it only causes expansion when it comes to the surface during El Niño?”
The vast majority of the variations in subsurface temperature anomalies occur in the top 300 meters. I don’t know that I would categorize that as deep. Your question is tough to answer because your question contains an error. It does not only cause expansion when it comes to the surface during an El Nino. Let’s run through the 1997/98 El Niño to explain the upward step that occurred then:
http://i45.tinypic.com/29pw3mt.jpg
The process of ENSO releases warm water from the Pacific Warm Pool during an El Niño. The warm water sloshes east, spreading across the surface, increasing the surface area of warm water in the tropical Pacific. This increases evaporation, and heat is released from the ocean to the atmosphere. The increased convection and the change in its location cause surface temperatures around the globe to warm through teleconnections. These travel eastward around the globe. So when the El Niño reaches its peak in the eastern tropical Pacific, it still takes six to eight months for those changes peak as they work their way around the globe to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. But by that time, the El Niño has transitioned to La Niña in the eastern tropical Pacific.
As the La Niña forms, trade winds switch back to their east to west direction and return leftover warm surface waters to the west. Those warm waters arrive about the same time as the changes caused by the teleconnections that have worked their way eastward around the globe. So the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans are getting hit twice. But there’s a third contribution.
Satellite-based sea level anomaly animations from JPL show that, at the end of the 1997/98 El Niño, a substantial amount of the warm water was then returned to the west through a Rossby wave at about 10N. It’s visible in the YouTube video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF5vZErQ6HM
That Rossby wave returns to Indonesia while the La Niña is taking place. So the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans are getting hit with three sources of warm water. But there’s more. There’s a fourth.
During a La Niña, trade winds increase in strength. This decreases cloud cover over the tropical Pacific and, in turn, increases the downward shortwave radiation (visible light) which warms the tropical Pacific to depth. The warm water is carried west by the stronger North and South Pacific Equatorial Currents being driven by the stronger than normal trade winds. Some of that warm water recharges the Pacific Warm Pool, but much of it remains on the surface and is carried toward the poles and into the East Indian Ocean.
For the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans, the El Niño starts the warming there but it’s the La Niña that maintains the sea surface temperature and sea level at elevated levels.
Some try to say that the opposite of an El Niño should happen during a La Niña. But that’s false. Why? A La Niña is not the opposite of an El Niño. There is no “leftover” cool water after a La Niña to be returned to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The trade winds have been pushing the water in that direction all along during the La Niña. And there’s no Rossby wave carrying leftover cool water back to the west. The satellite sea level record shows no Rossby waves following any La Niña event that are comparable to the Rossby wave that happened after that 1997/98 El Niño.
Luke,
You of course can do anything you like.
I was merely commenting I was disappointed in your approach.
I thought if you perhaps stopped making snide comments through replies to other people and actually engaged directly with Tisdale, he may be inclined to answer you?
I duly note you just did exactly the same thing again….which of course you have every right to do.
Debbie – if you’re serious get published. Steve McIntyre does.
I’m assuming you of course don’t mean I should publish if I’m serious….you mean Tisdale.
BTW….I wasn’t commenting on ‘the science’ in the instances I highlighted… and Luke,neither were you.
But that’s OK….I was just commenting….which I think I can choose to do too?
Hope that helps?
Gavin says at May 7th, 2012 at 8:59 am: “C’mon Bob; I say it’s you who can’t read and you have given your game away with that ‘ENSO is a variable source of thermal energy that is released to the atmosphere and redistributed within the oceans’.”
I haven’t given any game away. That is an excellent description of ENSO. Please advise the readers here what YOUR understanding of ENSO is if you disagree with what I’ve written. Saying I’ve given my game away is meaningless. Everyone reading this thread understands that…except you.
Gavin says: “It’s also compounded by your apparent insistence in analyzing global SST data only about as far back as the last major peak.”
Did you miss the links in an earlier comment that analyzed SST data for the entire 30-year term of the satellite-era SST data? Here they are again, Gavin:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/part-1-%e2%80%93-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-versus-ipcc-hindcastprojections/
and part 2:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/492/
Did you also miss the comparison of models to observations for the Pacific in my last comment to you, too, Gavin? That was for 30 years also.
http://i48.tinypic.com/24ch8x4.jpg
Gavin says: “Normally I refuse to use blog chat blue, green or similar but I reckoned that recent rebuff on SkepticalScience was relevant to my case above and key to the CO2 – ENSO drift that has been increasingly recognized throughout the published climate science.”
