In answer to the excuse du jour: “The Ocean ate my Global Warming”.
Now that the plateau in air temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near large enough to explain the missing energy.
They predicted the surface air temperature would increase, but it didn’t. (The 1990 IPCC predictions about temperatures were so wrong the trends have come in below their lowest possible estimate.) They predicted the oceans would warm more than twice as much as they actually have (as best as we can tell). They did not predict the air temperature would level out for 15 years, and the oceans would suddenly start producing “natural cooling”.
The oceans are a bit of a mystery black box
There are 1.4 billion cubic kilometers of ocean out there — it’s so big it hid a 650 km volcano until two weeks ago. Only two people have been to the bottom ever (correction, three men), and they stayed just 20 minutes (and all they saw was silt). Despite this the IPCC wants us to believe we can measure the entire Earth’s ocean temperature in one hundreth’s of a degree, not just now, but allegedly also 50 or 60 years ago. There is no 95% certainty about ocean measurements in 1962 or even in 2002. Strangely, the best models in the world did not predict this in 2007. The IPCC are handwaving at the ocean heat so they can still say “the world is warming” but in reality the numbers are devastating, and the data (as scratchy as it is) supports the skeptics. If the standstill in temperatures is bad news for the IPCC, so are the ocean heat figures.
The excuse that the missing heat went into the ocean is a deceptive reframing — where a failure in ocean measurements is used to save them from their failure to predict what happened above the water. It is as simplistic as saying the warming line points up, and “up” is success.
Who switched on natural variability in 1998?
…
Ocean Heat Content does not help the IPCC
1.If the oceans affected global temperatures after 1998, what were they doing before that?
If the oceans caused natural cooling over the last 15 years, how do we know they didn’t cause natural warming over the 20 years before that? The answer is, if La Nina’s can cool the surface, El Nino’s can warm it. If oceans can draw heat out of the sky, then in times when they are not doing that, they can also increase the trends.
Caught again, the IPCC hides this banal symmetry. Their self-serving lop-sided rule is: if it cools, it’s natural; if it warms, it’s artificial. The killer contradiction goes unspoken. If the warming from 1979 -1999 was significantly caused by natural changes in currents, clouds or wind which allowed heat to build up in the air, it means they underestimated the natural effect of the oceans and overestimated the effect of CO2 during the warming. When CO2 levels reached their “highest” levels in human history after 1998, the oceans overrode whatever effect CO2 had. The IPCC knows so little about the ocean, that they didn’t even allow for this possibility in their past predictions. Why should we let them get away with the banal post hoc hand-waving excuse?
This is a point so simple any science journalist ought to spot it immediately. Have any of them asked?
2. The oceans are supposedly 0.06 C warmer than 50 years ago (but we can’t really measure the global ocean temperature to a hundreth of a degree).
The first point of deception is that temperature is measured in degrees, but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean temperatures in Joules. This hides the obvious problem — we just can’t measure the global ocean temperature that accurately.
Before 2003 there is only sparse irregular measurements with everything from buckets off boats to thermometers fired into the water and usually without pressure sensors (we estimated how deep they were from how long they’d been falling…not much room for precision there). Much of the ocean wasn’t covered, and there were almost no readings below 700m (the average depth of oceans is 4km).
We’ve only had decent measurements of the ocean since mid-2003 when the ARGO system started. But even these measurements are considerably less certain than often claimed, and they didn’t find the missing energy anyway (see point 4).
3. The utterly banal again: All forms of warming cause ocean heat to rise.
Ocean warming (like most other indicators) doesn’t prove anything about the cause. If the warming since 1700 was due to solar magnetic effects, or lunar effects, cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover, the oceans would warm. The only point that matters is whether the models have verifiable predictive skill of any kind. They don’t: Ergo the theory is wrong.
4. The missing energy is just not enough. The numbers Jim, look at the numbers!
ARGO data started in 2003, but the observed ocean warming does not fit the model predictions. (See this post for details.) The rate of increase is too small to demonstrate a large radiative imbalance.
But this also applies to the pre-ARGO data (as bad as it is). When we get down to hard numbers even professional experts in the Climate Change Industry find the “radiative imbalance” is only one third to one half of what the models and the theory of man-made global warming predict. They don’t necessarily say that in so many words, but the numbers do.
Since sufficient ARGO data started in 2003, observed ocean warming does not fit the model predictions. See this post for details. | Updated, Sept 2013.
The climate models estimate a CO2 additional forcing of 3.7 W/m2 with a doubling of CO2. (And since CO2 hasn’t doubled, then we’re looking for whatever part of 3.7W/m2 applies for the proportional increase in CO2 during the period in question. Hence that’s about 1W/m2 in the last 50 years, and less because 30% of the Earth is covered with land, not ocean).
David Stockwell has looked into the recent Levitis 2012 paper, which analyzed ocean heat from 1955-2010 and concluded that it supports the skeptics. Essentially, the models predicted 0.69W/m2, but Levitis found 0.3W/m2. Less than half. Once again, the data shows the models exaggerate by a factor of at least two.
To compare these figures, say the continuous top-of-atmosphere forcing is 1Wm-2, a figure given by Meehl and Hansen and consistent with the IPCC estimates. The forcing of the ocean from a TOA forcing of 1Wm-2 is a lower 0.6m-2 due to losses, estimated by Hansen.The best, recent measurements of the forcing 0f 0.3Wm-2 are half these IPCC estimates. The anthropogenic component of the forcing is even less, as a large part of the 0.3Wm-2 in the last 60 years is due to increased solar insolation during the Grand Solar Maximum.
This mild forcing is right in the ballpark that skeptic scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Loehle and Idso (and myself) have been consistently saying is all that is justified by the evidence. It appears that Levitus et al. confirms the skeptics, and the IPCC has been falsified.
This hunt for ocean heat has been going on a long time. [See David Whitehouse GWPF for some history and also Lubos and Lucia for some recent discussion.]
So the ocean heat content figures agree well with skeptics who estimate feedbacks are net negative and additional warming due to CO2 doubling will amount to about half a degree, not 3 degrees.
We need to expose the myth that any warming at all means CO2 is pollution and we need to spend $42Trillion to stop it. The argument lives or dies on the numbers.
——————————————————————————————————
In related work, Bob Tisdale has released “Climate Models Fail”
Independent work like his, cross checking models with observations could potentially save millions of dollars for the citizens of the free world, yet none of this kind of auditing is actively supported by governments. Tisdale goes through all the oceans, looks for polar amplification, regional predictions, global predictions, precipitation and more.
(Click the book to find out more).
“Climate Models Fail exposes the disturbing fact that climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have very little practical value because they cannot simulate critical variables of interest to the public and policymakers. Using easy-to-read graphs, this book compares data (surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area) with the computer model simulations. It is very easy to see that the model outputs bear little relationship to the data. In other words, climate models create imaginary climates in virtual worlds that exhibit no similarities to the climate of the world in which we live.
Climate Models Fail clearly shows that climate models have little value for the public and policymakers because their number-crunched virtual worlds do not come close to simulating the real world we inhabit.
Visit his site to find out more. Price $9.95 in Kindle and PDF”
————————————————————————————————
Tutorial for Science Journalists:
A few questions serious journalists might want to ask instead of just cut and pasting press releases from activists.
1 Did the oceans contribute to warming?
- If the oceans recently cooled the air, couldn’t they have warmed it earlier (pre the pause)?
- If so, how have the IPCC models been changed to reflect this increased effect of natural variability?
- Surely the effect of CO2 is made smaller by this admission?
2 How accurate are those measurements?
- How many degrees has the ocean actually warmed?
- Is our equipment accurate enough to measure that? (Don’t get fooled by unrealistic statistical assumptions, such as that all of the ocean simultaneously warms by the same amount –that amount being “the global warming”.)
