SCIENTISTS at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center (CPC) recently announced that the average global sea surface temperatures in July was 62.6 degrees F making it hotter than the previous record of 1998 and the hottest since record-keeping began in 1880.
The record average is from satellite based measurements and was initially disputed by some sceptics including climate scientists Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, Huntsville. Dr Spencer initially attributed the error to a data processing blunder at NOAA, but has since conceded the blunder in the calculations was his.
So, there are official statistics that indicate sea temperatures for July 2009 are the warmest on record – even warmer than July 1998!
There are other measures of sea temperature. For example, NASA started deploying free floating Argo buoys in the world’s oceans in 2000 with the full complement of 3,000 in place by 2003, and measurements from these well spread buoys indicates that the oceans have been cooling.
Changes in ocean temperature are theoretically a much better measurement of heat accumulation, and thus global warming, than say changes in air temperature. But it seems there are more discrepancies in these data sets, and thus more potential for cherry picking from both alarmists and sceptics.
And I now understand why advisors to the Australian Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, recently insisted that sea temperature rather than air temperature is a better measure of warming.
******************
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-sst-warming-revisited/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/31/spencer-always-question-your-results/
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/fielding_talks_to_wong_on_climate_change/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I must admit I fail to see any significance in this. So it’s saying the difference in SST between 98 and 09 in July is 0.1C.
I can go to the beach one day and it’s warm and go back the next day and it’s dropped 2 degrees because the wind changed from south to north.
“……I have puzzled as to why Australian government advisors claim sea temperatures have been increasing over the last ten years – perhaps they have been referring to sea surface temperatures and focusing on this dud data….” Jennifer, August 29th.
The fact remains that sea surface temperatures have not increased over the last ten years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2010/trend
Jennifer: The July SST and SST anomaly record is only in NOAA’s ERSST.v3b data, their new official dataset. It is not a record for their satellite-based dataset OI.v2:
http://i25.tinypic.com/24g7kwj.png
From my July Update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/july-2009-sst-anomaly-update.html
It is also not a record for the Hadley Centre’s SST dataset as chrisgo noted above:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
Their July 2009 SST anomaly (0.512 degC) was less than July 1998 (0.554 degC). For those who prefer graphs:
http://i25.tinypic.com/f3xobq.png
And the HADSST2 data is based on ship and buoy data.
So, the ERSST.v3b is the anomaly.
chrisgo – if you start in 1997, and you stop in mid-2009, you have a period of 12.5 years, not ten. Over the last ten years, the oceans have warmed. Of course, given the substantial interannual variability, and that giant El Niño that peaked 11 years ago, you can cherry-pick a start time that you think gives you the result you want, but if you think “trends” based on 10 years are meaningful, you’re an idiot.
There are other measures of sea temperature. For example, NASA started deploying free floating Argo buoys in the world’s oceans in 2000 with the full complement of 3,000 in place by 2003, and measurements from these well spread buoys indicates that the oceans have been cooling.
ouch. you are abusing the Spenrcer correction to spread some new disinformation. that is pretty bad.
the Argo data that showed a tiny decline is NOT up to NOW, and so does NOT include the July 2009 data. (data is only about 4 years, ending in 2008)
if you ave the Argo July 2009 data, please provide it. if you don t have it, please do not compare apples and oranges!
(ps: we could have a decline and still have a record high in a month.)
Changes in ocean temperature are theoretically a much better measurement of heat accumulation, and thus global warming, than say changes in air temperature. But it seems there are more discrepancies in these data sets, and thus more potential for cherry picking from both alarmists and sceptics.
this is a completely false claim. sceptics are cherry picking what ever short period and what ever dataset that shows a decline.
in general, sea surface temperture measurements are in good agreement: the trend is UP.
I must admit I fail to see any significance in this. So it’s saying the difference in SST between 98 and 09 in July is 0.1C.
I can go to the beach one day and it’s warm and go back the next day and it’s dropped 2 degrees because the wind changed from south to north.
if the wind direction changes, it doesn t change the temperature of the ocean. the warm water will just end up at a different position.
you do not just fail to see the “significance” of this. you simply don t understand it at all.
