Home/BlogThe evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this, folks.
Using a combination of the GISS-assumed external forcings for long-term temperature changes, and an El Nino/La Nina internal forcing term for year-to-year variability, a simple Forcing-Feedback-Diffusion (FFD) model explains 90% of the variance in ocean heat content variations in the surface-to-50 meter depth layer since 1955 (click for full-size version):
The dashed lines are 3rd order polynomial fits; I have included a small offset between the model and observation data so you can see those trend curves, otherwise they would lie on top of each other. Note that the model captures the lack of warming since about 2003.
Here are the model-vs-observations warming trends as a function of ocean depth; I have plotted them for both the full period (56 years, 1955-2010), and also for the 2nd half of the period (1983-2010) which is when almost all of the warming below 200 meters occurred (click for full-size version):
Now, the important news is that the model fits to the data were accomplished with a climate sensitivity of only 1.1 deg. C for a doubling of CO2 (a feedback parameter of 3.6 W m-2 K-1). This is well below what the IPCC claims for future warming rates.
Also, without the El Nino/La Nina term, the model produces far too much warming late in the period. So, a lack of ocean warming since about 2003 could be La Nina’s ‘canceling out’ CO2 warming. (I found using the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO, as a natural forcing term did basically the same thing, but it could not capture the large El Nino/La Nina temperature swings.)
Of course, there could be other natural forcings at work, too. To the extent that a portion of warming since the 1950s was due to those processes, this would mean climate sensitivity is lower still.
Where’s that Darn Missing Heat?
Now, there are Trenberthian claims out there that a recent lack of warming is due to the ‘missing heat’ hiding in the deep ocean somewhere, just waiting to pounce on us when we aren’t looking. To address this possibility, the model mixes a substantial amount of extra heat down to 2000 meters depth (even though a 2009 Levitus presentation suggested that there has been essentially no warming below 1500 meters depth…see slide 14 here).
In fact, even with low climate sensitivity, the model solution for 1955-2010 pumps 18% more heat into the 0-700 meter layer than the Levitus observations show for that 56 year period. Furthermore, 30% of the total heat pumped into the ocean by the model is below 700 meters deep. So, it appears that even deep ocean heating cannot explain away a recent lack of surface warming.
One of the things you find with these models is that, if the heat cannot mix below the thermocline, then there is no way for the ocean below the thermocline to warm. The Levitus data suggests an average thermocline depth of 100 meters or so….notice the “bend” in the warming profiles around that depth, suggesting resistance to turbulent heat diffusion. Instead, much of the extra heat in the mixed layer is lost to space through negative feedback processes which the IPCC claims are instead positive.
[For a little entertainment, here’s an animation of the three-monthly changes in the temperature profile down to 700 meters, 1955 through early 2011, put together for me by Danny Braswell]:
Levitus temperature profile animation
Conclusion
The bottom line is that the relatively weak warming of the ocean since the 1950s is consistent with negative feedback (low climate sensitivity), not positive feedback. The ocean mixed layer and the atmosphere convectively coupled to it loses excess heat to outer space before it can be mixed into the deep ocean.
In other words, Trenberth’s missing heat is not in the deep ocean…it’s instead lost in outer space.
Model Details:
– 40 model layers, each 50 m thick, to a depth of 2,000 meters (the atmosphere is assumed to be in convective equilibrium with the top layer, and its heat capacity is small enough to be ignored).
– Energy is conserved in each model layer through a combination of forcing, feedback (top layer only), and turbulent heat diffusion between layers.
– Feedback (loss of excess energy to space from implicit changes in the atmosphere with temperature) is proportional to the top layer temperature departure from average.
– Heat diffusion coefficients between layers are manually adjusted to give an approximate fit to the warming profiles with depth. We are working on further optimizing those fits with an iterative adjustment procedure.
– Yearly ‘external’ forcing estimates are from GISS, interpolated to monthly, and extrapolated thru 2010.
