Levitus rewarmed

lovely iceberg in boundary conditions

Yes, the ocean has warmed; no, it’s not ‘global warming’

And warm water does not sink

Oceanographer Dr Willem de Lange has referred us to a really clear treatment of ocean warming and ocean-atmosphere interaction in an article by a noted oceanographer (now deceased). It appeared in 21st Century Science & Technology magazine in 2000 and carried the “Yes, the ocean has warmed” headline you see above. Though written 12 years ago, it makes a solid rebuttal to the substance of the modern warming scare, emphasizing, as though marine scientists needed to be told, that warm water cannot sink.
 
The author was Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant, who trained NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology, was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995 and was an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years.

Having completed the post, I’ve discovered the new Levitus paper. How does Levitus et al. 2012 compare with the old Levitus et al. 2000? The new paper is in press, so we only have the abstracts to compare. In 2000, the heat content of the world ocean increased by ∼2 × 1023 joules between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s, representing a volume mean warming of 0.06°C. In 2012, the heat content of the world ocean increased by 24.0 × 1022 J for 1955-2010, corresponding to a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC.

With 24.0 × 1022 being 20% greater than 2 × 1023, and the temperature going from 0.06 to 0.09°C giving an increase of 50%, we have a familiar picture. It’s deja vu, only warmer.

Here’s the article’s original introduction:

Contrary to recent press reports that the oceans hold the still-undetected global atmospheric warming predicted by climate models, ocean warming occurs in 100-year cycles, independent of both radiative and human influences.

Which echoes today’s headlines about ocean heat content trying to explain why climate models don’t predict the climate. For example:

Stevenson’s article in 2000 was prompted by a paper published in Science magazine that year which found warming to a depth of nearly 10,000 feet in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans since the late 1940s. In each ocean basin, substantial temperature changes were occurring and much deeper than previously thought.

In an eery forecast of an identical period since his article, Robert Stevenson said that for 15 years, modellers had tried to explain their lack of success in predicting global warming. The climate models had predicted a global temperature increase of 1.5°C by the year 2000, six times more than occurred. Undiscouraged, the modellers argued that the heat generated by their claimed “greenhouse warming effect” was being stored in the deep oceans, and that it would emerge at some time. They had no observational evidence to support that contention until the Levitus article.

Stevenson quotes two people drumming up support for the new paper. Science news writer Richard A. Kerr claimed “The ocean-induced delay in global warming also suggests to some climatologists that future temperature increases will be toward the top end of the models’ range of prediction.”

Then the ever-faithful Dr. James Hansen, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, enthused: “Now the ocean-warming data imply that climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is not at the low end of the spectrum.”

One can imagine those worthy spokesmen thinking, “Ok, so 15 years of no warming is a hard sell, but not impossible; we’ll brazen it through.” Neither of them guessed yet another 15 years lay ahead.

Calculating the heat in the world’s oceans

In their paper, Syd Levitus and colleagues from NOAA’s Ocean Climate Laboratory attempt to quantify the heat content in the top 3000 metres of the world ocean from 1948 to 1998. They calculated an increase of about 2 x 1023 joules from 1955 to 1995, computing a mean warming of 0.06°C. The increased heat content indicates a warming rate of 0.3 watts/m2 over the Earth’s surface.

They concluded that substantial changes in heat content took place in the 300-metre to 1,000-metre layers of each ocean, and at depths even greater than 1,000 metres in the North Atlantic. From these changes, they determined that in the upper layer (0-300 metres), the mean temperature of the global ocean had increased by 0.31°C during the last half century…

The authors reported: “We compared the range of upper-ocean heat content with the range of the climatological annual cycle of heat content for the Northern Hemisphere” (Levitus and Antonov 1997). They determined that “there is relatively little contribution to the climatological range of heat content from depths below 300 metres.”

Deep water doesn’t contribute to weather? Hardly surprising. However:

The Levitus group looked particularly at the data for the deep waters of the North Atlantic, choosing to address a depth of 1,750 metres. They learned that that ocean had warmed in the period between 1955 and 1974, and again between 1974 and 1988. The warming was not uniform, horizontally or vertically, but they determined that the changes were not small, and could have made appreciable contributions to the Earth’s heat balance on decadal time scales. Maximum heat storage was at depths greater than 300 metres.

This confirms that heat does indeed penetrate downwards, but not far. This is less than 10% of the average ocean depth of 4000 metres — and it’s caused by moving currents; it’s not a result of warm water just sinking, which is impossible.