The fact remains that sea surface temperatures have not increased over the last ten years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2010/trend
guys, the period of 10 years is completely well defined. you folks simply can t make up your own meaning for the “10 years” or “decade”.
there are two ways to look at 10 years, that make sense:
the last 10 full years. starting in january 1999, ending in dezember 2008. 10 full years.
http://tinyurl.com/nb6q7z
temperature over the last 10 full years is UP!
or the last 10 years (or 120 month). being august 1999 till july 2009
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/last:120/plot/hadsst2gl/last:120/trend
temperature over the last 120 months is UP!
Jennifer: The July SST and SST anomaly record is only in NOAA’s ERSST.v3b data, their new official dataset. It is not a record for their satellite-based dataset OI.v2:
…
So, the ERSST.v3b is the anomaly.
another pretty absurd attempt to downplay the significance of this.
perhaps you you guys should take a look at what Spencer wrote about th dataset, before he started to make false claims:
The SSTs from AMSR-E are geographically the most complete record of global SSTs available since the instrument is a microwave radiometer and can measure the surface through most cloud conditions. AMSR-E (launched on Aqua in May 2002) provides truly global coverage, while the TMI (which was launched on TRMM in late 1997) does not, so the combined SST product produced by Frank Wentz’s Remote Sensing Systems provides complete global coverage only since the launch of Aqua (mid-2002).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/record-july-2009-sea-surface-temperatures-the-view-from-space/
so the “anomaly” is in “the most complete record of global SSTs available”. and that according to a sworn sceptic! wow!
Only people looking for confirmation of an already held conclusion are going to look at a graph purporting to show a 0.2o change in temperature over a system as large and diverse as the Earth’s oceans and claim that is a meaningful number.
Those seeking to sell something always play with graphical presentations. Making a graph that shows 0.Xo of change in a system that has a range from <0oC to over 25oC llook as dramatic as the typical AGW graph does is clear evidence of selling bs.
One question on the graph presented in the post:
The graph seems to show temps in the months prior to July, 1998. Those are higher. Why is the July 1998 so special?
RW and sod are up to their usual mischief; there is no doubt that there was a secnd climate shift at the end of the 20thC; Stockwell finds that shift occured in 1998 with well documented oceanographic events contemperaneous; Tsonis and Swanson find a shift in 2002 with less contemperanous correlation. The maligning of the idea of a break is ill-based as is the relationship between SST and temperature;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend
Both HadCrut and UAH show a similar trend to SST from 1998; 2 things are indisputable about this; firstly, there is no lag or heat pipeline since OHC is falling, as is SST; secondly, SST leads atmospheric temperature; the thesis that oceanographic effects determine atmospheric temperature and not vice-versa is therefore well-grounded and on that basis the notion that AGW is correct is once again falsified since if atmospheric CO2 levels were the cause of atmospheric temperature then you would expect atmospheric temperature to lead SST. The radiative connection is also well based on the decline in cloud cover during the period from 1976 to 1998 when the reverse climate shift occurred leading to warming.
The previously tropical Humboldt squid have been extending their range Northward along the Pacific coast of North America. These puppies can get up to 45 kg, and yes, they do attack divers. Here’s a link to a wikipedia photo of one. http://tinyurl.com/lkrm5s
Anyway, this is consistent with increasing SST.
Brrr . . . it’s a bit chilly here in my office in the UK (and I haven’t had a barbeque all summer).
I think I’ll turn the thermostat up 0.2 degrees. That’ll make all the difference.
The graph seems to show temps in the months prior to July, 1998. Those are higher. Why is the July 1998 so special?
it was a record of July temperature. are you reading the articles that are posted?
RW and sod are up to their usual mischief; there is no doubt that there was a secnd climate shift at the end of the 20thC; Stockwell finds that shift occured in 1998 with well documented oceanographic events contemperaneous;
this is a massive misrepresentation of the paper. you just abuse the papers weak statistics to support your cherry pick of 1998 for all purposes in climate. totally absurd.