– El Nino/La Nina ‘internal’ forcing is empirically derived based upon a best fit to observed year-to-year temperature variations: forcing = 0.85 times the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), in Watts per sq. meter, with a time lag of 3 months.
– Model is initialized in 1900 using GISS forcings; MEI forcing is included starting in 1955 (which is when the ocean temperature observations become available for comparison).
Pretty neat! But being a Good Skeptic, whenever anyone predicts temperature using El-Nino/La-Nina “forcings”, PDO “forcings”, etc, I always wonder whether those “forcings” (of unknown origin) are in fact somehow being *caused* by temperature itself. It would then not be surprising to find we can predict temperate using an indirect measure of temperature itself… (And well, El-Nino/La-Nina *are* basically temperature phenomena in the first place.)
Sadly I am not knowledgeable enough on climate science to know whether my suspicious are ill-founded.
BTW, I found it very intriguing that you showed El-Nino/La-Nina are at least partly caused by variations in cloud cover 🙂 .
Does it make a difference if you use different ENSO indices? For instance, you could include the ENSO forcings from before the MEI begins if you used, say, SOI, which goes back to the 1870’s although it sometimes seems to drift from ENSO SST’s. It also might be worth looking at the timing of warming and cooling pulses down into the ocean to study what exactly is causing the “bumps” like in the 1983-2010 curve.
Have not tried SOI, but in the past I found MEI is better correlated with global SST variations than SOI. MEI is a more “complete” index of ENSO activity.
I found an MEI reconstruction back to 1880…I will post the results with that, too.
There will be a rebuttal that you have got it wrong, that the “missing heat” actually shows up in your work. Playing the Devil’s Advocate, what could they be saying? And aren’t the warmists similarly disputing the “missing” tropospheric hotspot of IPCC models?
Does the Trenberth/IPCC model of heating the ocean say that there “will” be a heating event, just not now (along with the acceleration of temperature and sea-level rises)?
I suppose a person could look at it that way, Doug.
But the way I was looking at the “missing heat” issue is this: Has the *lack of recent warming* been due to:
(1) low climate sensitivity, which the IPCC and Trenberth do not believe, or
(2) the extra heat is being mixed so rapidly into the deep ocean that it has reduced the surface warming (which Trenberth advocates)?
I’m saying it’s the former…but that doesn’t mean there is NO heat being mixed into the deep ocean. Just that it cannot explain the lack of recent warming. It requires low climate sensitivity.
Remember, the IPCC models already put TOO MUCH heat down there compared to observations…so how can anyone claim that there is even MORE heat being pumped down there than the IPCC expects? It makes no sense to me.
Although my skills are in chemistry, thermodynamics was not my favourite subject and as such any comments positive or negative on the following are welcome.
By observation Rain, hail and snow are generally colder then the water vapour from which they were formed. If we consider that the water vapour in our atmosphere behaves as though it was part of a steam cycle it should be able to be monitored via the rankine cycle. For a general look at the water vapour in our atmosphere we can use as initial conditions a pressure of 1 atm and a temperature of 15 C as the source of water vapour at the earths surface the enthalpy of evaporation is 2465.9 KJ/Kg and for the condensing surface we can use 0.5 atm and -10 C and the corresponding enthalpy of condensation is 2524.5 KJ/Kg which means excess heat energy to the value of 58.6 KJ/Kg has been transferred from the land/ocean surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be radiated to space, without being trapped by the small amount of total greenhouse gases present above the clouds
Nice work here again Roy without a doubt!
Of course, “warmers” will point toward June 2011 being the 7th warmest on record and will gloss over this with a shrug and say that ENSO had nothing to do with the June 2011 data and that this model we see here is nothing more than a spin on science that is “settled”. Nevermind, that this is actual science and not statistics. But unfortunately real science seems to be up against a massive political wall that will eventually become a house of cards when Mother Nature tears down that agenda.