- How did we measure global ocean temperature 50 years ago?
- What kind of data is was available for water below 700m in the 1960s?
3 How does this tell us the cause of the warming?
- Wouldn’t any cause of warming cause the oceans to warm — how do we know it was CO2 rather than something else?
- (following on) So are those the same models that failed to correctly forecast global surface temperatures, tropospheric temperature and humidity, antarctic sea ice, tropical storms, and regional rainfall?
- (following on) Yes skeptics agree that CO2 warms the planet, they question the amount of amplification by feedbacks in the models. What empirical evidence is there that the model’s assumptions about clouds and water vapor feedbacks are correct? Which piece of equipment was that measured on? (No, a computer is not an instrument that measures the atmosphere).
4 The numbers don’t match
- How many Watts per meter2 (in radiative imbalance) do these extra Joules of energy imply?
- Don’t these ocean heat figures actually support the skeptics claim that effect of the CO2 is minor and the models are overestimating warming by a factor of at least two?
REFERENCES
Levitus, S., et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010, Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL051106, in press
As a policewoman said to my son outside of a courthouse, after he had won some justice – Does that woman ever tell the truth? Short answer that also applies to the IPCC – NO!!
223
I think the Ocean has eaten the IPCCs brains.
I fail to understand how any self respecting person can pin their entire rationale on some theoretical heat they can’t find but must exist for the sake of little more than their egos.
It’s absurd and it’s insulting.
Here’s a tip IPCC – find the heat – in it’s entirety or just ‘effing rack off. Go pump gas for a living or something and stop wasting everybodys’ time.
521
Pachauri’s Demon is really strange. It causes hotter than average water molecules at the ocean surface to travel over 700 m deep.
However, it only appears to work when the atmosphere is cooling.
Funny thing that……:0)
320
No professional; scientist who actually reads the root references of Climate Alchemy can accept the IPCC ‘consensus’ as valid. All they have to do is to read Para 4 of 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf which claims that if you were to remove ghgs from the atmosphere, the mean surface temperature would fall to -18 deg. C, the temperature for radiative equilibrium to Space at 238.5 W/m^2 SW energy absorbed in the atmosphere.
However, if you were to remove the ghgs, there would be no ice or clouds so the new equilibrium would be for 341 W/m^2, 43% increase. That would mean 4 – 5 deg. C mean surface temperature, a ghe of ~11 K. The ratio 33/11 = 3 is the imaginary positive feedback. This mistake passed ‘Science’ magazine’s peer review and invalidates all the modelling.
220
That’s because of the acidification….. eats brains for sure.
131
“I think the Ocean has eaten the IPCCs brains.” Indeed.
The IPCC fools have truly backed themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. There is no heat hiding in the oceans. Down welling LWIR slowing the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool is a physical impossibility.
Back in 2011 Willis at WUWT claimed that based on IR emissivity of liquid water it should absorb IR at the same frequency and this could slow its cooling rate. However, I showed by empirical experiment that incident IR does not penetrate the skin evaporation layer of liquid water and has no significant effect on the cooling rate of water below this. If a film of LDPE plastic is floated on the surface of the test samples, allowing radiative and conductive exchange while blocking evaporation, then incident IR does slow the cooling rate. The original 2011 experiment can be seen here –
http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
A cleaner version for other readers to build and run themselves can be seen here –
http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
Basically the claims of climate pseudo scientists that the oceans would “freeze over” without downwelling LWIR are pure BS. Their further claims that missing heat has entered the oceans via LWIR are simply more of the same, only fresher and still steaming.
This is but one of the critical mistakes in both the GHE and AGW hypotheses. The mistake that invalidates both hypotheses is that in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” the pseudo scientists failed to increase the speed of tropospheric convective circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases. This circulation governs the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface. This critical error is recorded for all time on the Internet. It cannot be erased. A doubling of CO2 will not create 1.2C of warming. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
AGW is a physical impossibility, but there is a real carbon catastrophe coming. The reputations of every pseudo scientist, activist, journalist or politician that sought to promote or profit by this inane hoax are about to be reduced to ashes. The same is true for the UN and the EUSSR parliament.
110
.
I have to post this link here:
How Much Global Warming Will Happen In Our Lifetimes?
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/09/how-much-global-warming-will-happen-before-you-kick-the-bucket/
I use to be a regular at Gizmodo and LifeHacker, but more and more they are posting climate change articles, always pushing the scares.
Ive contacted the editors about running the occasional article from the skeptics side but was told they only run stories from “reputable scientists”.
Garbage articles like the one in the link is sucker bait for the warmists. They love that crap, regardless of how crap it is.
Sorry Jo, but when I see articles like this your web site and the many contributors and commentators is the first thing I think of.
Ill read your article now and feed my brain with some substantial fact based science.
161
Its hit news.com.au now.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/how-much-the-world-will-warm-during-your-lifetime/story-fn5fsgyc-1226729901818
00
Maybe the IPCC can enlist James Cameron to take his deep sea submarine to new depths to find the hidden warming.
161
The IPCC has plumbed new depths in its newest report. That’s my retort to their report.
160
Been there, etc.
I guess there’s no Unobtanium down there to make it worth his while.
20
The IPCC must of never seen a Lava Lamp. Why because heat raises even in a liquid. The hotter more colorful liquid raises cools then falls in a Lava Lamp. Its thermodynamics hotter water is less dense than cold water in temperate conditions so it raises, and the cooler sinks. It doesn’t sinks to the bottom of the Ocean. It floats. Only when it gets closer to the freezing point of water dose the cooler water float over the slightly warmer water. Which doesn’t seem to be what the IPCC are going on about or dose it. Their report is implying that is just whats happening to all that missing heat. Just one problem the Ocean isn’t cold enough for that to work that way over the majority of it. At the poles yes but not everywhere else.
141
Density is also driven by salinity differences. cold fresh water can be less dense than salty warm water.
That being said any energy lost into to oceans cannot be amplified by the atmospheric positive feedback (which also doesn’t exist)
20
Trenberth’s missing heat!
‘Warming is going on the human fingerprint is clear in the data, but there are other things that are also in the game, the top figure there which has the global temperature the one below is the El Nino influence. If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific, the atmosphere can’t heat it up very easily. If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily and so whether the heat is going mostly into the atmosphere or the ocean for the short term is influenced by El Nino and La Nina and in the last decade most of the heat has been going into the ocean and less into the atmosphere. This is something that wobbles…ultimately the ocean and the atmosphere have to be coupled and it is simply how must warming is already been realised in the atmosphere…the long term picture yes heat is still accumulating in the earth’s system with high confidence, no there hasn’t been a stop in global warming…where did it go and there is finally the ability to make statements about heat going into the deep ocean, the Argo floats and other advances have come just in time…I think this is fair to say that this is just enough to see what is going on…a lot of heat has got into the ocean and it’s gotten pretty far down…that’s really deep!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbQkFXYGmos
(Since you didn’t address Jo’s blog post itself,you must be ok with it) CTS
449
There can be no NET transfer of heat (energy) FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – not to mention observable fact.
The NET transfer of heat (energy) is FROM the sun, TO the oceans, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere, FROM the atmosphere, radiated back out into space. Evaporation, clouds and precipitation are the natural, observable, measurable result of this endless ONE-WAY cycle.
Not to mention the fact that if it were not so, the oceans would have boiled away eons ago.
It’s called The Water Cycle, Dribble Bladder, and it’s Primary School Science.
Here are some pretty pictures in case you missed that day in class.
550
That will not do, MV.
Those images have not been authorised by the Inspectorate of Propaganda Creation and Clarification, as being supportive of the current groupthink. They are far too complex for somebody with level 2 cognition, like BA4, to understand. You are also using them without official permission.