The radiative connection is also well based on the decline in cloud cover during the period from 1976 to 1998 when the reverse climate shift occurred leading to warming.
that a weak el Nino in 2009 breaks a temperature record made during the super el nino in 1998 is strong support for the AGW theory of a rise of the average temperatures.
it is in complete contradiction with your theories of a declining temperature and the majority of denialist sunspot theories.
Brrr . . . it’s a bit chilly here in my office in the UK (and I haven’t had a barbeque all summer).
I think I’ll turn the thermostat up 0.2 degrees. That’ll make all the difference.
you will notice, when paying the annual bill.
Sod,
There is no thermostat available that will set a temp at an accuracy of 0.1oC
Sod,
Frankly I had not realized how far AGW true believers have gone in confusing weather with cllimate.
For you to actually, and apparently sincerely, insist that a temperature of one index of a temp for a one month period is *proof* of AGW is rather pathetic on your part.
I guess I was not reading carefully enough to realize how far down you apocalyptic kooks have fallen.
Do you actually believe a one month spot number, in the face of the variability that went on before it, of a range that is in the tenths-or-less of a degree is significant?
You maroons.
Sod,
Frankly I had not realized how far AGW true believers have gone in confusing weather with cllimate.
For you to actually, and apparently sincerely, insist that a temperature of one index of a temp for a one month period is *proof* of AGW is rather pathetic on your part.
I guess I was not reading carefully enough to realize how far down you apocalyptic kooks have fallen.
Do you actually believe a one month spot number, in the face of the variability that went on before it, of a range that is in the tenths-or-less of a degree is significant?
You maroons.
Sod didn’t bring this up,
The number of high records is outnumbering the number of low records. That does tell you something.
Sod – my point was that the ocean is a swirling mass of changing temperature – i.e. it can change 2 degrees in one measuring spot overnight. Yet you want to make a point about a .1C shift in temperature.
SJT,
So if sod did not bring it up, perhaps you would care to address the questions?
BTW, the record lows and cool summers tell us something as well.
And that AGW true believers are reduced to weather chasing tells us something, also.
Sod,
There is no thermostat available that will set a temp at an accuracy of 0.1oC
hunter, as always, your claim is false:
Digital technology has helped to improve the accuracy of temperature measurement and therefore control. Accuracy of GREATER than 1°C is the norm.
http://www.diydoctor.org.uk/projects/thermostats.htm
Sod,
Frankly I had not realized how far AGW true believers have gone in confusing weather with cllimate.
For you to actually, and apparently sincerely, insist that a temperature of one index of a temp for a one month period is *proof* of AGW is rather pathetic on your part.
I guess I was not reading carefully enough to realize how far down you apocalyptic kooks have fallen.
Do you actually believe a one month spot number, in the face of the variability that went on before it, of a range that is in the tenths-or-less of a degree is significant?
You maroons.
SJT did already answer above.
from my point of view, a single month is pretty much irrelevant.
but a record month, in the dataset that was most favored by sceptics quite recently (satellite data AND sea data) and confirmed by a sceptic is pretty crucial.
especially in a time, when you guys keep talking about “cooling” and lack of sun spots. (shouldn t all those cosmic rays and the lack of them have an utterly immediate effect???)
but i am here to learn: how do you explain that a mild el nino did indeed beat the super el nino of 1998? during a cooling period? with no sun spots?
Sod – my point was that the ocean is a swirling mass of changing temperature – i.e. it can change 2 degrees in one measuring spot overnight. Yet you want to make a point about a .1C shift in temperature.
the ocean is bigger than the beach that you are measuring. your approach shows some serous lack of understanding of the topic. please try again! (if i pee next to the thermometer, it might change its temperature. the effect on global sea surface temperature will be rather small though!)