To elaborate on what I mean by the June 2011 data showing a warm June…
It will be said that La Nina being a cold signal couldn’t have factored in to the June 2011 being warm and that it is obviously from greenhouse gases.
What does the surface temperature in your model look like before 1950?
I’ve got that now back to 1880…will post in the morning.
I see that the plots only go back to 1955. What sort of correlation do you get if you go back before that time using the same model paramters as above. Or are the OHC data too unreliable to do that.
As I understand it, the missing heat is the difference between the incoming solar radiation and the radiation given off by the earth at the top of the atmosphere, minus the heat-up of the earth. I’m not an expert in optics, but it would seem to be possible to accurately measure the solar radiation as it is basically coming from a point source. Conversely, wouldn’t it be very hard to accurately measure the outgoing radiation as it is widely diffused. Wouldn’t radiation coming in at low angles reflect off the measureing device?
It’s interesting that the 1983-2010 “OBS” line crosses the “MODEL” line at about a temperature trend of 0.04 – 0.05 deg C / decade, which is about the centennial warming trend. Is this a coincidence?
yes.
If you have anyone at UAH that is familiar with calculating temperature history from borehole temperatures, I would show him this figure and ask whether a time series of these profiles would reveal anything about long term thermal history at the site, in particular about heat content. That temperature profile is no accident. This is a topic that demands some attention.
But surface temperature readings show no such “lack of warming since about 2003.” 2005 and 2010 are at least two years that were warmer than 2003. And since 2003, there has still not been one single month that the world temperature has been below average. (316 consecutive months now with nothing short of a space body strike or a major volcano eruption to keep it from going beyond 500) Your claim of “anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm” is quite invalid.
My apologies to those who might have replied to my last post(s) in the previous thread and other long threads, with no reply from me. After a certain amount of posts per thread (on this website) I can no longer read what has been posted or respond. This is a pretty old computer so the glitch is probably at my end. Sorry.
Picking and choosing individual years and isolated statistics is not a strong argument compared to the 56 years of correspondence I show between an insensitive model and observations.
No one disputes it has been warm lately. But for the IPCC to be correct, it *should* have warmed more than we have seen, and it should still be warming at the same rate it has been (which it is not) for global warming to be a problem.
Dr Spencer says:
Picking and choosing individual years and isolated statistics is not a strong argument compared to the 56 years of correspondence I show between an insensitive model and observations.
As you may recall sir, the point in question was whether or not there actually was a “lack of warming” since 2003. The ratio between the lack of warming and the lack of cooling during that time could be compared to that of an ant -vs- an elephant.
Dr Spencer says:
“No one disputes it has been warm lately.”
Lately? Do you dispute NOAA and the WMO’s claim of 316 consecutive months the world temperature has been above average? Even the peak of an interglacial can’t do that. Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover can’t do that. The sun did not get hotter. There is no massive natural leak of Co2 anywhere. That only leaves the AGW gasses. (and the warmer bedrock of millions of years ago)
First of all, you have no clue what happened during the peak of interglacials. No one does. To claim you do makes me question your credibility.
Secondly, you are missing the point: strings of warm years or not, the temperature changes are consistent with LOW climate sensitivity. The fact that warming has both been weaker than predicted and slowed considerably (if not stopped) in recent years is inconsistent with the behavior of ALL the IPCC models.
Remember, it has been only 0.4 deg. warming in 50 years! And that’s supposed to be a lot(?)
I say that the fact we are warmer now than anytime in the last 500+ years is a GOOD thing anyway… From what I hear, the Little Ice Age sucked.
Dr.Spencer, nicely done.
Any chance that the “climate sensitivity” is exactly equal to ZERO ? (without any rounding errors, i.e. not a small number close to zero, but EXACTLY ZERO).
Seems like your analyses are leading to that conclusion.
My analysis regarding the “speed of heat” through the system also leads to that conclusion.