You will report immediately to the office of the Comptroller of the United Nations Facility for Cognitive Climatic Correction for reprogramming.
260
Isn’t that what the Taco Boy was talking about here?
20
Yes indeed. One or
ourtheir more successful reprogramming subjects.You have heard
ourtheir new slogan, I trust? “We take the “smart” out of “smartass”.120
In that particular case, I don’t think they need to concentrate too much on that aspect…
50
Bishop Hill has the full report on his site.
But the first comment on the thread from Donna Laframboise is the KEY point:
190
Yeah, right.
I’m the guy who, over two and a half decades ago, formed the Australians’ Right to Bear Arms Association (ARBA), with 170,000 paid-up members, the first time an Australian government tried to disarm the civilian population. Most of us were ex military, and a lot of us are still alive, and more pissed off than ever.
.
You want me, come and get me.
My door is always open . . .
161
Well, that attempt at humour all fell as flat as a cow pat.
I was making a play on the initials IPCC and UNFCCC, by placing them in a 1984 context.
Ho Hum, it is hard being a wit, but twice as hard being half of one.
40
.
It’s okay Rereke, I got the humorous context, even if I missed the play on the initials.
Obviously my own attempt at “Dirty Harry” tough guy humour was even less successful.
20
if you could show how heat transfer is not possible from the air to the water, you would be in line for a physics prize. Your postualte that heat is transferred directly to the ocean is absurd.
019
I certainly would!!
Peter, I’ve mentioned this before in the past, but you have obviously missed it. I run a free remedial correspondence course in basic (primary school level) English Comprehension, for unfortunates such as yourself with serious deficiencies in basic reading and comprehension skills.
I would be happy to pencil you in for a place next semester, if you like.
.
In the meantime, you could try squinting real hard (I’m told it helps in dyslexic cases), then attempt re-reading what I wrote, and what you wrote, and see if you can’t spot the difference this time. Consider it your first homework assignment.
140
MV you gave me a good chuckle. Chuckle – hell, I laughed out loud. Ta.
40
@MemoryVault
September 30, 2013 at 10:01 pm
‘There can be no NET transfer of heat (energy) FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – not to mention observable fact’ So are you say heat can’t flow from a warm body to a cold body? ‘FROM the atmosphere, radiated back out into space’ but the heat vent into space is being blocked by the co2! Anyhow as I understand it heat will be radiated in all directions, not just up!
WV and co2 as heat vent blockers into space.
[snip]
26
Awwwwww. YouTube clip snipped. What a shame.
Where did MV say that? Perhaps you need to re-read his comment.
30
.
What is it with you cultists and simple English Comprehension?
No, what I very clearly said was that there could be no NET heat energy transfer FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans. Your cretinous, quasi-religious cult beliefs currently require that there is some human-induced ATMOSPHERIC heat that has gone “missing” from the atmosphere, and claims that this “missing” ATMOSPHERIC heat somehow got into the ocean. This claim is in direct contravention of both the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and observed, measurable fact.
Totally irrelevant to how alleged man-made ATMOSPHERIC heat energy somehow “finds” its way into the oceans. Even if the statement was true – which it’s not – it would lead to a warmer atmosphere, NOT “missing” heat. The statement is false as it is actually CO2 and the other GHG’s which ultimately facilitate the “venting” of heat energy to space (in the form of LWIR), rather blocking it.
Again, totally irrelevant with regards to “missing” heat “finding” its way into the oceans.
AGAIN, totally irrelevant as an explanation as to how the “missing” heat “finds” its way into the oceans. AGAIN, if true, the effect would be a warmer atmosphere.
20
@MemoryVault
October 1, 2013 at 9:26 pm
This claim is in direct contravention of both the Second Law of Thermodynamics’ but from a source you’ll find hard to debunk!
‘Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics’
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
‘Totally irrelevant to how alleged man-made ATMOSPHERIC heat energy somehow “finds” its way into the oceans’, like this!
‘Warming is going on the human fingerprint is clear in the data, but there are other things that are also in the game, the top figure there which has the global temperature the one below is the El Nino influence. If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific, the atmosphere can’t heat it up very easily. If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily and so whether the heat is going mostly into the atmosphere or the ocean for the short term is influenced by El Nino and La Nina and in the last decade much of the heat has been going into the ocean and less into the atmosphere. This is something that wobbles…ultimately the ocean and the atmosphere have to be coupled and it is simply how must warming is already been realised in the atmosphere…the long term picture yes heat is still accumulating in the earth’s system with high confidence, no there hasn’t been a stop in global warming…where did it go and there is finally the ability to make statements about heat going into the deep ocean, the Argo floats and other advances have come just in time…I think this is fair to say that this is just enough to see what is going on…a lot of heat has got into the ocean and it’s gotten pretty far down…that’s really deep!’ R Alley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbQkFXYGmos
‘WV and co2 as heat vent blockers into space.
[snip]’
‘it is actually CO2 and the other GHG’s which ultimately facilitate the “venting” of heat energy to space’ totally wrong, as you could have seen, but the link has been snipped!
‘Again, totally irrelevant with regards to “missing” heat “finding” its way into the oceans.’, well not really, seen as the atmosphere is heating up and ‘eventually’ they will be coupled, but at present the heat is transferring from the atmosphere to the sea and vice versa!
‘AGAIN, if true, the effect would be a warmer atmosphere.’ er, and that is happening, as the records proves!
——————————–
REPLY: BA. The numbers man. The numbers – pay attention. Just because some warming may have gone into the oceans, does not mean CO2 caused it, and what is worse (for you) is that the amount of warming in the oceans suggests the skeptics are right, the models are wrong, and climate sensitivity is lower. – Jo
11
.
Yeah, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Moderation,
I shall fear no discrimination.
For apparently I am to be the most moderated old bugger on the whole damn thread.
.
EVERY time.
20
Perhaps you should check the lock on the MemoryVault–seems some knowledge of acceptable and unacceptable comments may be escaping. Or the mods just love you and you should feel special……
10
A link to a video of the settled science of the 2007 UN-IPCC report where all above is stated would be very convincing.
Also, who is “you” as in, “If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific …?”
Unless some human (or Gaia) put that hot water there, it has to be all natural.
Carbon(sic)? Human fingerprint? It appears not.
And, as the atmosphere warms the water as you say, how does the missing heat re-warm the atmosphere?
As gavin@realclimate says,” The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains.
The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.”
Oh dear. How does that missing heat come back? “The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.”
.
Your mission, BA4, should you choose to accept it …
Otherwise, this Un-IPCC report self destructs before your very eyes.
60
FAO handjive
September 30, 2013 at 11:00 pm
‘who is “you”’, now you’re just playing semantics! He does not mean ‘YOU’ as in somebody who is real!
‘it has to be all natural’, yip, that will be the El Nino, Al Nina oscillation!
‘how does the missing heat re-warm the atmosphere?’ because as he says, it is only for a short term. As the Pacific waters warm up, due to the oscillation of the ocean’s currents!
06
If you google “thermohaline circulation” you can see how the missing heat is transferred to the stygian abyss. Warm water currents travel from the tropics to the poles where they absorb negative heat from the atmosphere, become dense, and sink. I’m surprised that you did not think of this.
In addressing this post you seem to have taken the advice of your namesake.
Lt. George: ” What do we do sir when we tread on a mine?”
Cpt. Blackadder: ” well George the usual procedure is to jump 200 ft in the air and scatter yourself over a large area.”
140
Yes, its very wobbly….. in fact I think the wheels have fallen off entirely.
80
I’m glad they still let this fool post here.. Gives me a good laugh in the morning.
And laughing is good for you.
So thanks BA4, your posts help me realise that there are people far stupider than those low IQ 15 year olds I used to try to teach. They weren’t so bad after all !