So, we have the added knowledge that the heat content of the North Atlantic is substantial at depths below 300 metres… Regarding the World Ocean, they reported: “The Pacific and Atlantic have been warming since the 1950s, and the Indian since the 1960s. The delay in the Indian Ocean may be caused by the sparsity of data before 1960.”

Findings

  1. The world ocean has exhibited coherent changes of heat content during the past 50 years, resulting in a net warming.
  2. There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing.
  3. The warming supports the contentions of global-climate modellers that the planetary radiative disequilibrium, for the period of 1979 to 1996, may be the result of “excess heat accumulating in the ocean.”
  4. Sea-surface temperatures have had two distinct warming periods over the past century; from 1920 to 1940, then a cooling period until the second warming began in the 1970s.
  5. In each period of warming, an increase in the ocean’s heat content preceded the observed warming of the sea-surface temperatures. The NOAA scientists concluded that it could be the result of natural variability, or anthropogenic effects, or more likely both.
  6. It was speculated that the extreme warmth of the world ocean during the mid-1990s was caused by (a) the multi-decadal warming of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and (b) a positive polarity in a possible bidecadal oscillation of the Pacific Ocean heat content.
  7. And a final point, regarding the large change in Atlantic heat storage at depths exceeding 300 metres: The convection in the Labrador Sea, by mixing the ocean through a 2,000-metre-deep water column, may keep sea-surface temperature changes relatively small, despite a large heat flux from ocean to atmosphere. Such convection must be addressed, especially when anthropogenic forcing is being considered.

Stevenson observes:

It sometimes seems as if I’m living in a “time-warp” in which some people, and scientists, are unaware that rational life existed before their birth—or before they got out of the sixth grade. Yet, we marine scientists did not enter the second half of the 20th century without a fair bit of understanding of the thermal ocean.

For example, Prof. Hubert H. Lamb, the premier European climatologist of the 20th century, wrote in 1977 that “there has been a general warming of sea temperatures, by 0.5–1.0°C, from 1880 to 1965, defined from widely scattered points around the oceans of the world.”

Stevenson describes how he took sea water temperature readings during the 1950s,
“learning to deploy Nansen water bottles and reversing thermometers for deep-sea sampling.” He concludes: “Those of us who obtained the data are not going to be snowed by the claims of the great precision of “historical data found stored in some musty archives.”

Basic marine climatology

The basics of these interactions start where oceans and atmosphere meet. The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.

We would do well to remember the simple fact that heat rises, and that the warmer gas or fluid rises above the colder. For all the talk of the radiative effects of greenhouse gases interrupting the escape of long-wave thermal energy from oceans, land and clouds, the re-heating of ocean and land caused by that radiation is minuscule. As we see shortly, long-wave infra-red penetrates only a few microns into the ocean. Coupled with the fact that as soon as water warms up a little at the surface, it evaporates, thus immediately cooling, it’s impossible for this process to cause significant warming of the water.

How the oceans get warm

Warming the ocean is not a simple matter, not like heating a small glass of water. The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.

Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight and infrared radiation — the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 metres.

The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 metres, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at a depth of 150 metres.

The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimetres into the ocean [Dr de Lange maintains this distance is actually in the tens of micrometres (microns). Confirmed at Real Climate, strangely — though the discussion there of why the tiny thermal effect of that OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) on the “skin layer” warms the whole ocean is oddly complex and unconvincing. – RT]. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few [microns] of the ocean. Water just a few [millimetres] deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere. Further, it is in those top few millimetres in which evaporation takes place. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.

The warmists hope that heat could get into the deep water, since it might hide there for a long time. Stevenson says there have been a number of studies of this process (Nakamura 1997; Tanimoto 1993; Trenberth 1994; Watanabi 1994; and White 1998), and says it is clear that solar-related variations in mixed-layer temperatures penetrate to between 80 and 160 metres, the average depth of the main pycnocline (density discontinuity) in the global ocean. “Below these depths, temperature fluctuations become uncorrelated with solar signals, deeper penetration being restrained by the stratified barrier of the pycnocline.”

Consequently, he says, anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 metres. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean as the warmists keep hoping.

Sargasso Sea temps last 3000 years

What about Thermohaline Circulation?