I posit that the “missing heat” referred to by some climate scientists is actually currently moving away from the Earth as a spherical IR wavefront that is exactly (X + D) light years away from the Earth. In this equation X equals the amount of time expired since the heat arrived here (i.e. 100 years for the sunlight that arrived in 1911) and D equals the very slight delay introduced while that sunlight travelled through the Earth’s atmosphere (including a few side trips as “backradiation”) i.e. a few, perhaps as much as a hundred milliseconds ?
Cheers, Kevin
Dr.Spencer, nicely done.
Any chance that the “climate sensitivity” is exactly equal to ZERO ? (without any rounding errors, i.e. not a small number close to zero, but EXACTLY ZERO).
Seems like your analyses are leading to that conclusion.
My analysis regarding the “speed of heat” through the system also leads to that conclusion.
I posit that the “missing heat” referred to by some climate scientists is actually currently moving away from the Earth as a spherical IR wavefront that is exactly (X + D) light years away from the Earth. In this equation X equals the amount of time expired since the heat arrived here (i.e. 100 years for the sunlight arriving in 1911) and D equals the very slight delay introduced while that sunlight travelled through the Earth’s atmosphere. D includes a few quick side trips as “backradiation” and probably amounts to a few,or perhaps asmuch as a hundred milliseconds.
Cheers, Kevin
Sorry for the double post, it seemed that the first one went into the “ether”
Kevin
lets not forget that with the solar influence also comes cloud coverage or lack therof. The amount of diurnal coverage on the dayside VS. the nightside makes the biggest impact of all factors that we know of. Lots of cloud coverage on the dayside and little on the nightside brings on a cool breeze and as the phenomena persists over time we move toward glaciation.
Dr Spencer says:
“you have no clue what happened during the peak of interglacials. No one does.”
During the peak of an interglacial, the temperature is above normal 3-4 months per year and COLDER than normal 3-4 months per year. It’s when the earth’s orbit is at it’s most lopsided in it’s wobble orbit around the sun. The earth does not move closer to the sun and stay there year round at any point in time. The next one will begin about 6000 years from now. (with the peak’s beginning. 1000 years after that)
Dr Spencer says:
“The fact that warming has both been weaker than predicted and slowed considerably (if not stopped) in recent years is inconsistent with the behavior of ALL the IPCC models.”
The fact that the world temperature spikes then stalls, spikes then stalls… and never drops below normal makes the AGW thumbprint even more unique because that’s exactly how AGW works.
Dr Spencer says:
“Remember, it has been only 0.4 deg. warming in 50 years! And that’s supposed to be a lot(?)”
2010 (the warmest year on record) the world temp was 1.21 (F) above average. (which of course began AFTER the world temp had been above average to 298 consecutive months)
Dr Spencer says (unaware it would seem):
“I say that the fact we are warmer now than anytime in the last 500+ years is a GOOD thing anyway… From what I hear, the Little Ice Age sucked.”
But the AGW grande finale IS ice age conditions, in places, when too much ice melts, affecting the salinity of ocean waters, and shutting down the ocean’s conveyor belt effect.
Terry-if there are scientists that think that ocean heat content measurements and available and useful for climate studies before the fifties, they don’t seem to publish them. As far as I know, no one has published such an early twentieth century history. They have published sea surface temperature data, though.
Since much of the early data comes from expendable bathythermographs, which weren’t invented until the early sixties, I am not surprised that little data would be available from before that.
Dragontide says:
“2010 (the warmest year on record) the world temp was 1.21 (F) above average. (which of course began AFTER the world temp had been above average to 298 consecutive months)”
When you have an upward trend, it means that recorded temperatures are generally higher toward the end of the trend – that’s what makes the trend an upward one. To say that this past decade or this past year (2010) was the ‘hottest on record’ is like saying that you’ve owned a car for 10 years and for each of the first 9 years you’ve driven it 11,000 miles for a total of 99,000 miles but only 1,000 miles in 10th year – then from this saying you’ve driven the car further in the last year than you have ever driven it before.