133
Drop in for a quick link to promote your youtube channel, then bug out again.
This is just a marketing exercise to you isnt it. (<— this is not a question)
50
Can’t imagine anyone paying him for hits, so he must be doing it for the kudos…. 😉
30
The latest post over at WUWT makes a total mess of using short term trends..
Y’see, that’s exactly what Hansen et al relied upon when they first made the catastrophic warming predictions, a very short term trend. !
“At the time of the first IPCC report in 1991 (FAR), the warming trend was barely 11 years old.”
130
But, but, but…..
Dr Brian says you can’t rely on short term trends of 15 years. How can that be?
110
Good point Winston, well spotted.
00
And of course, an chaotic oscillating system, if you choose just the upward part of the oscillation, the trend is upwards.
Then you reach the top and flatten out (you know, like the last 17 or so years).. then the trend starts becomes negative. (like the last 10 years)
The ONLY trend it is even worth looking at is the “now” trend, because it tells you where you might be in the cycle.
80
Thank you, Joanne.
Cheers
Bob
160
Bob, feel free to suggest questions that journalists ought to be asking the IPCC. They need all the help they can get.
200
Hi, Jo. I’ll write up a blog post with questions for journalists and email you a link. I’ll try to get it done today, but if I don’t, I’ll be away from my computer tomorrow (fun family stuff), so it may not arrive until Wednesday.
Regards
P.S.: I just posted an open letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. You’ll probably find interesting/entertaining:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/
230
I expect the supporters of the Deep Ocean Heating theory will soon describe this as a ‘plausible mechanism’.
It’s one of those irregular verbs, much favoured by the Green/Left.
I have a plausible mechanism
You are speculating
He is making a wild guess
150
That’s a good point about the ‘cause’. Doesn’t the ice-core data show an 800 year time-lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes and isn’t the answer likely due to something scientists call ‘Deep Ocean Thermal Inertia’? So, could the warming oceans be due to the MWP 800 years ago? Mmm.
The idea that the heat from CO2 is going into the deep oceans explaining why there has been no statistically significant warming for 12-17 years doesn’t make sense to me. The atmosphere has warmed hardly. Shouldn’t the atmosphere have warmed too? I mean, how can CO2 be increasing ocean temperatures without increasing the temperature of the atmosphere?
And, why does the GISS data, which by my understanding, is only land-based and excludes ocean-measurements, imply that there has been no statistically significant warming for 12 years? Is CO2 somehow discriminating between the land and ocean?
Also, at the same time, CAGW-advocates are saying that the heat in the deep oceans will eventually ‘rise up’ and increase the temperature of the surface ocean in the future. But the deep ocean is *always* colder than the surface ocean, so how is that possible? How can cold water heat up warmer water? I have no idea myself. It all seems so crazy.
150
A great piece Jo. Loved the tutorial for the “science” journalists.
“In political terms, AR5 was actually the incoherent and rambling suicide note of the IPCC.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/in-the-aftermath-of-ar5/
Pointman
200
And at the same time some AGW believers claim that oceans turn less alkaline. This would mean a cooling of oceans, since warmer oceans are emitting C02
100
Excellent point.
20
Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, one of the founding organisations of the IPCC, said, “Temperatures between 2001-2010 were the highest on record, a decade that saw more records than ever broken.
“It would have been even higher were it not for the role of the deep oceans in absorbing heat,” he added.
One of the questions raised since the previous report in 2007 was the so-called “hiatus” in global warming that was not predicted by models.
IPCC Working Group I, co-chair Dr Thomas Stocker explained it was an emerging scientific question that had been looked at very carefully.
He said that while too few measurements were available in the deep ocean, a large amount of the recent “pause” in global warming was due to natural variability, including: a series of recent volcanic eruptions, natural Pacific cooling cycle, and absorption of heat in the deep oceans. (my bold)
.
How convenient. The unpredicted warming is hiding where “too few measurements were available.”
Global warming ‘unequivocal’ and ‘unprecedented’ – IPCC
150
Great title:-
Global warming ‘unequivocal’ and ‘unprecedented’ – IPCC
and also undetected, it seems.
210
Suddenly, it’s volcanic eruptions, the Pacific cooling cycle and the ocean absorbing heat–three things, if I remember correctly, were laughed at when skeptics mentioned them.
120
You’re not suppose to remember that!
Anyway, this is all-new-science, settled with 97.68765% consensus.
Get with it!
30
Josh’s brilliant Monckton sketch is always apposite at times like these.
The Missing Heat
90
What mechanism did the missing heat use to determine that it must under all circumstances fall only on the oceans and avoid land at all cost?
100
The missing heat might be a form of ‘Dark’ Energy, conjectured for the sole purpose of making the Models ‘work’.
100
Typo, biblical. “Leviticus” remove, “Levitis” insert.
—-
Ta! Fixed. -J
50
Leviticus would be more fun to talk about.
00
I wouldn’t treat anything the IPCC has to say as gospel if I were you, Mark.
10
Only need one question:
If the ocean is warming, and the ocean has 1E6 times the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb heat, doesn’t that mean the net feedbacks are -99.9999%? By definition the ocean constitutes a negative feedback loop for atmospheric heat doesn’t it?
10
It may be hyperbole, but I’ve read that we know more of the surface of Mars than we do about the oceans of Earth. Now the IPCC want us to believe that they understand them enough to use them to explain a huge hole in their supposedly settled climate models?
Hide it indeed.
80
We’re talking about theoretical predictions
made by a biased political organisation
using inaccurate computer models
speculating about an ocean warming that cannot be measured.
– Now that sounds like a plan.
120
Some of the scientists know there is cooling heading our way, and are seeking to cover their butts.
But the political forces behind the IPCC won’t let them.
Would be quite comical if it weren’t for the economic waste and societal degradation that will continue to occur.
80
Evening all.
There are two schools of thought here, the IPCC and the Real World.
IPCC – Global climate is driven by man-made influences, as witnessed in the warming since the 1970’s. Except, of course, when temperatures stabilised, in which case it was due to industrial aerosols, volcanic dust, La Nina, or, as of now, unknown heat sinks deep in the ocean depths, far from the reach of pesky instrumentation. Any excuse will do, just make it sound plausible.
The Real World – Global climate varies. Always has, always will.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that the IPCC theory is “fragile”.
Cheers,
Speedy
120
The Missing Hotspot, The Wasted Billions and now The Missing Heat. Scientists enjoy a reputation (whether earned or not) for being absent minded, but really how could the IPCC be so careless ?
130
Tim Flannery could start a new company:
The new renewable energy company, Deep Sea Geothermal Extraction.
Simply send pipes to the DEEP HEAT section, pipe it up and drive turbines to provide power.
Windmills of the Oceans Deep Heat. Maybe even list it on the ASX with Ross Garnaut.
140
Thumbs up, you beat me to it.
Maybe claim the missing heat as carbon credits???
40
Only trouble with that idea is that, like the hot-spot.. they don’t know where it is !!
“Down there” doesn’t really cut it for production purposes.
Maybe Flannery could ask Greg Hunt for some exploration funding ?
That worked well last time. !
70
Trenberth only found his missing heat by using models as part of the analysis:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
30
Lucia put a degrees C y-axis scale on the Ocean Heat Content anomaly graph…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/alternate-units-average-temperature-change-over-layer/
less than 200 hundredths of a degree C warming per decade……
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HeatContentEQ_C-500×322.png
(if you can believe you can actually measure that)
the Met office converted the ‘scary big joules scale’ into deg C….(report 1, pg22)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
“There are much fewer observations below 700m, and the ocean below 2,000m has remained largely un-monitored. However, there is evidence of warming below 700m, and even below 2,000m. Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer.”
So a new measure of global warming, global air surface temperature anomaly is yesterday’s measure
A global ocean heat anomaly 0.09C in 55 years!
