Over at Prometheus, it has been noted that observed global average surface temperatures for 2000 to 2007 are failing to follow the projected IPCC A1F1 scenario despite the fact that CO2 emissions are rising in line with the high end prediction. Of course, we don’t know how long this will continue, or when and if the record temperature for 1998 wil be broken.
Meanwhile, Roger Pielke Sr has looked at 3 other global warming or cooling metrics, namely lower tropospheric warming, atmospheric water vapor content, and oceanic heat content. Pielke Sr concludes that:
“An examination of even the most fundamental of climate metrics show that recent trends are inconsistent with the 2007 IPCC claims regarding global warming. This includes a lack of warming in the global average lower tropospheric temperature and upper ocean, the muted at best moistening of the troposphere, and evidence of a negative radiative feedback. These lack of agreement with these climate metrics indicate that the IPCC report should be interpreted as a collection of papers on a hypothesis rather than a summary of established scientific understanding of how humans are altering the climate system.”
With the above in mind, global average temperature is losing it potency as an observational scare, and the scene is set for climate alarmists to shift the focus onto ‘ocean acidification.’ A email from Bob Carter dropped into my mailbox on 18th December suggesting that the IPCC have been preparing for such a debate shift for some time.
Lo and behold, on 6th January, a weblog called Never Ending Math Equation came up with this blog post:
“Given that this debate is often as fruitful as debating a creationist on evolution, I propose a different tact in winning support for timely action on this issue: explain the looming problem of ocean acidification.” Read the entire post here.
Of course, the oceans are alkaline and dissolved CO2 makes them less alkaline although acidification is the accepted terminology. Bob Carter provided a link to an excellent New Zealand account of the background to the acidification of the ocean scare. The text, though scientific, is written without detailed technicalities to a degree that renders most of it appreciable by non-scientists. The 3 part Seafriends article, ‘Ocean acidification – Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life?’ can be found here.
So, if you feel inclined, follow all the links above and prepare for a possible climate debate shift.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Another Bob Carter work of fiction.
The Royal Society came up with this in 2005
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539
based on research over the previous decade.
Ah! the RS – another alarmist source.
Nothing to say about global temperatures, A1F1, troposphere, ocean heat content, negative radiative feedback?
Paul – “Over at Prometheus, it has been noted that observed global average surface temperatures for 2000 to 2007 are failing to follow the projected IPCC A1F1 scenario despite the fact that CO2 emissions are rising in line with the high end prediction. Of course, we don’t know how long this will continue, or when and if the record temperature for 1998 wil be broken.”
Over at Prometheus they are only using the RSS data because:
“I have decided to use the satellite record provided by Remote Sensing Systems, mainly because of the easy access of its data.”
So because it is easy to access it is better???? No I suspect that he uses it because it fits better with what he wants to conclude.
If you use the combined land and sea anomoly data from HADCRU or GISS they both track quite well with the predictions.
BTW there is not question of shifting the debate as there is no need. Ocean acidification was ALWAYS a topic of concern as the ocean absorbs more and more of our emissions.
The last few years of flatlining global temperatures have coincided with the onset of both a El Niño-La Niña transition and the minimum of the 11-year solar cycle (both historically associated with global cooling). The next few years, as both these parameters start to reverse, will be the acid test (pun unintended) for global climate models.
NOAA link:
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=/news/news_index.jsp&news=story_co2.html
There’s also a blog “Ocean Acidification – An Information Outlet on Ocean Acidification” that appears to have been around since July 2006. No graphs to ponder, though. No comments, either.
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/
I do wonder about certain people who post to this blog.
SJT claims that Bob Carer posting a link is “Another Bob Carter work of fiction”. Since when has posting a link been a work of fiction?
Ender casts aspersions about using the RSS version of Lower Tropospheric Temperature but the IPCC tried hard to endorse that version over the Univ of Alabama (Hunstville) version and even resorted to a document that was not peer reviewed.
What’s wrong you two? Suffering from a touch of the sun?
John – “Ender casts aspersions about using the RSS version of Lower Tropospheric Temperature but the IPCC tried hard to endorse that version over the Univ of Alabama (Hunstville) version and even resorted to a document that was not peer reviewed.”
Not casting nasturtiums at all at the RSS data only the fact that this was the only data series that Peilke cherry picked. His only excuse was that they were easy to get which is pathetic.
All the other datasets are pretty much in line with predictions.