Please provide links to all of the “published climate science” that describes the nonsensical “CO2 – ENSO drift” you’re talking about. As I showed in this graph…
http://i48.tinypic.com/24ch8x4.jpg
…the models show that the equatorial Pacific SST anomalies should have warmed at a rate of 0.19 deg C for the past 30 year, but the equatorial Pacific SST anomalies have actually cooled.
Gavin says: “In particular, it dealt with the preamble leading discussion in Jen’s post. Repeat –
“1.A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat content since 1955
“2. One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean
“3. The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs”
Up until now, I’ve been responding to your comments on the email that I sent Jennifer (that she posted above), but since you insist on making laughable comments about Ocean Heat Content in your reply to me too, let’s discuss OHC, shall we?
And the laughable comment about OHC that you made was “The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs”. Really?
Are you aware that the tropical Pacific OHC only rose during and in response to the La Niña events of 1973/74/75/76, and 1995/96, and 1998/99/00/01?
http://i36.tinypic.com/eqwdvl.png
Also see my post from 2 ½ years ago titled ENSO Dominates NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-700 Meters) Data:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-data/
Are you aware that the OHC anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N dropped from the 1960s until the late 1980s, and then shifted upwards in response to a shift in North Pacific sea level pressure? See my post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift-in-the-late-1980s/
And are you aware that the rise in North Atlantic OHC anomalies is more than twice that of Global OHC and that the paper Lozier et al (2008) “The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic” identifies the driver of decadal North Atlantic OHC variability. Link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/800?rss=1
They write, “…the large-scale, decadal changes in wind and buoyancy forcing associated with the NAO is primarily responsible for the ocean heat-content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years.”
See my post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700-meters-is-governed-by-natural-variables/
Good-bye, Gavin. Unless you can personally describe what you believe to be wrong with my definition and descriptions of ENSO on this thread, there is no need for you to reply, because all you do is parrot AGW dogma. And since you’ve done nothing but blow smoke on this thread, there should be no reason for me to return here.
Adios
Comment from: gavin May 8th, 2012 at 7:57 am:
It is no surprise that a section of folk still can’t handle the fact that we may be changing the status quo for all life on the planet. The wonder of it all doesn’t have to be daunting though if we leave each to their own field of understanding for a while but tapping on their door now is a must.
Gavin – half the time I don’t know what you’re talking about, and the other half I’m not sure, but occasionally, like the infinite number of monkeys typing, you come up with a real gem. I believe that we are changing the status quo for all human life on the planet, for the better, but not fast enough. The solution to the non-existent “climate crisis” would be to make personal wealth more accessible to all (money being the least important measure of that). By coincidence (it it that?) it would also defuse the so-called and non-existent “population bomb”, by which I mean population growth would continue to stabilise, as the need for many children decreases with personal wealth and better health and therefore longevity, especially of children.
What’s going on today is the modern equivalent of the Salem witch trials, with sceptics and non-believers being labelled deniers, with calls for punishment of same, with suggestions or even statements that they’re in league with Satan, who’s in the guise of power and fuel companies who ultimately provide, or help provide all the world’s wealth. Is it any coincidence that the Salem trials (mirrored by many others in Europe) came as people perceived the climate to be changing for the worse, as the Little Ice Age kicked in big time?
Mankind has not the ability to change the status qou for the worse on Earth, without working at it for decades or centuries, and no-one’s actively trying to change it for the worst. We cannot control the weather. We cannot control the oceans which create the weather. We therefore cannot control the climate. We can control our own destiny, if we pull together (some hope!) and quit arguing about the items on Titanic’s breakfast menu as the ship goes down.
Comment from: Bob Tisdale May 8th, 2012 at 11:01 am:
Some try to say that the opposite of an El Niño should happen during a La Niña. But that’s false. Why? A La Niña is not the opposite of an El Niño. There is no “leftover” cool water after a La Niña to be returned to the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans
Bob – thanks for you detailed answer; it’ll take some absorbing before I reply also in detail, but I can say that you’ve clarified one conclusion I came to myself some time ago, that the two are NOT opposites.. That’s clear from the temperature record (especially when SSTs are shown on a coloured global map), and it’s clear from the sea-level record, also best seen on a global map, but clear in detail for South Pacific and even Oz and NZ sea-level charts.
Tony Price says, “…it’ll take some absorbing before I reply also in detail…”
Feel free to drop by my website with questions.
Jennifer, again, thanks. If you’d like a free copy of my book, drop me an email.