The fact that the surface ocean can become denser than the underlying waters, thereby sinking to depths of “density equilibrium,” has been discussed since surveys of the physical ocean began in the second half of the 19th century… Thermohaline circulation is responsible for the formation of the bottom-water masses in all the world’s oceans.

Stevenson explains that modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters into the deep ocean and remain there for long periods hope (or claim) that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water made dense by a higher salt content would sink.

It does not happen!

The primary physical factor in determining the density of sea water is the temperature (Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming, 1943). In the open ocean, top or bottom, salinity differences are measured in a few parts per thousand. Thermohaline circulation takes place where the surface waters become colder than the waters beneath. The large vertical movements occur in polar seas, where accelerated radiation makes the surface waters greatly colder than the deeper waters.

Note that the radiation he mentions is from the frigid atmosphere sucking heat from the water, entirely dwarfing any trivial infra-red radiation from airborne greenhouse gases to the water.

In [polar] waters, surface water temperatures are about -1.9°C, the normal salinity of the water keeping it from freezing into ice. The deep waters, being warmer than such surface waters, rise to the surface, as the upper layers sink slowly into the dark ocean depths. Because only very cold surface water is able to sink, it is simple to understand that the deep ocean can never warm up, regardless of how warm the surface ocean around the world may become. No deep lying “thermal lag” is going to take place. It is clear that there’ll be no Phoenix rising as a haunting spectre.

There we have it. If the surface water warms by any means, it doesn’t sink. If it gets into a current, it may move about in the top 100 metres or so, but no further because of the density boundary at the pycnocline. Claims of thermal energy “hiding” much deeper in the oceans are speculation and no mechanism is known to cause it. Further, when surface water warms it frequently evaporates, taking energy from the surface water and the lower atmosphere, thus cooling them, then rises rapidly by convection, taking its heat far above the ocean, since water vapour is only about 63% of the density of air.

The only way the ocean water warms is by the sun. The only way the lower atmosphere warms is by the water (and a little from the land).

The Big, Deep, Blue Sea

Stevenson says the oceans are the dominant influence on our climate because of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity. The energy that flows in and out of the oceans determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO2.

Robert Stevenson, in 1987, became Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans (IAPSO), part of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG). In 1991, the IUGG met in Vienna to discuss a programme to forward to the International Commission of Scientific Unions (ICSU) for consideration at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Conference. But Stevenson and his colleagues decided not to prepare any programmes for the Rio conference.

In their joint statement, they said: “To single out one variable, namely radiation through the atmosphere and the associated ‘greenhouse effect,’ as being the primary driving force of atmospheric and oceanic climate, is a simplistic and absurd way to view the complex interaction of forces between the land, ocean, atmosphere and outer space.”

Furthermore, they stated: “climate modelling has been concentrated on the atmosphere with only a primitive representation of the ocean.” Actually, Stevenson says some of the early models depicted the oceans as nearly stagnant. The logical approach would have been to model the oceans first (there were some reasonable ocean models at the time), then add the atmospheric factors.

ICSU and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) simply proceeded to evolve climate models from early weather models. Stevenson gives a fascinating insight into climate science by commenting: “That has imposed an entirely atmospheric perspective on processes which are actually heavily dominated by the ocean.”

This changes nothing — why write the paper?

Mentioning he was at first somewhat put off by the headlines about “missing warming,” after reading the Levitus paper Stevenson is left aghast by its general folly, contradicting as it did so much evident knowledge, saying: “here I sit in the middle of the Pacific Ocean [he lived in Hawaii], surrounded by papers (peer-reviewed, I guess I should add) which conclude:”

  1. For the past two decades at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earth’s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change; [while]
  2. there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing during that time, but there wasn’t. That must mean that a suite of compensatory feedbacks overwhelmed the “greenhouse” impetus for warming; implying, therefore,
  3. that the planet will not warm from any man-produced increases in CO2; indicating
  4. that any increases in temperature will likely fit the global trend of +0.048°C/decade, that is, about 0.5°C this century — the rate of warming that has existed since the Little Ice Age, centered around 1750 in Europe, South America and China; suggesting
  5. that the heat storage in the upper ocean takes place in the upper 100 metres, and the magnitude provides a rise in temperature at those depths of 0.5°C in the past 50 years (in those parts of the ocean for which we have data); [and]
  6. this global warming (and cooling) of the ocean occurs on biennial, ENSO, decadal and interdecadal period scales; thence,
  7. the ocean thermal changes on centennial-period scales, which appear as the warming trend through the past 50 to 100 years, can be explained by means of intrinsic internal modes of the Earth going through their normal cycle of warming and cooling, independent of both radiative and anthropogenic influences.