Shame that the IPCC did not put a degree C scale on their Ocean Heat anomaly graphic in IPCC SPM AR5
less than 10 years of ARGO data, with 1 ARGO buoy per how many tens of thousands of CUBIC kilometres?
50
And of course the ARGO buoys natural follow the currents, which at depth are likely to be from cold to slightly less cold.
30
Excellent point Andy; that inherent bias in the measuring should account for all the ocean warming just by itself!
30
Your arguments are excellent but you let yourself down by your lack of knowledge. If you are going to use the lack of deep ocean exploration as an argument, an excellent one, then bring yourself up to date. Three men have been to the bottom, not two, they were Don Walsh, Jacques Piccard in 1960 and James Cameron in 2012.
The Chinese will most likely be the next.
keep up the good work!
20
And… will they find Man-Bear-Pig down there? Whereabouts in the ocean is Man-Bear-Pig hiding, and when is he going to leap out of the water and destroy us all?
50
Krov. Thanks. Good point. I’ve added in the link to James Cameron, and updated the tally. I did not know. Good stuff.
30
On the bright side at least James discovered the heat wasnt hiding inside the Titanic.
Maybe this bloke knows where it is, he looks like a shady IPCC type character.
http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/Introduction/Audience/DaveyJones750.jpg
50
This is a significant question and relates directly to the “missing heat”. Recent studies show that both clouds and water vapor are in decline, thus falsifying the required “positive feedback” required for warmist GHG – CO2 theory.
I will spend some time this week digging up more on this.
50
Ughhh!…. I just got out of bed with only 6 hours sleep 🙂
00
The Met Office graph at the top of the page contains an element of truth. “Era of Artificial Warming” indicates that somewhere in the Met there is a scientist with a conscience.
60
Perhaps I ought to label it better? The data is from the met office. But I’m the one who annotated it, set the slightly satirical bounds etc.
50
Good call, Jo. Satire is about all it’s worth.
20
And there was me, thinking that a ray of light had penetrated the Darkness. Possibly a line stating graph by… as annotated by… would not have raised false hopes.
20
Hi Jo
That’s why lucia’s graph is useful.
It is an ‘official’ graph from an impeccable climate consensus dource. SHE merely adds deg C scale onto the y-axis..
Nobody can dispute the graph then.
Then more onn the fence observers might think why did the IPCC/climate science show me that graph in joules? Are they trying to mislead me? Etc
Thr climate concerned will simply say Jo Nova made your graph. She is a ssceptic, ignore it. (Despite the data coming from an impecable like source)
30
Barry, yes, I can see the point of showing just how meaningless their 10^22 numbers are. Kevin is talking about the Hadley graph at the top, which I did merely to make a point for skeptics that they don’t even need to look at the numbers to ask the question about why the IPCC thinks the ocean might matter now, but not before 1997.
David has been compiling those OHC v models graphs for a couple of years. Lucia’s is very nice, but there will not be an official graph that has the model predictions line on it and we all know why.
60
The missing heat indeed? Why must there be (or is it, why is there any) missing heat in the first place? Seems mighty presumptuous to me. And it pretty much always has. The missing heat is stuck into the equation to make their desired result work out. But the world isn’t cooperating with them. If they can’t find it then it isn’t there. The gang at CRU was complaining about what a shame it was that they couldn’t account for the assumed heat (emphasis on assumed) way back in the climategate 1 emails. They’re still at it.
The dragon lives on. Where is Bilbo Baggins when you need him?
80
The question should really be: Where is the missing positive feedback for increased CO2? The extra clouds and water vapor are not there and are in fact in decline.
This is what supposedly generates the heat that is missing……. that was supposed to go into the tropospheric hot spot, but when that proved false some bright spark thought of “the deep oceans” where of course you can hide anything because nobody can measure it.
Essentially, it does not exist. Warmist GHG – CO2 theory is bunk.
70
GHG radiation selectively melts snow and hides in the ocean.
This particular radiation has very unusual properties, too bad we can’t harness this unique property for some benefit
About the only use it has right now is justification to close coal operations
80
Not quite right. Its actually only the radiation from CO2 that behaves in this way…. evil gas it is!!!
20
And penetrates several hundreds of meters of water with no effect, then heats up the water below that.
Amazing power !!
70
I vote we now call it the Quantum Tunneling Nutrino Effect. It’s attracted to gravity sources, and has a maximum range of 2000m before it explodes realeasing jouls of energy into the watery depths.
With the huge gaps in logic within the report, the MSM should be having a field day mocking it.
50
Oh my god!!! Look what it has done to these birds!
00
What’s more, in the Antarctic, it apparently melts ice and snow that is at -50°C
Powerful stuff !!
50
Well yeah… I have been asking that Philip Sherbet guy about that in the last thread…. but he went strangely silent when prodded…..
50
Our very own “Sheldon” 🙂
20
It’s too bad it doesn’t have the property of toasting the fools who postulate it. Wouldn’t that be something to see? 🙂
20
Quick show of hands here: Who is gullible enough to buy into Trenberth’s nonsense?
Let’s see – we have Phil Shehan, Michael the Defeatist, Blackrubber, Margot, Vince Twirlwind, …
Anybody else? Come on, don’t be shy
71
oooo… me, me !!!
oh wait.. what are we bidding on ???
50
A Stupid Award, signed by me personally.
This can be displayed proudly to your friends, and include it on your resume
30
Didn’t M. Mann have one of those ?
30
He has won more than anyone else, others deserve their opportunities
10
ummm (thinking)..
If you don’t mind, I think I will pass this time.
I have seen the detrimental psychological effects that these awards have on people like M.M.
Not a pretty sight.
30
Am I missing something or just dumb – very possible.
AGW hypothesis is based on so called back IR radiation from CO2 molecules thus trapping or delaying heat loss from the atmosphere. But infra-red radiation is not energetic enough to penetrate more than a few mms. of water, which in turn causes evaporation with no net warming warming of the surface layer. Only short wave radiation penetrates to any depth and this radiation can only come from the sun, yet we are told by ‘top scientists’ that changes in solar insolation are too small too explain the remarkably warming earth -assuming 0.8 C rise in a hundred plus years is remarkable
So, a good question for the IPCC would be to ask by which mechanism does the deep ocean warm and how is this mechanism related to CO2 or the undemonstrated positive feedback from water vapour.
If no sensible answer is forthcoming then the concept of the CO2 control knob is surely dead.
150
In a more conservative world, it would indeed be dead.
Mass madness or something; I’m not sure what happened to common sense, or simple back of envelope logic checks .
10
well, I recall “someone” saying there’s an extra 4 “Hiroshoma Bombs” per second heating up the Earth due to CO2. But if you plot total outgoing longwave radiation – OLR – (from KNMI Climate Explorer) you will see an increase in global satellite-measured OLR of 1.8 W/m2 since 2002. That’s, er, equivalent to 14 “Hiroshima Bombs” per second, lost forever to the vacuum of space.
Also sits nicely with the cessation of surface warming.
Earth warms, Earth cools. Der…
50
That’s about 126 million bombs in a year !.
Gees, they must be pretty feeble bombs, because that aren’t having any affect what-so-ever !!
61
But there is a ~15 year pause, so those “Hiroshima Bombs” are being stockpiled “somewhere” deep in the ocean. Then one day they’re all going to go off at once and we’ll all fry. It must be time to panic. There must be at least 2 billion Bombs down there somewhere. They could make a sequel to armageddon with this: Armageddon AR5.
30
I mean, how do you “lose” 2 billion Hiroshima bombs.
Someone has been very, very careless !!
30
They’re all being stockpiled by the Russians.
20
That’s nearly enough for 1 each for each person in China and India !
Perhaps, that’s where they are stockpiled !