And that AGW true believers are reduced to weather chasing tells us something, also.
you are getting a little confused. this topic was hyped by Spencer and the denialist blogosphere. you folks made up pretty bizarre stuff, to keep July 2009 from being a record.
now that you have shown to be wrong, it doesn t matter any more. it must be great to be a sceptic…
BTW, the record lows and cool summers tell us something as well.
totally absurd. before you accused the AGW theory of getting confused by weather, you bring up local cool records last summer?
so a global record in July sea surface temperature is irrelevant, but a local cold record in a tiny town in Iowa surely is? will you admit that your post was a mess up?
just in case you want to buy hunter, here is the cheapest 0.1°C (and °F!) thermostat that i found in a quick search:
http://www.forttex.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=13
Features of this unit include:
* Adjustments and temperature display in 0.1C or F
The entire vertical axis of Jen’s graph extends 0.6 deg. This range is completely lost in the wide natural fluctuations demonstrated by geological history. Who cares? It means nothing, and anyone who thinks it does is making political, not scientific, statements.
You’re such a reasonable person sod; you’re just here to learn; yeah right; there’s no doubt Roy has sucker punched himself again; he did it before with CO2 levels and the isotopic basis, or lack thereof, for claiming the increase in CO2 is due to ACO2 emissions; but even assuming the NOAA mesure of SST is correct and this month is the highest the trend since 1998, even 1997 is down which is in total contradiction with the recent declarations by leading AGW spokespersons like Will Steffen, that AGW indices are increasing at an increasing rate; none are; not GMST, not OHC, not sea level and not SST; in fact 3 out of the 4 are declining.
Answer that sod, you reasonable person.
SJT “The number of high records is outnumbering the number of low records. That does tell you something.”
No it says absolutely nothing given that we didn’t start keeping those records until after we started coming out o0f LIA.
Carbon dioxide is a pollutant?
Where is the scientific evidence to back that up?
Al Gore is to become a multi millionaire if we all start trading in carbon credits, Right?
That must mean that CO2 is a pollutant.
It is I would think a piece of evidence that supports the potential for co2 to be driving temperature because with solar activity declining, you would expect ocean temp to follow.
That said however a 0.1 or 0.2 degree anomoly does not seem very significant and is I suspect well within the error bounds of the measurements?
Very good point Jan, that many just don t seem to be able to grasp.
At least we all agree that 0.1 is ‘within the error bounds of the measurements’.
Spencer was smart to admit his error, before being attacked unmercifully, and I think it’s valid for the warmists to cherry-pick the warm oceans.
Solar cycle 24 has not picked-up and I would have expected with a blank sun and cool PDO that the SST would be different to what we now see.
Yes El Gordo, wouldnt it be nice if the likes of mann, flannery, hansen, gore and the ipcc would also admit their mistakes !
Sod, as I said before, you have a funny definition of UP.
I am here to learn, and you didn’t answer any of my questions, so I will put them again.
Over the last 30 years, average global temperatures as measured by satellites (UAH) indicate a monthly temperature anomaly of zero degrees C in June 2009 and 0.4 degC in July 2009. Satellite temperatures of sea surface temperatures indicate an increase of 0.1degC over the same period. Both show considerable variation. Argos measurements of ocean temperatures show cooling since 2003. Antarctica ice is at its maximum extent since satellite monitoring began, and the Arctic has lost maybe 5% of its ice area. What evidence is there that this is not just noise, or natural climate variation?
If the hysteria that average global (or ocean) temperatures are being driven ever upward by increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is “science”, what falsifiability tests has this passed?
With atmospheric CO2 increasing, and average global and ocean temperatures static or falling, and there does not appear to be even a correlation much less a causation between them. What irrefutable scientific evidence exists that CO2 is a temperature forcer?
If the climate is changing because of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the last 100 years, which presumably is swamping any natural variation, then I assume that climate would look very different if these emissions were not in the atmosphere. What would the climate look like now, and how would I know?
If climate models predicting Armageddon as a result of anthropogenic emissions of “greenhouse gases” are relying on positive feedback mechanisms to make CO2 look like a significant climate forcer, what evidence is there that these positive feedback mechanisms actually exist? What successful predictions have been made by climate models that would indicate their reliability?