I guess what I’m really wondering is “Why did Syd Levitus and his associates write their paper in the first place?”

I encourage readers to sample Stevenson’s entire article, for I have omitted much of interest.


Regrettably, Robert Stevenson passed away in August, 2001, aged 80.

65 Thoughts on “Levitus rewarmed

  1. Alexander K on April 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm said:

    Good article!
    Before one looks anywhere else, any person who claims .001% accuracy of marine temps is talking absolute bollocks, in my opinion.
    That level of unrealistic assumption of accuracy is pure fantasy.

  2. Thanks AK. Have you read the Real Climate link and do you have any comments? That is, do you understand their explanation of how warming the “thermal gradient” slows the transmission of heat?

  3. Richard C (NZ) on April 29, 2012 at 11:22 am said:

    Good exposure of the many oceanic miss-attributions of climate science. I only accept historic OHC on a pragmatic level but don’t believe any pre-ARGO data now established due to the “adjustments” (sound familiar) made by Levitus 2005, Dominguez et al 2008 and Levitus et al 2009 (dates need checking) so the element of certainty in the data pre 2003/4 is absent IMO.

    To amplify some points at the risk of being boring:-

    “2. There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing”

    Neither does the IPCC offer any anthro mechanism because these is no credible mechanism either radiative, conductive or evaporative.

    “The logical approach would have been to model the oceans first”

    Going by DelSole 2011 ‘A Signi cant Component of Unforced Multidecadal Variability in the Recent Acceleration of Global Warming’, they might be getting around to that.

    “The only way the ocean water warms is by the sun”

    From top down. From bottom up there’s hydrovents mainly at 2000 – 2500m that although minor when averaged across the entire ocean, occur in climate-critical seismically active regions e.g. tropical east Pacific. Climate science ignores this but not so geo science who have published papers on the topic of seismic modulation of ENSO events.

    “2. there should have been a sizable CO2-induced increase in atmospheric radiative forcing during that time, but there wasn’t”

    This really puts the nail in the coffin of an anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism. Peter Minnet’s Real Climate opinion piece posits an alteration to the thermal gradient within the cool-skin (about 1mm or 1000 microns thick) that creates an insulation effect whereby ocean heat loss is reduced i.e. less conductive (sensible) heat loss. LWIR only impinges about 10 microns of that 1000 microns to alter the gradient.

    Rob Painting at Skeptical Science and Hot Topic has misunderstood Minnet’s RC article and is claiming the ENTIRE cool-skin for AGW as if it suddenly appeared at the beginning of the “anthropocene” era..

    The posited AGW cool-skin effect (could be real in the right conditions but negligible) from increasing LWIR leads to at least 3 internal contradictions that I can see when viewed in conjunction with ‘Cool-skin warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’, Fairall 1996:-

    Contradiction #1: The contention that reduced conduction within the cool-skin INCREASES ocean warming contradicts the core tenet of AGW that evaporation will increase which therefore DECREASES ocean warming.

    Contradiction #2: Fairall Table 5 values contradict the contention that conduction (Hs) is significant when clearly evaporation (Hl) and radiation (Rnl) are the significant factors.

    Contradiction #3: Over land, Gero and Turner did not find conclusive evidence of an LWIR increase but instead found a decrease as described here:-

    “A study published online yesterday in The Journal of Climate, however, finds that contrary to the global warming theory, infrared ‘back-radiation’ from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn. If the anthropogenic global warming theory was correct, the infrared ‘back-radiation’ should have instead increased year-round over the past 14 years along with the steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide”……”A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)…The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.” [P. Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner 2011: Journal of Climate]

    Over sea, the following paper contradicts the contention that the downwelling flux has increased the required 6.1 W/m2 in heat flux from the Sun and ‘greenhouse gases’ to the oceans to maintain a linear trend in annual SST. Instead finding the heat flux from those sources decreased -3 W/m2.

    Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View
    doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00148.1

    On the Observed Trends and Changes in Global Sea Surface Temperature and Air-Sea Heat Fluxes (1984-2006)

    W. G. Large* and S. G. Yeager

    National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

    From the abstract:-

    Slab Ocean Models (SOMs) assume that ocean heating processes do not change from year to year, so that a constant annual heat flux would maintain a linear trend in annual SST. However, the necessary 6.1 W/m2 increase is not found in the downwelling longwave and shortwave fluxes, which combined show a -3 W/m2 decrease.