Dragonquest,
while your ASSumptions are unfounded (that the ice core records and other proxies can give us data to that accuracy and precision), and your interpretations are excessive, you were doing pretty good until you got to 2010 being the warmest year on record. Is that ONE record, GISS??
Do you understand statistical uncertainty?? Do you understand that EVEN IF GISS published a GAT higher than previously recorded GAT’s there is no confidence in that interpretation?? Part of the issue is, of course, that they do not publish the error bars for their computations and might not do it correctly even if they tried.
You should drop by http://wmbriggs.com/blog/, a real statistician, and ask him about it as I am a moron like you!! Or maybe our host would have the time to give us a quick review.
Dragonwide,
you might be interested in what a gentleman who works at GISS has to say about their temperature product:
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/07/19/nasas-inconvenient-ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/
“As reported in a NASA memo to USA Today’s weather editor from Reto Ruedy at GISS: “My recommendation to you is to continue using NCRDC [NOAA] data for U.S. mean [temperatures] and Phil Jones’ [CRU] data for the global mean…We are basically a modeling group…for that purpose what we do is more than accurate enough [to assess model results]. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.” He clarified this point, saying, “…the National Climate Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate.””
Dr. Ruedy of GISS confessed in an email that “[the United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date, and in another that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct”, he said. “Indeed, in 490 of the 1,057 stations the USHCN data was up to 1 C degree colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data was the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data was warmer than the GHCN data.”
Dr. Theon also testified that: “My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit”. He observed: “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.” He then went on to say “Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy”.
RW says:
“When you have an upward trend, it means that recorded temperatures are generally higher toward the end of the trend”
The cause of the trend does not allow the trend to end at this time or anytime soon. It takes several years for AGW gasses to dissipate.
Kuhnkat says:
“you were doing pretty good until you got to 2010 being the warmest year on record. Is that ONE record, GISS??
That’s data from all the world’s weather monitoring stations, in comparison with all paleoclimate data and records that go back to 1880. (NOAA’s monthly and annual “State of the Climate” reports)
Back in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan asked Bob Corell to look into the greenhouse effect. Since that time he, along with Paul Meyewski and many others have collected vast amounts ice core samples, sediments, etc… They named a mountain in Antarctica after Meyewski because he’s been there so many times. (along with several northern ventures as well)
Those paleoclimate numbers were able to nail down details of the super-volcano eruption of 75,000 years ago to a T. (among many other things)
Dr Spencer writes: “Instead, much of the extra heat in the mixed layer is lost to space through negative feedback processes which the IPCC claims are instead positive.”
I hope I hardly need to say that I am very glad to see this grand and fine work by the admirable Dr Spencer, to discomfit the wicked IPCC. But still I am wary not to underestimate our evil enemy, or to expose any potential weakness to his depredations, for he walketh about, as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.
As I understand it, the flawed IPCC “forcings and feedbacks” formalism distinguishes between (a) overall total feedback which is necessarily negative for a non-explosive process; and (b) component contributory moieties of “non-Planck” feedback, which are necessarily less in total than the so-called “Planck response for the eventual steady-state or ‘equilibrium’ state”, but can in a priori principle be either positive or negative, still adding with the Planck response to a negative total overall feedback as in (a). (In writing this I am not in the least endorsing the IPCC “forcings and feedbacks” formalism with its specious story of “amplification”.)