During the Ordovician period, atmospheric CO2 levels were up to 11 times the current value, yet during this period the Earth was in an ice age. If CO2 is a significant and dominant forcer of temperatures, why?
Yes El Gordo, wouldnt it be nice if the likes of mann, flannery, hansen, gore and the ipcc would also admit their mistakes !
Gore and Flannery are commentators, not scientists. The IPCC has found with each new report that the AGW science is having better supporting evidence each time. No mistake to admit to.
Larry Fields,
the increase in the range of the squid could also be due to fewer predators, better food supply, natural increase after a past decrease for unknown reasons…
Please give us some information why we should think SST’s are involved, especially since SST’s have little correlation with the temps of the ocean layers inhabited by these creatures.
In other words, don’t you need Argo Float or other BUOY data to show even correlation??
Over the last 30 years, average global temperatures as measured by satellites (UAH) indicate a monthly temperature anomaly of zero degrees C in June 2009 and 0.4 degC in July 2009. Satellite temperatures of sea surface temperatures indicate an increase of 0.1degC over the same period. Both show considerable variation. Argos measurements of ocean temperatures show cooling since 2003. Antarctica ice is at its maximum extent since satellite monitoring began, and the Arctic has lost maybe 5% of its ice area. What evidence is there that this is not just noise, or natural climate variation?
If the hysteria that average global (or ocean) temperatures are being driven ever upward by increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is “science”, what falsifiability tests has this passed?
Have you read the case for AGW? The most comprehensive description is in the IPCC report. Anyone who has questions should start there at least. That is why they put the report together, so that the knowledge is consolidated and summarised, complete with a FAQ.
ou’re such a reasonable person sod; you’re just here to learn; yeah right; there’s no doubt Roy has sucker punched himself again; he did it before with CO2 levels and the isotopic basis, or lack thereof, for claiming the increase in CO2 is due to ACO2 emissions; but even assuming the NOAA mesure of SST is correct and this month is the highest the trend since 1998, even 1997 is down which is in total contradiction with the recent declarations by leading AGW spokespersons like Will Steffen, that AGW indices are increasing at an increasing rate; none are; not GMST, not OHC, not sea level and not SST; in fact 3 out of the 4 are declining.
Answer that sod, you reasonable person.
again: 2009 saw a rather weak el nino. it still broke a record. the simple question is: how would temperature look, if we had a strong el nino, like in 1998? the obvious answer is, taht it would break all records. this is contradicting the denialist claim, that the world is cooling.
Over the last 30 years, average global temperatures as measured by satellites (UAH) indicate a monthly temperature anomaly of zero degrees C in June 2009 and 0.4 degC in July 2009. Satellite temperatures of sea surface temperatures indicate an increase of 0.1degC over the same period. Both show considerable variation. Argos measurements of ocean temperatures show cooling since 2003. Antarctica ice is at its maximum extent since satellite monitoring began, and the Arctic has lost maybe 5% of its ice area. What evidence is there that this is not just noise, or natural climate variation?
you are down playing massive changes over a short time. you are using a horrible statistical approach. (looking at end dates only) you make false claims about the Argo float. (the decline was an ERROR. we don t have 2009 data, so it is irrelevant to this discussion)
the idea that the temperature level of this decade is just random noise, is simply false. (why not look at the big picture, now and then?)
you other claims are all false as well, your questions misleading. i will answer them, when they fit the topic. they don t here.
SJT, so its ok for the ipcc to say ntg of their errors or mann?? come on don t be such a sheep. Many of us here have read much of teh ipcc statements and reports. Stop referring to them like we havent , the way you do and blindly follow their politically religous propoganda shows much about you.
Why do you bother with your comments here? so many of them are the same over and over again…and don t say its because we say the same thing.
oil shrill poses the same questions we have been asking for ages and he is getting the same stupid replies from people like you…”read the ipcc!”
If you are so wise and so convinced of your case, answer his questions?