    They rule out anthropogenic forcing as the dominate heat flux in their conclusion:

    A conclusion is that natural variability, rather than long term climate change, dominates the SST and heat flux changes over this 23 year period.

    In short, AGW (if it exists and it hasn’t for the last decade or so)) is an atmosphere-only phenomenon that might melt a teensy bit more ice than normal allowing a few drops of water to trickle into the ocean – not something to produce a post 2100 6m SLR that Gareth Renowden is fretting about. The way sea level rise is decelerating, even a 0.6m rise looks remote. 0.06m might be realistic though.

  4. rob taylor on April 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm said:

    Tell it to the Pliocence, Richard… That was the last time CO2 levels were this high, and when the sea level was 20m higher than today.

    http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=4919

    Oh, I forgot, real science just isn’t your thing, is it?

  5. You haven’t answered any of my questions, Rob, but now I’m asking you another: Why are sea levels not 20m higher under current CO2 levels?

    The article you cite describes a paper that predicts a sea level rise for this century of up to 1 metre; why should I “tell it to the Pliocene” when modern research doesn’t relate our situation to the Pliocene by predicting a rise of 20m?

  6. rob taylor on April 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm said:

    Doh! That can be your homework for tonight, Richard, but here’s a clue – time won’t stop at 2100…

  7. Don’t be patronising. You cite a mere article that claims “future generations could face sea levels 12 to 22 metres higher than present” and you aren’t prepared to justify it. Your credibility is low. Why should we listen to you? In the meantime, global temperatures have not displayed statistically significant warming for 15 years.

  8. Mike Jowsey on April 30, 2012 at 10:13 am said:

    Great post RC – thanks. Worthy of a guest article perhaps?

    btw – interesting comparison by Tisdale here comparing 17yr SST with model projections.

  9. Mike Jowsey on April 30, 2012 at 10:32 am said:

    Unfortunately Richard, Rob Talyor’s attitude is always patronising, often moving to smug and occasionally all the way to supercilious. Seldom does he make a clear point. The article to which he links, a press release from Victoria Uni full of hype, concludes with this telling sentence:

    “If the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not abated, and humans were to disappear from the planet and return in 2000 years, they would find a world where the oceans have risen 20 metres,” says Professor Naish.


    Gee whiz – now we have to hang around for 2000 years (paying more tax so the government can sponsor universities to do more studies all the while) before we can test that prediction.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm said:

    20 metres but no mechanism for carbon dioxide to actually cause sea level rise except perhaps a little polar ice melt on a warm day above 0 C – wow!

    This comes from a University?

  11. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2012 at 3:07 pm said:

    Much “discussion” of this at Hot Topic Mike under Gareth’s “Cuckoo Coccoon” response to RT’s “Where’s your evidence Renowden?” starting with my rebuttal to Gareth here http://hot-topic.co.nz/cuckoo-cocoon-prat-watch-5-5/#comment-31232

    I don’t know if RT’s post is an intentional followup but it is very timely whether or not.

    Rob Painting is about the only one able to come to the table with any substance on the issues and I sensed that although he held his ground he was realizing that his argument was flawed. on the posited anthro OH insulation effect. I suspect too that, although he didn’t concede so, he knew he hadn’t quite worked out the thermodynamics of the cool-skin in terms of the sublayers of it (therefore the thermal gradient) and the relative insignificance of conduction (sensible heat Hs) compared to radiation (Rnl) and evaporation (Hl).

    Scandalous I think that the anthro ocean warming narrative is perpetuated when there is nothing in the scientific literature to support it and the IPCC can’t cite anything.

    I did highlight at HT the “GISS Divergence Problem” re the NASA GISS AO ModelE OHC overshoot this century and Tisdale’s SST situation is the same except that it’s an “IPCC AR4 Multi-Model Divergence Problem”.

    I had no bites at HT on that because it’s undeniable and very embarrassing for them. The models are effectively proving that there is no anthro ocean warming mechanism, which is how simulations should be used anyway. All they are missing is the model configuration that mimics the Reynolds OI.v2 observations.

    I think we could help them with that. I’m sure the “problem” could be solved simply by limiting the LWIR energy being passed from the A module to the O module.to the top 10 microns of the ocean. Then if evaporation was tweaked appropriately, precipitation simulation would be improved too.