As I understand the good Dr Spencer’s model, it considers only the overall feedback (a) and does not fiddle with the IPCC’s contributory moieties (b), and so does not actually consider their signs. Thus it is not material to say of Dr Spencer’s model that it contrasts with the IPCC model by having negative feedback, not positive feedback as in the IPCC story; for Dr Spencer’s model has feedback only of the overall kind (a) and is comparable only with the IPCC’s overall feedback (a) which is necessarily negative? In other words, as I understand it, Dr Spencer’s externally driven first-order linear model (in ordinary scientific language in contrast to IPCC language) refers only to the overall eventual “climate sensitivity”, and not to the IPCC’s so-called “reference Planck response” as a separately identified quantity, nor to its speciously so-called “feedback amplification”. Or am I muddled in my thinking about this? Christopher Game
Fine work, Dr Spencer…
It would be nice to see the charts again, with the R^2 values shown, WITH the high sensitivity the IPCC claims, both at the high, and (even) higher limits they support. In other words “here is what it would look like IF the IPCC sensitivity was correct. The fit would be terrible, as it always is.
Also, is it more correct for your result to be described as neutral to negative feedback, given that the no-feedback sensitivity is around 1.2°C?, or is negative feedback more appropriate for some other reason?
Thanks again, Mike Smith.
Dr Spencer writes: “the model fits to the data were accomplished with a climate sensitivity of only 1.1 deg. C for a doubling of CO2 (a feedback parameter of 3.6 W m-2 K-1). This is well below what the IPCC claims for future warming rates.”
Dr Spencer also writes: “the extra heat in the mixed layer is lost to space through negative feedback processes which the IPCC claims are instead positive.”
Taking the “climate sensitivity” as 1.1C for a CO2 doubling, the IPCC would say that there was “nearly zero feedback” in their terminology which refers to contributory component moieties of feedback (b). But Dr Spencer calls the very same 1.1C for CO2 doubling “negative feedback”, because he is referring not to moieties of feedback, but instead to overall feedback (a).
The confusion arises because the word ‘feedback’ is being used referring to two different contexts. One is the strained abuse of the word in the IPCC “forcings and feedbacks” formalism, misleadingly citing Bode 1945; the other is Dr Spencer’s looser more ordinary language use of the word to refer to negative real rate coefficients.
On reflection I think I was mistaken above to write “externally driven first order linear model”. I think I probably ought to have written “externally driven second order linear model” to describe Dr Spencer’s model? Christopher Game
Acknowledging the missing heat was a major breakthrough in the discussion with Trenberth, et. al.
The problem is that they cannot explain how heat, supposedly hiding in the deep ocean, was able to transit through the surface layers in recent years without being detected. Thus far the the notion of “heat in the pipeline” that will “come back to bite us” is nothing more than wishful thinking on their part.
@Dragontide
The temperatures are above average if you pretend the earth was created in 1979. Truthfully, the earth is below average temperature and below average atmospheric levels of co2. Dragontide, do you dispute that the GAT is running well below it’s historic average?
This is just futher evidence to show that the global warming that is suppose to keep accelerating,is if anything going in the opposite direction.
It will continue to go in that opposite direction, as the prolong solar minimum continues and earth’s climatic system keeps responding to it.
It takes time to play out, but it is playing out and has been for the past few years and this will continue going forward.
The explanation which Stephen Wilde articulated so well, has so much merit and it is very, very well thought out, and I feel will be proven correct more or less before this decade is out.
It sees the forest through the trees, whereas many on this message board just see the trees, and are hung up on just one part or another part of the climatic system, that being clouds or the PDO ,but not for some reason, looking at the big picture and putting more emphasis on earth’s past climatic history.
When I appraoch the climate puzzle I look at every single item I can and then try to merge them together into some comprehensive sensible result, through seeing what happened in the past, under similar circumstances. It all points to global temperatures going down this decade.
A correct climate conclusion will never come about by looking at items in more or less isolation ,which is what the global warming crowd , and to a lesser extent many that believe in global cooling try to do.
Christopher Game- is a great example of what I refer to ,always putting things in isolation and being highly technical and detailed ,but never ever giving us an opinion on what the climate might be doing going forward and why.
Chris ,why can’t you express an opinion,and why?