Regards
Debbie, on the Luke comment I have to say after laboring through Bob’s statements and links as I have done in the past, despite his great bulk of work it remains uncorroborated and it only runs on wuwt where few scientists go. I guess Luke is only asking you not to rely on any unpublished climate observations despite it’s discussion here and there.
Bob, we are stuck with each other’s opinions and mode of operation. All your work finishes up twisting rates of change on the basis of filters etc and you are right in that no one challenges because you are so far out on your lonely science limb that we can’t.
It’s all a question of authorization though and I suggest you seek that well away from wuwt from here on and allow some moderation with your style. As I have said often, an obsession with data won’t do. Build some other foundations if you can.
That said, you can all smile because it’s frustrating to have so much ocean between our rocks.
Parting shot with my squinty eye; the trend in world ocean heat rise is actually expotential
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
Thanks Gav, good link. Interestring pattern globally “The linear trend
accounts for 89 and 85% of the variance in the Atlantic
and world ocean respectively and 68 and 52% in the
Pacific and Indian oceans respectively for the 1969–2008
period.” So if you just look at P and I you are off the pace.
Scary the trend is exponential!
I think that 17 year crutch that Tisdale depends on is a bit shonky. First it is only relevant for global data – more variance sub-global so Tisdale would have to go away and have another go in a few years. Also using 17 years based on historic variability when variability is probably increasing and the trend is likely exponential would imply that you need an even longer period – say 30 years!
Gee whiz Gavin and Bazza,
Now you’re employing the same tactic Luke is? Although Gavin does at least direct one comment to Tisdale.
Tisdale was more than happy to answer direct questions….but instead you have directed them through me (which is hilarious Gavin) or through each other.
I was interested in learning more from this exchange.
I guess I will just have to remain disappointed 🙁
And Bazza….I’m a bit non plussed by your 17 year crutch comment…..didn’t Tisdale explain his position on that and point out it was not based solely on 17 years as you assert here at his comments May 8th 12.07?
Maybe you missed it?
And please…..unless you think I am mistaken about my reference to this particular point…direct your comments to Tisdale….not me….it is actually his work you are discussing….not mine.
But just to circumvent you….in case you do decide to try and have a shot at Tisdale through me…My comment on that link that Gav has supplied is that it suffers from exactly the same problem that you’re both complaining about…..it uses a nominated specific range and then goes about altering that range in order to search for a predetermined linear trend and a way ‘to model’ that trend with some ‘cognitave dissonance’ to explain away obvious problems with measurements.
Sorry about the cut/pastes that will now make this an overly long post but here are some examples from that link to demonstrate that exactly the same methods have been used, the only thing that is different is the ranges (time frames…which then magically get altered in certain sections) and the basic linear trend that is being searched for in amongst what we all agree is rather a lot of ‘noise’…..
I have just chosen a few example from Gavin’s link….there are heaps of them……
We acknowledge that ocean temperature data are
sparse in the polar and subpolar regions of the world ocean
but we still refer to our OHC estimates as global. We do this
because the OHC estimates are volume integrals so that
only relatively small contributions are expected from the
polar regions to our global estimates. Nevertheless there are
locally important changes in OHC in these regions such aswarming of the North Atlantic Water in the Arctic Ocean
that may play an important role in climate change.
and….
XBT instruments do not directly measure the depth of
each temperature observation as they fall through the water
column after entering the sea surface. Instead depth of
observation is computed using a fall-rate equation and the
time elapsed since the XBT entered the water.
We emphasize that our work represents an attempt to
correct for observed XBT biases and that more work
remains to solve this problem. Complicating any attempt
to correct XBT biases, whatever their origin, is the fact that
many historical XBT profiles archived at NODC and
contained in World Ocean Database 2005 (WOD05) do
not contain metadata indicating model type. These metadata
deficiencies influenced how we have attempted to compute
a correction for the XBT bias error.
and
Interdecadal variability is reduced but the long-term trends
for the two analyses for the 1955–2003 period are similar.
After 2003, OHC700 increases to a plateau during 2004–
2008.
and
For each standard level and
year we computed the median of the differences of all
gridboxes. Using the median as opposed to the arithmetic
average is critical because it reduces the influence of
outliers on the estimates of the differences between the
BT data and the OSD/CTD data.
Figure S4b is our
estimate based on using medians as opposed to arithmetic
means.