And do a better job than wong and her scientists did with fielding. they were pathetic.
Sod, our comments crossed paths,
why do you think 0.4c is a massive anomoly?
this thread starts with NOAA showing temps are 0.2 c above the average for the period. the error in the readings is probably greater than this and simply averaging errors does not remove them or make the number any more relevant.
They also say that this places sea temps at a record since 1880. Given that we have been coming out of cool period and the world has been warming since teh LIA ended, isnt this what you would expect to find?
AGW could be happening, but I think ( i know you don t care what i think!) oil shrill poses some very reasonable questions
1.”With atmospheric CO2 increasing, and average global and ocean temperatures static or falling, and there does not appear to be even a correlation much less a causation between them. What irrefutable scientific evidence exists that CO2 is a temperature forcer?”..you say he is wrong with his statements, maybe . but there is no way you can show cause and effect.
2.If the climate is changing because of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the last 100 years, which presumably is swamping any natural variation, then I assume that climate would look very different if these emissions were not in the atmosphere. What would the climate look like now, and how would I know?….difficult i know to answer this, i expect people would resort to models , what else is there? but do you really trust models??!
What would it take for you to change your mind? it seems to me depending on the paradigm of your/ my / our thinking, this is a difficult question to answer.
Personally i think much of the evidence for AGW has been shown to be wrong or doubtful and its a real problem for science when a part of a theory is wrong and yet its is still the dominant paradigm.
I also think their are huge political pressures surrounding this issue and teh truth no longer matters…its going to be all about controlling us.
I for one don t like big brother and it scares me and that certainly biases my view.
I do accept that AGW may be occuring, but I do not buy into an impending tipping point or see the urgency in an ETS etc.
I think it highly unlikely that there are positive feedback effects that will doom the world.
I believe there is significant evidence for teh MWP, Roman, Minoan warm periods being warmer than our current temperatures, and this removes all urgency and makes me sceptical of much of the science of the IPCC.
I also believe there is significant evidence to show warmer is better than colder.
I also would love to see a new cheap source of energy and hope some of the new renewable ideas come good.
I don t think wind is any good.
The current ideas of teh royal society in teh uk frighten the hell out of …pumping sulphur into teh atmosphere, spraying sea water etc are all us trying to play god. And the evidence for our success in controlling nature is not very good….look at yellow stone national park!
sod:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090831_tides.html
wind, currents, beach, change?
“…….The IPCC has found with each new report that the AGW science is having better supporting evidence each time……” SJT September 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm.
Yeah right.
First Assessment Report 1990:
“….We calculate with confidence that …CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect….
….We predict….increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 °C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 °C per decade)…
…. [sea] predicted rise is about 65 cm by the end of the next century…..”.
Second Assessment Report 1995:
“….The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate….
…..Climate is expected to continue to change in the future….
…..There are still many uncertainties….”.
Third Assessment Report 2001:
“….most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities….
….the average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100….
….sea level is projected to rise by 0.1 to 0.9 metres over the same period….”
After seventeen years and over $50 Billion in US alone,
Fourth Assessment Report 2007:
“……Warming of the climate system is unequivocal….
……Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations….
…..predictions for the 21st century are…1.8 °C — 6.4 °C …..
…..sea level rise will be…18 cm – 59 cm….”.
BTW, the wording of AR4, WGI as reported in Wiki., is misleading where they mention the atmospheric composition changes since 1750 (pre-industrial) being mostly caused by fossil fuels use and link that to the instrumental temperature rise since 1850( c 0.8 °C), where fossil fuel use can possibly only be linked with the rise since 1940 (c 0.4 °C) and, according to the IPCC, only more than 50% of that rise (over 90% likelihood).
you other claims are all false as well, your questions misleading. i will answer them, when they fit the topic. they don t here. – so said Sod
I don’t make claims, just ask questions that you seem reluctant or unwilling to answer
I will keep asking them until I get an answer better than a reference to the IPCC. I have read AR4 Chapter 9.