    Of course the warmists will point to the 700 – 2000m layer saying “hey! it’s warming” but from what I can gather by implication (nothing of substance forthcoming), the only anthro mechanism that could explain that (given warm water doesn’t sink other than currents) is some sort of teleconnection that bypasses the surface – weird. Thomas was going down that track until I pointed out the absurdity. He lost interest at that point.

  12. Alexander K on April 30, 2012 at 5:00 pm said:

    When I was a rude and uncultured young man I and my equally-rude peer group had a word for people such as Rob Taylor, but I wouldn’t lower the tone of the discussion by the use of any such terms in this conversation. Suffice to say that his opinion of himself appears to be monstrous.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2012 at 5:25 pm said:

    THE HOCKEY SCHTICK has re-blogged this post:-

    From the New Zealand Climate Conversation Group, a noted oceanographer debunks the myth of man-made global warming, explaining why greenhouse gases cannot heat the oceans, and that recent ocean warming is simply the result of natural ocean cycles [oscillations].

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/yes-ocean-has-warmed-no-its-not-global.html

  14. Richard C (NZ) on April 30, 2012 at 5:43 pm said:

    “How does Levitus et al. 2012 compare with the old Levitus et al. 2000? ”

    Not a comparison with the old paper(s) but THE HOCKEY SCHTICK has a post on Levitus et al 2012 pulling together commentaries on it by Dr. David Stockwell (niche modeling) and Dr. Roger Pielke (Climate Science)

    New paper confirms IPCC exaggerates effect of man on climate by more than 5 times

    A post today by Dr. David Stockwell notes that a recent paper on ocean heat content shows the IPCC has exaggerated the effect of man upon the climate by a factor of more than 5 times [1.6 divided by 0.3]. Climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. concurs and states this implies net feedback is negative instead of positive as claimed by the IPCC.

    “…the 2007 IPCC WG1 report has a serious error in it”

    As stated by Dr. Stockwell,

    “It appears that Levitus et al [paper] confirms the skeptics, and the IPCC has been falsified.”

    >>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/new-paper-confirms-ipcc-exaggerates.html

    All falling apart down at the IPCC.

  15. Richard Treadgold – don’t tell me something has finally sunk in!! You now say:
    “global temperatures have not displayed statistically significant warming for 15 years.”

    Good on you.

    Now all we have to get you to do is quantify that “statistically significant.” You and I know it means +/- 4 degree/per century. Much larger than the anthropogenic warming trend reported in the literature.

    In other words “statistically significant” over ten years means business as usual.

    On another matter – I have put up the blog rankings for April and briefly referred to the claims made around here that your blog was excluded by me.

    Just getting the facts straight.

  16. Bob D on May 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm said:

    You and I know it means +/- 4 degree/per century..

    Do you have a reference for that Ken? I suspect the uncertainty is signifcantly lower than 4°C/century.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on May 1, 2012 at 6:54 pm said:

    What “anthropogenic warming trend reported in the literature” Ken? And is it actual or projected? Value and citation please

    Loehle and Scafetta in ‘Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series’ 2011 calculate 0.66 deg C/100yr (0.066/decade) actual since ~1950.

    Hardly alarming and 3.5 times less than the average 2.3°C/century (0.23 C/decade) anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC during the first decades of the 21st century.

    Now for the last decade we are looking at 9.8 times less (0.23+0.026/0.026).

    Irrespective of statistical significance that is getting embarrassing for the IPCC projection (and AGW generally) and L&S11’s actual is looking shaky too.

  18. Andy on May 2, 2012 at 1:12 am said:

    I am not sure I understand Ken’s point here.

    +- 4 degrees of uncertainty means what for the 0.8 degrees of warming we have had since pre-industrial times?

  19. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 8:24 am said:

    Andy:

    I am not sure I understand Ken’s point here.

    It’s actually quite funny. Once again, while breathlessly thinking he’s scoring a point, he has become confused. This time he is using the 7SS NZ uncertainty limits over the past decade and applying them to the global trend over 15 years. As you say, it makes no sense at all.

  20. Bod D asks: “Do you have a reference for that Ken? I suspect the uncertainty is significantly lower than 4°C/century.”

    That was from my calculation using the 10 year data set you recommend. +/- 4.5 degree/century. It will be a little, but not much, lower for 15 years. (It gets down to +/-0.3 degree for 100 years data.) And of course the variability for the global data is similar to that for the NZ data.