We applied these corrections
to the XBT and MBT standard depth temperature
values and recomputed the monthly climatologies used to
remove the annual cycle and then repeated the entire
procedure a second time to minimize the biases.
and
There is one difference in data processing between
our earlier works and our present work. Previously we
computed climatological monthly means by averaging all
data in each 1_-square for each climatological month
regardless of year of observation. Now we compute decadal
monthly means by averaging all data within each month
averaging these decadal climatological monthly means to
compute the long-term climatological monthly mean
(1955–2006). This is necessary because of the large amount
of Argo profiling float data introduced to the observing
system in recent years which can bias climatologies to the
Argo sampling period. The last ‘‘decade’’ for compositing
was actually 1995–2006.
for decadal periods beginning with 1955–1964 and then averaging these decadal climatological monthly means to
compute the long-term climatological monthly mean
(1955–2006). This is necessary because of the large amount
of Argo profiling float data introduced to the observing
system in recent years which can bias climatologies to the
Argo sampling period. The last ‘‘decade’’ for compositing
was actually 1995–2006.
So Gavin and Bazza (and Luke)….as with almost all this type of work…..including the ones you complain about…we have people using inexact and unclear ranges in order to ‘model’ a hypothesis or a predertimined trend.
I don’t have a particular problem with the work per se and what all of these people, including Tisdale are trying to ultimately do…which at a very basic level is trying to crack the climate puzzle so we have a better chance of ‘predictiing’ climate patterns. This type of work is a very useful tool…but it is definitely not conclusive, it most definitely not infallible and the projective modeling in particular, that gets based on this work, is NOT BEING CORRECTLY UPDATED.
I do however have a serious problem with people pretending that only one branch of this work is being done correctly, that it is unquestionably settled and also that it therefore requires urgent and radical policy implementation….globally!!!!!
Deb (since we’re talking “entre nous”) the science is settled for purposes of inflicting ruinous taxes. However, for the purpose of getting funding, the science is all terribly new and much work needs to be done. I hope that clears up some points.
Bob (talking amongst ourselves again) why are people in such a rush to probe and question things? Why don’t they just publish? There’ll be plenty of warehouse space for climate scariness once they recycle all the semiotics, post-modernism and gender publications as bleach-free cardboard.
Debbie , your insights are far reaching. All analyses, all mental processes are based on incomplete data and are used to decide on outcomes that are uncertain. You can and do question everything on that basis. As Auden put it:
The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
“For nothing now can ever come to any good.” and there in i suspect lies the difference between those that believe in CAGW and the rest of us who just think it will cause a rather pleasant increase in temps that will more likely than not do more good than harm.
this type of negative view seems to be highly represented amongst greens/ eco warriors/ etc who seem to think that the world is so much worse than it was….when life expectancy was so much lower and the things that even the poor now take for granted were unthinkable.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1 ROFL
Bazza,
I find it increasingly amusing that you always focus on what you percieve as other’s ‘personality or character flaws’ rather than dealing with the actual point that people were attempting to make.
That is a tired old tactic known as ‘shoot the messenger’.
You are of course entitled to your opinions but for what it’s worth I was interested in an academic exchange between Luke and Bob Tisdale.
Luke, to me, appeared unwilling to go past his argument about ‘publish or perish’.
So as I said, I guess I will just have to remain disappointed.
That is of course my problem….not yours, not Gavin’s and not Luke’s.
And Luke,
I can see you are very amused by that link you have posted above (hence the ROFL) but I fail to see what has tickled your fancy?
It is partly about a new method of measuring at depths and is pointing out that it is less likely to have some of the problems that other forms of measurements can have.
I hope that’s correct and their data collection will become more reliable.
Debbie – read what I wrote above at length – I’m way past “publish or perish”. There’s plenty of PUBLISHED evidence of warming if you’re not a flat earther antediluvian uniformitarian avergae-ist revisionist. We’re not going to corrall the debate to your terms.
Oh Debs – the ROFL – just the beloved skeptics “immaculate conception” satellite temperature series seems to be adjusted up (again) due to errors. Small irony. My small mind was tres amused.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/christy-and-spencer-our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/#more-63213
For Little Lukey’s benefit…there you are old son
Peer Review continues to be shown to be an totally unreliable method for assessing and ranking science involving billions of $’s of public expenditure.
One day an Auditer General or similar somewhere will have a closer look and say enough is enough.
That day is coming
That’s right Luke,
As I said…my disappointment is my problem…..not yours.
Doesn’t change the fact that I’m disappointed however 🙂
Face it Minister – they’ve been wrong before. And now too. LOL
Yes audit sceptics now.
You are too stupid to comprehend that if the job was done properly in the first place, by the so called GW scientist establishment, then scepticism as to the integrity of their work might go away
..so sure, audit the sceptics as well
..dont know what good it will do, they dont have their hands in the public till…so the auditer may not have remit.