SJT said: “Have you read the case for AGW? The most comprehensive description is in the IPCC report. Anyone who has questions should start there at least. That is why they put the report together, so that the knowledge is consolidated and summarised, complete with a FAQ.”
SJT thank you for the reference.
However I am a little obtuse.
I expect that you probably went to University. I think they teach you to cite your references and construct your arguments. Maybe not.
Can you oblige me here? A few specific references and how they answer my questions?
thanks
The AGW believers have to rely on the IPCC, a political document, for their chapter and verse, because they cannot engage in critical thinking. Critical thinking shows the shabbiness and emptiness of their faith straight away, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
Question:
Does the El Nino act as a positive or negative feedback?
SJT,
The real question is have you read the IPCC?
Stop attacking the person. Give what you see as the truth and leave it at that. I’m so sick of hearing phrases such as, “You idiot” or “You maroon” and much worse. Just stop it will you. You do yourselves a serious disservice. None of you are “idiots” or “maroons” or whatever. Your ideas may or may not be moronoc or imbecilic or whatever but YOU are not.
SJT,
The real question is have you read the IPCC?
Why?
The AGW believers have to rely on the IPCC, a political document, for their chapter and verse, because they cannot engage in critical thinking. Critical thinking shows the shabbiness and emptiness of their faith straight away, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
Empty rhetoric devoid of any evidence.
Question:
Does the El Nino act as a positive or negative feedback?
El Nino is neither, it is cyclical.
If you are so wise and so convinced of your case, answer his questions?
I am an anonymous person on the internet. I can give you my opinion, which by itself is worth just about nothing, or refer you to a document produced by the scientists who are actually doing the research, which refers to the evidence produced using the scientific method.
If I give you my opinion, I am criticised for only offering worthless opinions, if I offer you the scientific basis, I am criticised again.
“Over the last 30 years, average global temperatures as measured by satellites (UAH) indicate a monthly temperature anomaly of zero degrees C in June 2009 and 0.4 degC in July 2009.”
Cherry picking is your first mistake. A look at the temperature graph for the past 30 years indicates a clear trend up. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you.
Oil Shill says I am here to learn, and you didn’t answer any of my questions, so I will put them again.
Point of order, you aren’t actually asking any questions, since you are only asking what you think you already have the answer to. You are putting opinions in the guise of questions.
Question:
Does the El Nino act as a positive or negative feedback?
this question shows a serious lack of understanding.
the “southern oscillation” is (as indicated by the name) an oscillation. el nino is the warm phase, which obviously has warming effect on surface temperature.
the term “feedback” doesn t make any sense in your question.
a usefull question is:
does the southern oscillation have an effect on the long term surface temperature trend?
or does global warming have a feedback effect on the southern oscillation?
Alarmists are enamoured of the word ‘oscillation’ in SOI and maintain that it cannot create a trend because it is a zero-sum energy effect; this is not true;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1828
The SOI/ENSO can not only create variation but trend; the mechanism by which energy is provided for an upward tend is radiative via cloud variation and location. As for the other question or assertion by the alarmists that SOI is determined by AGW, this too is problematic because as the temperature increase in 1976 shows in combination with the opposite temperature movement in 1998, if CO2 increases do increase temperature how can a further increase in CO2 decrease temperature?
FWIW, the fact that Spencer made a mistake is not a problem. That basically is how science works. Someone puts something out there, another says, hey, it looks to me like you blew it. They go over each one’s work and find the errors. They agree and live to disagree again.
Add to this a bunch of blogs and it ain’t so cool.
Or add a bunch of scientists who put it out there but won’t share their data.
Eli Rabett
Well, well – that’s how science works does it? Considering the Mann Hockey Stick saga, which seems to be replicated with the recent Arctic issue, science definitely was not working the, and certainly is not now.
Well, well – that’s how science works does it? Considering the Mann Hockey Stick saga, which seems to be replicated with the recent Arctic issue, science definitely was not working the, and certainly is not now.
your version of the “hockey stick saga” is entirely false. a statistical method used was shown to produce weird results when fed with artificial data. the results were then simply confirmed by different methods. the hockey stick results stand.