This
“With the above in mind, global average temperature is losing it potency as an observational scare, and the scene is set for climate alarmists to shift the focus onto ‘ocean acidification.’ A email from Bob Carter dropped into my mailbox on 18th December suggesting that the IPCC have been preparing for such a debate shift for some time.”
is a work of fiction.
The charade is officially over chaps, you can stop pretending to have serious scientific debates – this site is about politics (read spin). Jen has confirmed as much
“All the other datasets are pretty much in line with predictions.”
I assume you mean the predictions of the climate rationalists since all the datasets (except the GISTEMP lemon) show a declining temperature trend.
wrt GISTEMP, if the same rules regarding separation of control that apply to corporations were applied to the temperature takers, Hansen would be locked up for a good many years!!
I made a graph of the monthly HADCRUT3 surface temperature anomalies, and found a trend of only +0.03 C per decade for the last 10 years (effectively zero) and a trend of minus 0.10 C per decade for the last five years, i.e. a slight cooling trend.
We are told this is “in line with predictions”, but I wonder who predicted such trends in 1998.
As one who was dumping on the RS acidity crap over two years ago, this is a very welcome post with good links.
Of particular interest was the report that the most acidic parts of the worlds oceans, those in zones of upwelling, are also the most productive. Ergo, a more acidic ocean will be more productive and support greater biodiversity.
Once again, the science is debunking Climate Cretinism while Anthony and SJT serve up their now standard ideological bull$hit trying to classify this as an un-scientific blog. On ya bike, Bozos.
And poor old Ender, proudly reports that some sad climate plodder has finally found some chooks guts that “track quite well with the predictions”. Funny, I thought they were projections only, not predictions.
Ender – The amusing thing about the RSS MSU data is that it is now showing a cooling faster than the UAH data!
Paul, that just goes to show that even god has a sense of humour.
Regarding temperatures this decade, GISS is out on its own. HADCRUT3 is pretty much in line with both UAH and RSS MSU.
Mmmm! GISS would be the data that Hansen ‘adjusts.’
For Ender, all the temperature data must conform to IPCC endorsed projections/predictions – otherwise they are wrong.
Actually the IPCC seems lie a literature review organisation rather than anything else, and does not and cannot make projections or predictions.
Good analysis at Steve McIntyre’s thread http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2578#comments
Thanks Louis, that thread epitomises what Climate Audit is all about. Advocating violence be used on scientists for doing their work. Did you ask your geochemist friend what he thinks about your crazy theory about oil?
“Advocating violence be used on scientists for doing their work.”
Well certainly this would be the exception. Most climate rationalists would prefer that the alarmists keep their health so that they can endure the ridicule that is due to them over the coming years.
And back on topic:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N34/EDIT.jsp
Good link, Mark. So we have natural ranges in pH from 10 to 5 and we have the climate clowns in a lather over a fanciful 300 year scarenario that might, if pigs actually fly, produce a reduction in the mean from 8.2 to 7.5pH? And of course, they are not barking mad, oh no, no,no.
And let me guess, this acidity Bunyip (or is that Bunyipio?) did not include any counterveiling increase in pH from increased biotic activity in warmed oceans, right?
Following Marks link and seeking info on their CO2 Science Lab we find-
“Welcome to the Global Change Laboratory”
“Within the walls of this virtual edifice, we describe a number of simple but effective techniques that will enable you to conduct your own research into questions related to potential CO2-induced environmental change, showing you in both words and pictures how to set up your experiment, conduct the study, and obtain and analyze the data. In addition, for certain specific experiments we include weekly tabulations of data, along with pictures of the plants, so you can continually check to see if your study is progressing as it should”
They go on to recommend CO2 test kits designed for aquariums and ornamental fish in their effort to have us all tracking global warming.
Ian: Measuring a change in the mean from 8.2 to 7.5pH would be beyond your average high school lab.
I recommend everyone start by measuring the p.H of their “distilled” water before attempting calcification experiments.
Calcification experiments? Idso et al in Mark’s link show why.
Why do Greenies seem to attract the media to their cause remains an interesting issue for study.
“Good link, Mark. So we have natural ranges in pH from 10 to 5 and we have the climate clowns in a lather over a fanciful 300 year scarenario that might, if pigs actually fly, produce a reduction in the mean from 8.2 to 7.5pH? And of course, they are not barking mad, oh no, no,no.”
You have no idea what an ‘ecosystem’ is, do you?
Slightly O/T, but I was wondering if Mott or anyone else would care to offer an opinion regarding this following report, No convincing evidence for decline in tropical forests:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce010708.php