Any excuse for poor quality science eh?
Yes… and as befits the one’ s who have their hands in the till, it is clear they will stop at nothing and leave no stone unturned to protect their story line.
The beat up that was the so called “death threats”, now turns out to be a complete furphy, that was so incompetently managed that they didnt even have the brains to ensure that the date stamps on the so called offending emails were in sync with their story.
Further the emails in question and released under FOI, show that they were non events anyway and only one was described as being rude
oh the poor dears …..can’t they do anything properly
They owe the public an apology…
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/false_alarmists/
You wouldn’t have a clue mate. What a led by the nose wanker.
A senior scientist acquaintance I have known for many years told me only a few weeks ago that death threats are par for the course. How about an example “You’ll be alright but your c…. wife and c….. kids won’t be” or perhaps making a presentation while the guy 6 feet away in the front row continues to mouth “f…. you f…. you f…. you” and while making the odd throat cutting motion.
Myself having sat in Monckton and Watts seminars and listened to the pre-audience chatter and finale chatter leaves nothing to the imagination. Nothing.
Just redneck aholes. Need a good snotting. But hey it’s Australia – why are we surprised. Mob ruga-bugga mentality. Now I’m not saying well known sceptics are behind any of this. But they could condemn this sort of behaviour instead of piling on saying it doesn’t happen.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if a very few extremists on the warmist side might make similar threats. If so they also deserve condemnation.
Judging by your own use of the langage and the abuse hurld by you under your various guises over the years, you stand condemmed by your own standards… hypocrisy at its best.
Of course being the type of person that you are, you have of course also overlooked the simple fact that I was referring to the claims made public, and reported in the press probably in an attempt to generate sympathy which in that instance turned out to being pure concoctions..and senior academics now have egg on their silly faces.
But I would agree that if indeed some academics did receive emails worded as indicated they should be dealt with.. however over heard part conversations supposedly gleaned from a crowded room dont pass for anything …that happens to anyone in many life situations
As for the Monckton and Watts lecture I also attended, and didnt hear anything like you are now saying.
In fact it was the exact opposite, with a bunch of academics sitting behind me behaving in an childish and rude manner talking loudly enough so that it could be heard just what they thought where Monckton was wrong and continued this boorish carry on as we left the forum..
No one around them said anything, just rolled their eyes to say thats just as we had expected.
There was absolutely nothing of the sort you are saying happened at the Watts lecture.
Its just more academic distortions, arrogance and make believe.
Overheard part conversations tend to heard really well when they’re behind you and in front of you. And they do pass for everything actually.
I notice you discount invective “hurled” by others at me. I’ve been insulted by experts. I’m always amused how you feel “entitled” to do so.
An example of decent standards and when enough is enough http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/04/mckitrick-letter-to-heartland/
Luke,
maybe in this instance it would actually be wise to heed the counsel of JC in one of the stories in the bible.
I’m not particularly religious BTW but I do think this is wise counsel.
‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’.
As an obvservation only, I don’t think your comments about redneck aholes needing a good snotting were much better than the ones you are complaining about.
Public condemnation has a very nasty habit of coming back to bite you.
Usually (IMHO) it’s best to just ignore bad behaviour born of emotional frustration.
For some odd reason, someone thought it was a good idea to publish those emails and make a fuss.
I suspect they didn’t get the response they were hoping for.
Unfortunately, it’s probably because they share your ‘redneck’ opinion and people who you perceive are on the ‘other side’ have found that personally offensive.
None of it has anything to do with the actual topic of discussion.
Those people are just as likely to be just as intelligent, have nice families and most of the time would probably prefer to mind their own business.
Maybe you could ask yourself why so many people have decided to speak up about this issue?
Perhaps it’s not about the science after all?
Well said Debbie and to underscore your point, here are just a few samples of the grossly disgusting and thoroughly unacceptable behaviour by the alarmanistas.
How much more despicable and desperate can the GW scam be, than to deliberately engage in the frightening of children with lies and scary images. Despicable is an inadequate description.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?item.124.1
On another front many people have written about the incompetence of the IPCC, but the best summary or recent origin is this Donna la Framboise book, “The delinquent teen ager…
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
A cover quote:
“But rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire (aka the world’s top scientists & best experts), the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong (aka, activists, 20-something graduate students, people appointed due to their gender or their country).”