Sod, do you really believe the MWP was cooler than current temperatures?
Just want to point out that the various “probes’ (Argus etc) are not measuring SST.
Sod,
So please cite the evidence for your assertion.
So for the true believers, playing with the index of a graph,and flensing away any inconvenient data until a hockey stick is all that remains still passes for ‘science’.
And of course at the Luke level of what passes for ‘reason’, since Earth suffered from tough events in the past, AGW predictions about the future are true.
That poor MWP- it is the red headed step child of AGW hysteria. It exists, or not, depending on which way the AGW community needs to restate their case on any given day.
Sod, do you really believe the MWP was cooler than current temperatures?
i do not just believe that. it is a fact. even the “Loehle reconstruction” comes to that result!
The peak value of the MWP is 0.526 Deg C above the mean over the period (again
as a 29 year mean, not annual, value). This is 0.412 Deg C above the last reported
value at 1935 (which includes data through 1949) of 0.114 Deg C. The standard error
A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies 97
Figure 2. Corrected reconstruction with 95% confidence intervals.
Data for this graph is online at
of the difference is 0.224 Deg C, so that the difference is significantly non-zero at the
10% level (t = 1.84). While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in
29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp)
from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise
to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of
the 20th Century values, though the difference is not significant.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
(Loehle, using a pretty bizarre method, finds the MWP top similar to the temperature between 1978 and 2006. “currently” temperatures are warmer!)
Sod,
So please cite the evidence for your assertion.
it is called the “hockey stick controversy”. there is good material on the web.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Louis, although it goes against your nature, don’t act like a jerk.
Eli,
Thanks for the confimation I must have scored another hit. You lefties are so predictable.
hm, looks like the record SST is not such an interesting topic for our fellow sceptics. surprise surprise!
What record;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2010/trend
And eli says; “Add to this a bunch of blogs and it ain’t so cool”; so eli, you think the citizenry should shut up and do what they are told by their betters; like you, eh?
No, I would just give the same advice that I gave to Pileke Sr when he was whooping about new Argos results….don’t get too far out there
There are a lot of studies, and it is much more like that a new study that stands in contradiction to the mass of accumulated data is wrong then that it will overthrow the established work. The problem with the Cohenite Top 10 is that they are incoherent, one contradicts the other.
OTOH Einstein’s relativity did not disprove Newton’s theory it showed that the range in which the Newtonian mechanics held was not limitless.
Carry on Lewis.
Sod wrote:
Since, like many believers, you seem to be enamored of authorities, we could ask the man who is arguably the best with stats in the world – Wegman. Oh dear – it seems that he thinks Steve McIntyre’s critique is sound, and further that there was insufficient information to decide what, exactly, MBH had done.
Josh Halpern (aka Eli Rabett) wrote:
That’s certainly how it works in principle – and the RSS/UAH teams have done a good job, even though they still disagree. The Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” was at the extreme other end of the spectrum and is on object lesson in what NOT to do – alas that such “luminaries” as IPCC immediately and uncritically adopted it, only to drop it when it became untenable to support it any more. It sure looked like a confirmation bias issue – and while I don’t fault anyone for falling into such a trap, these are people who should know better, especially given that it’s something they accuse others of – just like cherry picking, right Josh?
Can you remember who said “You have to pick cherries to make a cherry pie!”? – hint, it was one of the warminista.
So Josh – found a validation study on a model relied on by IPCC yet? Or are you still too busy inciting people to violence against those who dare to hold a different opinion to yours?
That Mann Hockey Stick was VERY impressive! It would alarm anyone, and it was extremely instrumental in generating grants for further study. The point it made was clear. There has not been another chart that has anywhere near the visual impact of Mann’s Hockey Stick chart. When it came out, it was posted everywhere. The IPCC adopted it. They loved Mann’s Hockey Stick.
So, I’m just wondering. Umm, why won’t the UN/IPCC use it any more?