00
Up in the north here, the media often cite ‘lurkers’. Usually crocodiles looking for extra heat in our shallow bays and creeks. They would just love that extra warmth at the seabed, except they can’t dive deep enough to find it.
20
Argo research measures temperature / salinity to a depth of 2000m, at the lower boundary of the Ocean thermocline. As you all know this is referred to as the surface layer of the Ocean.
90% of Ocean volume resides below the surface layer in the Deep Ocean with an ambient temperature of 0 – 3C. It mixes poorly.
But we all know this, we do…and the MSM certainly do, the IPCC definitely, which of course makes them even more culpable.
70
…and has already been identified, we know vanishingly little about the Deep Ocean, that insignificant 90% of Ocean volume.
50
sarc/
20
90% – got a reference for that? Best I coudl find is 66%
02
Peter,
NOAA, Lesson 7: Ocean Layers II
Lesson 7 introduces you to the primary ocean layers,
as well as relevant terminology (e.g., thermocline,
pycnocline). In this activity, you can graph ocean
temperature data to determine how temperature-depth
profiles vary by latitude and season. Have fun.
See page 4
00
This is a part of the AGW argument that I find very bizzare.
Coming from the thinking of a layman I am basically told that heat will not rise, even if that heat is warmer than the ambient temperature around it?
I have tried to think of theories of how this can occur,
– There has been some dramatic molecular change on earth.
– A high frequency electrical charge traps heat deep in the oceans (re plasma effect).
– Salt water composition alters dramatically at a certain depth or pressure.
– Godzilla is using the heat during hibernation.
The IPCC hasn’t just shot themselves in the foot on this one, they’ve blown it off with a Howitzer.
60
Superb post, well done.
It incorporates all you want to know about the status of the CAGW scare, and it demonstrates the total corruption of science by the IPCC and its fellow travelers.
Will it have any effect on the warmistas?
Noooh.
40
So in the last report we had issues about the Himalayas , receding glaciers etc etc. Relatively minor issues but enough to caste doubt on the report.
This time we have a very fundamental issue at the very core of the latest “explanation” from the
IPCC being easily upturned.
Jo , I hope you send a copy to the editors of the Australian in hope that will ask permission to reprint it or ask for an article based on it.
In fact I’d go further –send a copy to the editor of the Washington Post and the Daily Telegrph in the UK ( I’m sure James Dele. will help with the later). Other suggestions — Der Speigel and the Wall Street Journal.
60
Basically, the IPCC and the international ‘fraud of scientists’ want us to spend hundreds of billions of monies to do what the oceans are doing for free. Yes, that’s right, for ZERO MONEY. They don’t even need to be asked, or have an election, or need a consensus of the oceans, they just do it spontaneously (in their timescales, not man’s).
80
Just like Dinah Moe Humm who has a hot spot, but you ain’t been to it, so is the man made global warming in the deep, deep cold oceans.
Dinah Moe Humm- Frank Zappa: (just a general warning as for any Frank Zappa song)
10
But they still carry on and it is a bloody carry on.
I live on the north-western tip of Old North Wales and the sea is no stormier, colder, or warmer than it was when I was a chubby little boy forty years ago. As your German readers may say ‘Vee heff ze systems of ze compuders’. I would take that with a pinch of salt.
Seriously, the tide table for the year 1976 shows a max tide at 10.6 metres above chart datum.
The tide table for the year 2013 shows a max tide of, sfs*, 10.6 metres above chart datum.
This is for Liverpool bay and Irish Sea.
*sfs = surprise surprise.
50
“*sfs = surprise surprise.”
umm.. what’s the ‘f’ stand for, Peter? 😉
40
You need to understand the maths behind this,
The high tide marks don’t change, nor do the low tide marks.
Its the Average that is changing ! 😉
40
My head hurts
20
BUT, that chart datum would have been set and fixed at a point in space and time. The datum will be an average of some sort, but will have been fixed from a particular date onward.
For example;
On 5 May 1971, Geoscience Australia, on behalf of the National Mapping Council of Australia, carried out a simultaneous adjustment of 97 230 kilometres of two-way levelling. Mean sea level for 1966-1968 was assigned a value of 0.000m on the Australian Height Datum (AHD…
http://www.ga.gov.au/earth-monitoring/geodesy/geodetic-datums/australian-height-datum-ahd.html
00
The wavefront of the “missing heat” for the last 16 years, is I suspect, well on its way past Tau Ceti and Sirius after leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere.
60
Off Topic and I hope not too tasteless, but this ones for Julia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmKJ66X0QvM
20
Rajendra Pachauri looks more “serious” and “dignified” with his new hairpiece.
This makes AR5 something to be taken “seriously” I believe, because Pachauri’s hairpiece doesn’t look as “fake” as his previous (or Tom Karl’s).
101
LOL. 🙂
Sorry, that down tick was a false negative , caused by fat finger on a not so smart phone keypad.
30
Rajendra Pachauri looks like a dirty old sleaze bag that writes pornographic novels.
Oh wait, that is exactly what he does……
Two words – zero credibility.
30
I see three major problems with the AR5 report and this is one of them.
The problem is that when they start to fiddle with the models to account for the heat they assert is being sucked into the oceans – it will destroy their hind-casting. This means its back to the drawing board for every parameter that they are 95% confident about. It also means that their future projections aren’t worth tuppence rather than 95% confidence.
The other two points that I see are
The disappearance of the “hockey stick” without comment and the reinstatement of the Medieval Warm period and Roman Warm periods – if these are natural events of the same magnitude as the current warming event – but they have no explanation for them – then 95% certinty of CO2 causing this event is fanciful to say the least
And they now attribute only 50% heating to CO2 rest to natural cycles effectively. But blind Freddy can see that the heating trend goes way back to the early 1800s before atmospheric CO2 spiked so even 50% attribution to CO2 is fanciful let alone 95% confidence
I always liked this glacial retreat map which shows Alaskan glaciers were in retreat from around the time of Captain Cook’s visit!
80
The southern Antarctic whalers made very careful maps of the glacial bays … both their livelihood and lives depended on these maps. One can view them with a simple Google
The glaciers they mapped have been in retreat at least since the late 18oo’s, primarily because the accumulation of land ice over the Antarctic continent slowed as it became drier (little snow, but -60C winters)
10
Antarctic Continental snow accumulated in the centre pushes ice off the edges like snow on the roof of a house.
Curious paucity of the usual apologists on this thread
30
“I always liked this glacial retreat map which shows Alaskan glaciers were in retreat from around the time of Captain Cook’s visit!”
Captain Cook caused Global Warming?
00
“The Ocean ate my Global Warming.”
Now, that’s as great a bumper sticker slogan as you would ever find!
90
Bob,
O/T but I’ll still vote for this one
“If Dolly Parton was in farming she’d be flat busted too”
10
The problem is, here in Holyhead we have what are locally known as “bathyometric devices” but in the scientific parlance are called “sticks” (I am sorry to baffle you with science).
These so-called sticks reveal that the sea-level was going to be higher than Olympus Mons on Mars and if we didn’t do something about it there would be hell to pay.
Meanwhile the followers of the bathyometric devices continue to catch mackerel in the normal way.
70
” IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, ”
Oh, that abysmal heat!
Sorry, the cheap wine is starting to taste good.
60
You Aussie thinkers seem to have something of a taste for the old vino.
Bring on the champagne I say. Global Warming has been averted (probably no thanks to the IPCC). Celebrate that feeling while it lasts, and before the harsh reality of a potential Global Cooling has to be faced.
100
Mate, the whole thing is enough to drive you to drink…..
10
The latest IPCC report has been released into a World amidst an almost carnival atmosphere.
The Warming has gone missing ( & the Australuan political reality – which sometimes lags objective reality by 3 to 5 years) has caught up with it.