I could then go on, and list the many studies and publications dealing with:
1. The inadequate nature of Peer Review and its misuse by the GW alarmists.
2. The role of unrepresentative NGOs such as the WWF and Greenpeace, Climate Institutes etc. in the IPCC and elsewhere.
3. The fraudulent nature of the how the IPCC, and the scam overall came into being, and is being perpetuated.
4. The way Auditor Generals et al are too afraid to touch the University sector and investigate their use of public funds,
5. etc
Yes indeed one would have thought that the biblical parable was indeed appropriate.
Enough IS enough when it comes to inadequate professional and ethical standards but is anything likely to change
I doubt it
Debbie – I don’t go to public meetings – mouth abuse at presenters and make throat cutting movements. I don’t physically threaten people, their families or their livelihoods. I don’t plot how to “really get at these people” or “go after them”.
My science colleagues don’t either.
If someone threatened your family do you think a stern letter is all that you might contemplate.
If your think in your myopic little minds those “letters” are the full scope of the issue you are mistaken.
“Maybe you could ask yourself why so many people have decided to speak up about this issue?” – OH WELL – probably a major disinformation campaign fuelled by the likes of Alan Jones may have helped – a campaign by the national newspaper – and ongoing disinformation campaigns by sceptic organisations may have helped a tad.
Yes it’s not about the science – people like Jones are bereft of any ….
You mean these standards
How much more despicable and desperate can the GW scam be, than to deliberately engage in the frightening of children with lies and scary images. Despicable is an inadequate description.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?item.124.1
I don’t do those things either Luke,
I don’t believe many people do or that many would condone that type of behaviour.
I do know however, that people tend to react when their character is personally attacked. I view that behaviour as provoked and most people usually regret what they said/did after they calm down.
One of the main reasons I admire Jen is that she hardly ever falls for that tactic, even though she is often sorely provoked….very publicly at times….that must be hard to deal with.
I of course would worry if someone directly threatened my family….I would immediately contact the authorities if someone did that…..wouldn’t you?
I’m not sure about the stern letter? Is that all they did when their family was threatened?
Full scope? You are mistaken?
Do you have special inside information of a serious ongoing investigation or something similar that the rest of us are not aware of?
I also don’t have much time for the likes of Alan Jones or Tony Jones or any other media personality that I can think of with the surname Jones….actually not just the surname Jones.
I have probably only listened to AJ’s program a handful of times in my entire life and only then because someone sent me the link and recommended I listen.
The media circus that has developed around this issue is definitely part of our problem…but I would question your assumption about ‘which side’ is actually driving it.
For something like that to happen successfully in media terms, you actually need at least 2 sides don’t you? More than 2 makes it even more successful….it’s great info-tainment.
And most of us who you continually try to brand as a ‘group’ and call sceptics, are just questioning the assumptions embedded in the projective modeling and also the politics that has hijacked the work and used it inappropriately.
I’m sure your ‘science colleagues’ are just as pleasant as my ‘science colleaugues’. Most of them are just trying to do their job and mind their own business Luke.
My comment was perhaps this isn’t about the science after all?
I can’t see where that means I think there is something wrong or dodgy with most scientists…I don’t…..I have many friends and family members who are scientists…..and they’re perfectly nice people with nice lives and nice families too….they even have nice dogs and cats or other assorted pets….they pay their taxes….. mow their lawns….you know…..all the ordinary stuff.
Thank you Debbie. Tips hat.
Gee Minister – so something produced by Danish Dept of Foreign Affairs eh or was that Geophysical Research Letters? I’m sure an advert agency has NEVER done anything in doubtful taste before.
And the poor little kiddies – thankfully the world news shields our children from things like famine relief stories, child soldiers, hurricane and flooding aftermaths, earthquakes, AIDS adverts and reporting of 9/11, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan and features such as Freddy Krueger movies are banned – which of course is why climate sceptics all spend days writing to their members of parliament protesting about kiddy scaring material in all spheres (or was that not?).
Tell us Minister how many children have been traumatised would you say?
While I get your point Luke,
It doesn’t really help your argument.
Of course ad agencies are very prone to stepping over the line, but their work nonetheless gets approved by their clients.
Maybe the politics which has hijacked climate science and used it for purposes which it really isn’t intended should
a) change their advertising/PR agency and
b) direct the new mob to stop pretending that science has all the answers/solutions that are necessary to enact urgent and radical social policy due to an urgent alarming problem and
c) stop confusing science with poltics? ? ?
It may also be a good idea to stop frightening young children for whatever reason. Perhaps?