It would be useful to show the curves for a sensitivity of 3 deg for 2 x CO2.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
@Dragontide
The temperatures are above average if you pretend the earth was created in 1979. Truthfully, the earth is below average temperature.
All the forensic evidence points to the temperatures being above average. Forensic evidence like the disruption of Inuit lifestyle, due to lack of sea ice. No mention of such events in the 30,000 year history of the Inuit. To the south in Antarctica, there is 1.5 million year old ice melting along with the collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf & Bridge.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
“(the earth is) below average atmospheric levels of co2.”
Paleoclimate data* shows the amount of Co2 within our troposphere (36,367,000,000,000,000+ cubic feet**) is way above average. Climate patterns are reacting exactly as they should to all that Co2. (and the methane, nitrous oxide, etc…) The AGW thumbprint is much too unique for there to be blame anywhere else.
*Paleoclimata data available at noaa dot gov’s “plaeoclimate project” website.
**Co2 numbers from “zfacts”
I live near the Inuit and as you may or may not be aware, the polar bear has definitely bred with the brownbear in past history and will again in the future, which tells us a little something of the past climate.
Also, our limited permafrost studies via thermistor strings, core samling and sounding techniques in continuous and dis-continuous permafrost (since the early 70’s) tell us there isn’t a static state and furthermore we see the present as it has been in the long past with a cooling trend now and since 2005. With the data in hand, I’d love to pass it on, but some of those who have been funded also understand the future funding prospects could be bleak if the latest publications hit the street.
C02 increases really do follow warming events and disputes to the contrary are based on near-sightedness, possibly with an attached agenda.
Cheers!
I see you live close to the wonderful landscape of the Denali park.
Uhmmm… I fell you are right, but who knows whether or not the fact that you live there could be considered a Dragontide’s “forensic proof” 😉
@Dragontide
About your blind believe in the reliability of the ground temperatures database, take a look to this new entry of today:
http_:_//_wattsupwiththat_._com/2011/07/24/the-great-dying-of-thermometers-helping-giss-find-the-undead-thermometers-complete-with-code/#more-43976
(Remove the underscores, just added to bypass the automatic moderation)
Note the great amount of thermometers which had been removed from the GISS analyses and in particular the ones from those areas of the world the “consensus” would convince us that there is a great hot spot.
Note the great dying after 1988… Isn’t that the year of the IPCC founding?
What a coincidence it was.
The author of the post is a retired Environment Canada employee, and demonstrates us that many of those data are still collected and available for the analyses but they are discarded and “simulated” instead.
If you want to see those data you can DIY following the tips in the post.
Then, if you are an open minded guy, ask yourself why some scientist, as the one you rely on, behave that way.
And drop the “forensic evidence” mantra, which is ridiculous in a scientific blog like this.
Massimo:
Then the task of an AGW skeptic should be simple. You claim that inaccurate temperatures are being presented by NOAA and the WMO, due to the realignment of weather monitoring stations. So pack a thermometer and travel to the area(s) that must be in question if your claim has any merit.
I do not rely on any one scientist. Here’s my list:
NOAA
NASA
IPCC
EPA
British Antarctic Survey
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies’ statement 2008
Joint science academies%u2019 statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Public Health Association
American Medical Association
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Water Environment Federation
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Did the term “forensic evidence” strike a nerve? I imagine it would at that, considering what it’s composed of. And perhaps, of more importance, the lack of forensic evidence to support any sort of “cooling earth” theory.
Marty:
I don’t live near the Arctic but I know how to look at a NASA photo. A decline in sea ice means less protection from storm surge. Large amounts of fresh water (from the melting ice) mixing with the salt water affects the food chain from the phytoplankton on up.
Nailing the details of the super volcano of 75,000 years ago would not suggest a “limited” amount of studies. (in regards to all the paleoclimate data collected over the years) And they clearly show a long, continuing, warming trend.