Why isn’t the IPCC rejoicing ?
Global Warming has gone AWOL.
Instead of facing up to a potentially impending cooling that could kill millions, the IPCC is still looking under every rock for its fabled warming. What a useless bunch.
120
Well its because they need impending doom to survive.
Tim Flannery when questioned on the topic of how rainfall levels had basically been 180° to his predictions noted that “its unfortunate when the observational evidence doesn’t meet the model predictions”.
He could have said “I happy to be wrong if it means farmers have some water for a change” (remembering this was all at the end of his predictions of endless drought), but no. Tim could only see the cloud over his religion obscuring the silver lining for Australian families.
AGW disciples dont care about any perceived upside, its all about the money. Fear = a budget, thats all there is.
100
The 0.1 degree Celsius accuracy often cited for the ARGO buoys temperature at depth profiles is more wishful thinking than fact.
A problem with the ARGO buoys is the inaccuracy and time-varying sensitivity and offsets in depth measurement. That’s what determined the 30m depth interval. Combined with the temperature lapse rate it means the temperature at depth profiles are unreliable indicators of warming (but OK for salinity).
Normally the pressure sensor sensitivity changes in the direction of overestimating depth, which together with the temperature lapse rate means it gives temperature readings at a particular depth that have a false warming over time component.
Unfortunately, a large proportion of the buoys develop leaks that push the sensitivity change and drift in the other direction. When the vertical offset error increases to the point where the buoy at the surface gives its position as significantly above sea level, then the fault is detected and offsetting adjustments (which themselves are an error source) are applied to the data.
The certainty of any warming referred to in Levitus for ocean depths between 700m and 2000m is surely belied by the warming bias that would be expected during the period when the average deployment period of ARGO buoys is increasing.
50
Lee G #48
Do you know what relationship exists between measurement error and recorded depth/temp/salinity? Is this the same for all buoys?
10
The spec had an allowance (90% confidence) for drift over the expected deployment period (4 years) of ±1.3 dbar (±13 metre) The corresponding temperature error depends on the temperature lapse rate at the particular location and measurement depth, but a reasonable figure IMHO would be in the range 0.06°C to 0.12°C. Note that allowance does not cover the much greater error associated with the common fault to which I referred.
00
Correction: My previous post should have read in part -50m and 50m above sea level respectively and not -500m.
By 2009, bout 30% of buoys from the major supplier were developing the leakage problem. The error involves both an offset and an error proportional to depth. The slope error and offset error don’t have a strict linear relationship- initially the micro-leak drift appears as a pure offset at all pressures. The apparent negative drift rate is -0.5 to -1 dbar per year, accelerating over time. The drift can eventually be very large- up to -50 dbar (-50m ie 50m above sea level for the surface buoy). According to the 2010 notice by the manufacturer the total error from the microleak fault can amount to -65 metre at 200m depth:
20
Sorry, another typo:
20
So let’s get this straight – they DON’T have a sample collection of ARGO buoys in a pressure chamber in the lab where they can calibrate them at will?
00
The floats are, of course, properly calibrated before deployment and can be recovered and replaced when the microleak fault is great enough to be detected. The practice however, has been to apply a correction to the data from known faulty floats and to allow them to remain in service. Apparently, a warranty replacement program for the ARGO Types 41 and 41cp CTDs is planned to commence in 2014.
10
How does the ”hot” deep ocean preserve sunken vessels for a century and beyond ?
Why does beer dropped into the ocean on a long rope remain chilled in the hot ocean
I am confused !!
70
Refer to the previous thread. “We are too stupid to understand”
60
I know it’s only TV, and they use ‘rabbitburrow’ or someone else with an authoritative voice to read the script, but I remember watching those documentaries, you know, the usual, ABC Sunday nights after the News.
They would have a remote camera in the deepest depths of the World’s oceans and they would occasionally show vents or the like with gases and heat bubbling out of them, always rising to the surface, you know, naturally, because, well, heat rises.
Now, all of a sudden this heat mysteriously sinks into those deepest of the World’s oceans, and hey, I know it’s borne there by the currents, but do those currents have some ‘heat escape prevention shield’ around them so that heat cannot do what it is supposed to do ….. rise, and anyway, this heat is only incrementally tiny amounts.
Then to top it all off it seems that those continually moving currents just, umm, drop the heat off at the very depth of the ocean, you know, the current keeps doing what it is doing, moving, but the heat just stays in the ocean’s depths.
It looks to me (and hey, what would I know about Science) like the IPCC, who just KNOW that there MUST be a hotspot somewhere are looking for a place to tell us where that heat is, you know, somewhere that can’t be checked. (yet)
First it was in the Upper Troposphere, but when they actually did measurements, it wasn’t there, so now they have to find a hiding place where it mysteriously lurks and those voices from the other side of the closed debate cannot prove that it’s NOT there.
So now we spend more enormous amounts of money finding ways to measure the temperature of the deep oceans with thermometers calibrated to thousandths of a degree.
I can just see the next IPCC report after those measurements prove that the missing heat is not in those ocean depths.
Headline IPCC Report.
Tony.
100
Actually, improved Argo buoys capable of depth-diving to >2000m are almost ready to deploy
The empirical data from this new Argo fleet will be fascinating (if we can get our hands on the actual unadjusted data) …
90
Yes and more than 15 years worth of unadjusted data…..
Do you know how old I’ll be then?
And by then either AGW will be flushed out as farce or we’ll be in deep do do.
Oh and lastly, I predict they’ll be finding cold, Lots of cold. Except if they hover around vents……
20
Nope 🙂
But the new Argo fleet will start data collection and reporting within 12 months. A few years, perhaps five, should be sufficient. Irrespective of the political impact, I’d really like to know –
But then geologists are always accused of forever wanting more data 🙂
20
A significant part of the ARGO buoy temperature data is adjusted, to ‘correct’ for drift in depth measurements.
00
For a whole generation global warmongers have ridiculed us realists – and called us “deniers” – for disagreeing with their ridiculous fantasies.
And now they are denying reality.
40
The point is it is and never was about a search for truth. If it was or were or is the scientists would definitely have worked it out by now.
I wander often across the endless wastes that constitute the academic literature and I have learned that almost all are moderated
20
What if it’s not hiding, but rather has disguised itself to resemble the surrounding water temp, or being the clever rascal we all know heat to be, is STILL in the atmosphere and just pretending to be 1C cooler than it really is.
Now where the “F” is my Noble and grant money!!??
90
Cold heat!!!!
By George, I think you’ve got it!
70
Didn’t the cold fusion guys use cold heat?
10
That’s what I like to see.. a thinking mind !!
You sir, have a great future as a climate scientist…
… should you choose to accept the dishonour.
30
I just saw a program on the BBC which showed how the lowest annual land temperature in the northern hemisphere is reached on ~January 19 every year (on average) due to a time lag as the land keeps cooling for about a month after the lowest output in solar radiation is reached on Dec 21.
Then they showed how maximum sea ice extent in Greenland isn’t reached until mid March-even longer than the lowest temperature on land above-because the oceans are even slower than the land in the time it takes to stop cooling down-the water keeps cooling for around 4 months after the lowest solar minimum.
The same researchers then showed arctic sea ice and how it has reduced over the last 30 years or so, and then despite the fact the solar output had increased in the 20th century, and despite all the previous discussion, said this was because of human greenhouse gases, with no mention of the sun at all.
They just showed 5 minutes earlier how solar effects have significant time lag, but couldn’t realise that this could also be applied to decadal scales concerning the arctic sea ice extent. The evidence was staring them in the face but they couldn’t see it.