As I think Bazza wrote recently,
2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Somehow I think the poor widdle kiddies are OK …. I think there’s probably about zero lying awake in trauma
However – if the risk of changing the planet’s energy balance is increased droughts, floods and more severe storms on a finely tuned plant with 6B going to 9B with 30 days food supply – is what the science says … well
– would you be happier if we said “oh it will be fine – there’s no risk at all” – “we’re all here just mucking around”
and it is about future generations
The intro to COP15 is therefore a statement of risk by those attending. No children were really harmed in making the promo.
“2 wrongs don’t make a right.” YUP and that’s what McIntyre, McKitrick and Laframboise are telling Heartland (see above). Once you ratchet the rhetoric on standards – you need to follow through.
Luke – your an idiot.
The whole “death threats” issue was a beat up. Try to keep up – your wasting valuable bandwidth.
Now your telling us “death threat” stories heard “from a friend of a friend”. You child.
When the Jehovah’s Witnesses come round, their commonest opening is to get you to agree that there’s all this stuff going on: floods, famines, droughts, storms…crises everywhere. Extreme events, no less. The implication is, of course, that something new and pivotal is taking place. Since no location on the planet is long exempt from “extremes”, this gives alarmists and JWs alike an endless run of free kicks in promoting their sophistical “science” or End Days theology. Improved reportage across the globe makes it that much easier to create an impression of constant and growing crisis.
The JWs are, of course, major IPCC supporters. However their theology will not allow for full global catastrophe, since earth is meant to evolve into a paradise for a tiny elite, after lots of punishment meted out to durrdy polluders and other such sinners. Moreover, the JWs expect God to intervene in the end. Non-denom alarmists, on the other hand, put their faith in taxes, mega-bureaucracies, and those major finance scoundrels who weren’t jailed after ’08.
So, all up, the JWs are a tad more realistic.
It wasn’t a friend of a friend mate. Source was quite clear and precise. You are a clueless twit and an apologist for violent thugs. So you’d prefer what a rightist ranter like Tim Blair blurted in a newspaper than a personal account. So predictable.
Yes that’s right Robert – that’s what it is about. Only a denialist fool such as yourself would have no idea of the ongoing toll involved. So isn’t it interesting about you – an ability to simultaneously hold your hands over your eyes and ears to prevent anything getting in. A preference for the fabricated fanciful anecdote rather than the statistical. Which is why any science discussion with the unwashed and uneducated on such matters is pointless.
Luke, you’re snarling and abusing like a pensioner at a Monckton event. Have you been into the Bex and lamingtons?
Luke,
The climate is changing. It is nothing new.
Depite all the rhetoric, along with all species, we have to learn to adapt as it changes.
This insane obsession with identifying a potential risk is not doing anything to help the ability to adapt.
There is no way for us to maintain a ‘utopian’ climate. At this point the climate has no interest in cooperating.
It’s not all bad. Its not all good either. What’s new or riskier really?
Trying to lay claim to natural variability to fuel the obsession is appearing as religious zeal in the media and the politics.
Coatlines were eroding, floods and droughts occured, glaciers formed and melted etc, before AGW.
Trust an irrigator to lecture on climate variability.
Remember all Exceptional Circumstances dosh Debs – well your sector is about to find out life without it.
And your neighbours have experience adapting to such things in a previous century http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/view-image.htm?index=2&gid=4178
Debs – work out what happens if you change the recipe of 3 years make money, 3 years lose, 4 come out even. And golly gee imagine business taking an interest in risk management – unheard of?
So then as an intelligent person you’d do an extensive review of what we know in our region about climate change wouldn’t you ….. gurgle …..
or not
Robert – I kacked !
And speaking of JW’s – I always invite them in – in these days of performance management – they have a soul saving quota to report against – I enjoy being a bad investment. 40 minutes and they’re squirming. Usually they don’t come back.
Luke,
there you go again.
Straight into a personal attack and in the process missing the point.
Those odds would be the best ones we have seen this century.
You have also apparently confused risk management with the current obsession of identifying a potential risk.
EC is changing Luke, it isn’t disappearing.
Also EC is not a permanent payment, it is actually an adaptive tool and even under the influence of a crippling millenium drought, the ledger is still positive for Austalian GDP.
It is also a policy instrument, not a ‘climate science’ instrument.
Your point is bordering on irrelevant.
Bob Tisdale has responded to Hansen by open letter, showing why the climate models are incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/tisdale-an-unsent-memo-to-james-hansen/#more-63407
BTW Debbie that story about the young woman found comitting adultery was not part of the original NT. It was added less than 1,000 years ago by a more recent scribe, just a pity Jesus never spoke those wonderful words.