So what if Co2 followed a warming trend in the past? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Fossil fuel usage creating Co2 at the present is the issue at hand. Since you know of Co2 history, you know what Co2 does. (along with the methane, nitrous oxide and all the other greenhouse gasses contributed by man) And you should therefore understand that more heat will return to the surface as a direct result of more greenhouse gasses. (if that scientific law was not so, man could not exist)
@Dragontide.
I tried to see if you were a little more open minded than a couple of month ago, but you look unrecoverable.
Just to prevent you from thought that I stop here the discussion because you gave me any “forensic evidence” of your blind CO2 religion. I say you: NO, you never posted ONE SCIENTIFIC (not forensic) evidence of anything.
You wrote: “Did the term “forensic evidence” strike a nerve?”
No, it don’t strike any nerve, it just demonstrates to the world how much you are unaware of what science must be.
If any of you are interested, I just posted a critique of Roy’s latest modeling efforts, such as the one in this post.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/
Hi Dr. Bickmore,
Are you going to have time to refute Roy’s latest effort?
Massimo:
I have pointed out quite a bit of evidence in regards to our warming world. (on other threads… Although some might still be in moderation since I included links):
An increase in extreme weather events since 2006. Drastic changes in migration patterns. Crops & flowers blooming earlier each Spring. Unprecedented net losses of polar ice. (North & South) The decline of ice at most of the world’s mountain glaciers. (even Glacier National Park will soon be glacier free*) Mosquitoes, ticks, mice and other carriers are surviving warmer winters and expanding their range, bringing health threats with them. Malaria is climbing the mountains to reach populations in higher elevations in Africa and Latin America. Cholera is growing in warmer seas. Dengue fever and Lyme disease are moving north. The World Health Organization has identified more than thirty new or resurgent diseases From the mid 70s to the mid 00s.**
Call it whatever you wish, but your skeptic crowd has none. You don’t like “forensic evidence”. How about “cause and effect”? Heat causes the items listed above. Not cooler conditions that Dr Spencer would have us believe exists.
*PBS’s “Extreme Ice” episode of Nova. (very informative and edge-of-your-seat, jaw-dropping video)
**washingtonpost dot com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401931 dot html
No, those are scientific evidence of how all the things are meant to be on the planet Earth. Those were well recognized as normal climate events until the AGW supporters unilaterally decided to attribute them to the CO2 increase.
You continue to report already very well dismantled hypotheses based on wrong assumptions. Which in some cases put in discussion the integrity of the some so-called scientist who did them because seems incredible the way they massaged the data.
About cause and effect: no one have ever demonstrated that heat can cause all the things you listed. Most of the “scientific” organization you listed in a former post, just sold their beliefs as scientific discoveries but they didn’t do anything else simulations (in some cases only, in other they just accepted the AGW agenda as is). Simulations based on unreliable algorithms. Which never predicted future and the only reason they can simulate the past it’s just because of the adjustments inside the algorithms. Which weight more then the underlying physical equation used in their simulations.
Let me stop here the discussion.
Now I’ve other “real” things to deal with.
Roy…sorry…I had not seen this comment submission form and I have been emailing you directly.
I have a question with regard to your Global Temperature Anomaly Graph. John Christy has stated the satellite data shows no warming till after the 1998 El Nino extreme. I can see that on your graph visually if I look at the area under the red running average. However, I am not clear on the meaning of the baseline (the 1979 – 2010 average) which many alarmists claim is arbitrary.
It seem wrong to apply a linear decadal trend to such a graph, because the data levels off for a lengthy period after about 2001. The GISS graph shows a definite positive anomaly with a linear trend from 1980 onward, but much of the UAH trend lies in a negative anomaly region, suggesting it is not true warming.
How does an anomaly-based graph relate to a graph of absolute temps? A baseline based on a 30 year average suggests a warming trend is possible, although John seems to be saying the negative anomaly regions are not real warming, even though the linear trend is positive.