90
so many writers for this piece, which contradicts itself para after para. they attempt to show CAGW is mainstream now, yet admit the public aren’t buying it:
30 Sept: Reuters: Paul Taylor: ANALYSIS-Success, compromise, ageing erode Europe’s Greens
(Writing by Paul Taylor; additional reporting by Hans-Edzard Busemann in Berlin, Jussi Rosendahl in Helsinki and Georgina Prodhan in Vienna; editing by Ron Askew.)
Germany’s Greens, trailblazers of political ecology, lost ground in a September 22 general election, finishing fourth on 8.4 percent behind the radical Left party, and failing to secure the coalition they wanted with the center-left Social Democrats. The party’s senior leaders resigned.
The Greens are now agonizing over whether to enter a coalition with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, while their French cousins are feuding over whether to stay in government with President Francois Hollande’s Socialists…
One of the French party’s former presidential candidates, Noel Mamere, walked out in disgust last week, saying the Greens had sold their souls for power, stopped producing innovative ideas and become a “trade union of elected officials”…
To a degree, the Greens have become victims of their own success. We are all green now.
Many of the issues they forced onto Europe’s policy agenda – from renewable energy to sustainable development or gay rights – have been embraced by the mainstream parties, at least in part.
Fighting climate change, reducing carbon emissions and recycling waste are standard policies for European governments nowadays, albeit pursued with less zeal than the Greens demand…
Merkel’s center-right government robbed the ecologists of probably their most potent issue when she decided to phase out nuclear power plants in Germany after the Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan in 2011…
Likewise, Finland’s Greens have been damaged by staying in a coalition that decided to build new nuclear power stations…
Generation change has also caught up with the Greens.
The activists in jeans and T-shirts whose playful insolence blew a gust of fresh air into parliaments and local assemblies across Europe in the 80s and 90s have become pillars of the establishment in many countries…
The Greens’ failure to capitalize on the global financial crisis or the euro zone’s debt woes suggests they are seen as a “fair weather” party, advocating policies that seem a luxury in tough economic times.
Despite scientific reports on the devastating march of man-made global warming, the public appetite for carbon taxes, wind turbines and recycling biomass has diminished.
In the see-saw between industrial efficiency and environmental sustainability, the balance has swung for now towards short-term economic interests.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-eu-greens-analysis-idUSBRE98T04Z20130930
10
Yeah I love that meme….
Skeptics are a tiny minority of whackos on the one hand, but we are also drowning out the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe in AGW on the other.
In any other debate, you’d say you cant have it both ways… in this one… its business as usual for a complete contradiction to be the norm.
00
In the meantime, the NZ Herald has published more than 11 (!!) articles (One full page on page 3) how global warming is now worse than we thought and that they are certain that we are causing it.
In the same week…
Auckland under threat from volcanic eruptions (Complete with a scary artist impression).
The South Island under threat from Tsunamis (10 articles in one week!).
‘Journalists’ (Of the post-modern sort) here are really into the Climate- and Natural disaster porn.
20
IPCC AR5 report on the various climate models for projections, scenarios (never predictions now)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf
See Boxes 9.1 and 9.2
Judith Curry’s comments on the incomplete, circular “logic” in Box 9.2:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/#more-13176
Steve McIntyre’s comments on Box 9.2 and Marotzke’s dishonest spin:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/marotzkes-broken-promise/
So far, the only contras to these analyses are just more tedious, monotonous ad homs
40
Ian
I think articles by Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre is very significant.
It clearly shows these guys are running around in circles, completely dishonest and are trying so hard to cover up the facts they forget the lies they tell from one interview to the next.
Once again it will be the Internet to the rescue.Some of these “scientists” are not only wedded to the religion but they also have big egos, so will not be able to resist the MSM attention. They will continue to trip over themselves.
00
Excellent article,Jo.
20
Hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1na4adCFiLw
10
Over at Bishop Hill, they’ve identified another campus of national embarassment: Reading University.
There’s a video with the good Professor waving metaphors and graphics including CGI oceans under which the heat is “evidently” hiding.
My first comment there:
20
And finally, Figure 1.4 AR5 Chapter 1 has been censored by the IPCC in the final report
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/#more-18425
Exactly as I predicted about 10 days ago … hard to disabuse me of “cynical negativity” when this type of propaganda occurs repeatedly and predictably
[This is also the reason I was earlier hunting a complete copy of the report, with all Figures included. The old “pea and thimble” trick, 99]
20
The IPCC report that climatologists can discern, with certainty, the global temperature rise signal from the increase of anthropogenic forcing (1.6 watt/metre²) over the industrial era, particularly in the last 50 years or so.
That variation (over 50 years) would be similar in magnitude to the effect at the surface of the 11-year variation of solar irradiance associated with the solar cycle.
Why can’t climate scientists see that repeating signal in the global average temperature trend?
10
“Why can’t climate scientists see that repeating signal in the global average temperature trend?”
Mainly because Hansen et.al wiped out most of the repeating signal. 🙂
10
More likely is that the signal is so attenuated by negative feedback in the earth’s climate processes that it can’t be seen in the noise. If that’s the explanation, what does it imply about the way those processes would be expected to respond to anthropogenic forcing?
00
.
OMG! Gizmodo are at it again!
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/watch-nasas-predictions-about-climate-change-for-the-next-87-years/#comment-1735390
00
The communist anti human ipcc wants us all to believe that HOT WATER stays on the bottom of the ocean….
DUH!
Heat rises.
They should study high school science.
BLOODY IMBECILES @#$!
20
Jo – you are much too kind when you say:
“The only point that matters is whether the models have verifiable predictive skill of any kind. They don’t: Ergo the theory is wrong.”
As Wolfgang Pauli would have said – “it’s not even wrong”.
10
I’m showing my age….. this whole issue with the models reminds me of Bullwinkle the Moose doing magic…. [Bullwinkle] “Hey Rocky… Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”…. [Rocky] “Again!… That trick never works!”…. [Bullwinkle] “This time for sure!”…. pulls an angry lion out the hat….[Bullwinkle] “I don’t know my own strength”……
10
For the sausage-machine input from the politicians into the AR5 SPM, see:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/negotiating-the-ipcc-spm/#more-13189
It is worth noting Australia’s (ie. Hunt) contributions to this
00
Thanks, Jo.
I’ve finally had a chance of looking at this. It’s great. Just what we need, and especially the questions at the end.
“it’s so big it hid a 650 km volcano until two weeks ago.”
The volcano kept dodging behind the seaweed.
“Only two people have been to the bottom ever (correction, three men), and they stayed just 20 minutes (and all they saw was silt). ”
I’ve been to the bottom often. Saw mostly sand, but the bit of the bottom I’ve seen most of is in St. Vincent’s gulf, just off Grange beach. That was 50 – 60 years ago. They might have changed it since.
“3.How did we measure global ocean temperature 50 years ago?”
I used to stick my toe in.
21
The Dog Ate my Homework
The Goat Ate the Data
So this must be
The Kraken* Ate my Global Warming
* Mythical many tentacled Sea Monster
00
Yes! That’s it!
00
[…] some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures — not realizing they convert to a […]
00
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their… […]
00
[…] warming ‘Pause’ was vaguely mentioned in the latest IPCC report, albeit claiming the “Missing heat” is hiding in the deep oceans, where quite conveniently we have no accurate measuring […]
00
[…] Fossil Fuel Mandates: Even when their Catastrophic Climate Change theory shows no relationship with reality the environmental extremists persist in their mission to decarbonize human civilization […]
01
Hi Jo, there is a typo in the text Levitus not Levitis
00
[…] näkemys asiasta on Joanne Novalla (Linkki). Kritiikitön näkemys löytyy RealClimate-sivustolta […]
00
[…] interested in the nitty gritty of the ocean heat debate are invited to consult Joanne Nova here, Bob Tisdale writing at WattsUpWithThat here, Lucia Liljegren here, Judith Curry here, and Roger […]
00