I wish I could abide by them most of the time, but alas I fail fairly often I’m sorry to say.
Thanks Neville,
Whoever did actually speak those words….it was wise advice.
Luke…..
I don’t think you actually understand how EC works or even the rationale behind it.
I suspect your oft repeated ‘Agrarian socialism’ comments also exhibit a similar lack of understanding.
You appear to be repeating what Jennifer often calls ‘invented narrative’.
You do realise don’t you that EC and the principles that drive it was around a long time before AGW ?
At a basic level, it is supposed to work in a similar fashion to an insurance policy or even a super policy…..it recognises that the Agricultural sector is vulnerable to the extremes of Australian climate and also the volatility of global commodity markets. It sets aside a fund, from Agriculture, to be used when those things occur….if you could ever be bothered to do as I have suggested and check the balance on the GDP ledger….you will find that Agriculture in Australia is most definitely sitting on the positive/black side and has contributed and continues to contribute far, far more that it has ever needed in terms of assisstance….it has proven to be a good investment….even, paradoxically, during a crippling millenium drought. That does not mean however that plenty of very good operators did not go down during that time.
I personally believe it is a better tool than what most of the globe uses which is a straight out protectionist measure that their tax payers fund 100% of the time.
I also think I should point out to you that EC is for Agriculture and associated businesses in general, not just irrigated Agriculture.
Irrigated Agriculture rarely puts pressure on the EC system….because irrigated agriculture is based on yet another ‘risk management’ tool that Australia built last century….but is in very desperate need of upgrading and rationalising.
Unfortunately EC it is not run tightly enough and sometimes it gets raided by ‘other more pressing needs’.
I am actually in favour of tightening up how EC works but unfortunately I don’t have a great deal of confidence in the people/agenda who are doing it, nor do I have confidence in the tools they are employing.
In particular, they have completely muddled up the difference between risk management and the current concept of identifying ‘potential risk’.
One examines the best way to progress by building on what works and minimising or fixing what doesn’t….the other just focuses on mistakes and reasons why we can’t progress and should not progress.
Ehrman states here that the woman taken in adultery was only included in texts from the middle ages on.
I’ve seen him debate this point and I’ve never seen anyone dispute this finding, even among the more literal theologians.
He states here that many theologians show little interest in the historicity of the biblical texts, they are just interested in the theology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNMUhk8k6HU
Just including this because it is probably one of the best known and admired stories of Jesus’s forgiveness and love. Just a pity it’s not true.
Well Debbie that assumes EC rewards good managers – it probably doesn’t.
And after decades of money flowing out seemingly without end – from early 1980s to almost now (we’re finally drought free) Treasuries start to get nervous.
Either the parameters are too loose, and/or it’s climate change and all bets are off (what they they really worry about), and/or agrarian socialism, and/or hardly something”masters of their environment” need.
It’s all there if you do a big google and hunt the dollars in aid down. I seriously suggest you do as an exercise. My attempt is here in the blog archives somewhere. Decades of support. Billions ongoing.
Risk is very real and has been experienced.
(of course you might counter-argue agriculture is nationally strategic, we have more variability than elsewhere (ENSO etc), and other have protectionist policies so some drought aid just evens things up globally ….)
My last post here.
Luke,
You still need to balance the ledger.
The very simple sum is that many, many more billions flow in than what has flown out. Even in the period you have mentioned.
It is not rocket science or climate science.
I agree it has not been well managed but that is not ‘the irrigators’ fault.
It is also a more cost effective way to support Agriculture than what most of the rest of the globe does.
It is one of the reasons why Australian farmers remain truly competetive, because they don’t rely continuously on tax payer subsides.
So Luke,
Your constant snide remarks in this particular instance are what you would call, bunkum or codswallop or denialist crap or numerous variations of the same.
Intermittent govt assisstance to Agriculture is NOT a net burden on the economy.
And just for fun Luke,
How about you add up the billions in assisstance to non Agricultural sectors since the 1980’s and perhaps to be fair also the straight cash handouts (like those $900 handouts from Rudd Govt) and do a comparative CBA with Govt assisstance to Agriculture?
Hmmmmm?
Which is the sector that consistently returns a net positive to GDP….ie…..actually contributes to a surplus?????
Actually Luke,
Despite the crippling millenium drought, the high dollar and the interest blow out in the 80’s, which is the sector that consistently runs second to mining as a contributor to Autralia’s GDP?
Sorry,
3 posts in a row but thought this was relevant to some of the discussion here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/anu-releases-abusive-emails-sent-to-climate-scientists/4005132