    Bob D – you have the data used for the graph you produced for Treadgold.

    Calculate the 95% confidence level for that. Easy enough for you to check my result.

    And if you are honestly concerned about differences for the NZ and global variability – you can also easily access the global data and do the calculation. You can check your “suspicion.”

  21. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 10:39 am said:

    Ken:

    And of course the variability for the global data is similar to that for the NZ data.

    You’re sure of that, Ken? You have checked that, of course, haven’t you?

    You’re certain that hundreds of averaged datasets will have the same variability as just seven? And that the confidence limits are dependant just on variability?

  22. Bob, D – you misunderstand the variability. It is due to variations in temperature – not to how many sites are averaged. The ups and downs on the graph represent (mostly) natural variations.

    But simple enough to check – what about you doing it? Or asking Treadgod – he used the term “statistically significant” – surely he has a feel for what he means? After all, if I go to the trouble of produce the limits for you are you going to accept my word. Work them out for yourselves.

    While we have you – what about telling us the confidence limits for the trend you measured in NZ’s 10 year data? You obviously did the regression so you have the values. Treadgold refused to say what they were, or provide your data. I worked it out myself and still you guys pretend you don’t understand.

  23. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 11:58 am said:

    Ken, it is trivially obvious that the 95% confidence interval for seven NZ stations averaged over a period is much larger than for hundreds of global stations averaged over the same period, or indeed, a satellite measuring the entire globe.

    Averaging reduces the data variability, and therefore the standard error is smaller.

    And also, it will be larger for 10 years than 15 years. Reason (since I have to spell it out for you): N is greater.

  24. Bob D – well do the calculation. Of course they are not the same but a visual check indicates the variability is similar.

    N was actually larger for your 10 years monthly data than it would be for 15 years annual data (120 vs 15). But the natural vartiability of temperature is similar.

    Averaging enables you to work with a “global temperature” but it doesnt reduce the variability of that temperature.

    But again – work it out – prove me wrong. Your “suspicions” are just not good enough. Get your hands dirty.

    And I repeat – tell us what the 95% confidence level was for your plot of 10 years NZ data. You must have it? Let us jusge your claims.

  25. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 1:24 pm said:

    Oh wow…

    OK Ken, that’s wonderful. You’re completely right.

    /sarc

  26. Alexander K on May 2, 2012 at 2:59 pm said:

    Richard, sorry to be a bit slow to follow this up, but I have an aversion to visiting that site. I eventually overcame my aversion (briefly) but have decided they have a problem with reality on this one.
    I did wonder if the name they chose for their site was meant to be ironic, moronic, or merely misleading.

  27. “I have an aversion to visiting that site.” – I know how you feel.

    “…they have a problem with reality on this one.” – It can be informative to hear their arguments, but on this topic they are somewhat incoherent.

    “I did wonder if the name they chose for their site was meant to be ironic, moronic, or merely misleading.” – well it’s definitely inaccurate!

  28. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2012 at 3:32 pm said:

    The last 15 years show the following trends in global datasets, given here with 95% confidence limits.

    Dataset Last record Trend (degrees/decade) 95% confidence limits
    RSS 1/2012 -0.007 -0.067 .. 0.052
    UAH 1/2012 0.085 0.023 .. 0.147
    HadCrut3 12/2011 0.012 -0.028 .. 0.051
    NCDC 12/2011 0.048 0.010 .. 0.086
    GISS 12/2011 0.104 0.059 .. 0.148
    BEST 5/2010 0.254 0.132 .. 0.376

    http://w11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/single/?p=8803202&t=7629097

    Bob D’s NZ 10 yr trend fits in between RSS and HadCRUT3, -0.067 and +0.012/decade or +/- 0.395 C/century similar to Ken’s quoted “+/-0.3 degree for 100 years data” i.e. 15 yrs data only adds +/- 0.095 C to the 100 yrs data and the NZ 10 yr data trend is consistent with the 15 yr global data trends.

    I don’t think Ken has much of a case.

    There’s a link to a spreadsheet in the following post for calculating trends in the global datasets but I haven’t time today to work out 10 yr 95% confidence limits (off to a 10 hr night shift).

    http://w11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/topic/7623459/1/

  29. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 3:33 pm said:

    For all those others who are not scientists and who are wondering what this is about, let me explain Ken’s error.

    One station’s monthly temperature data will jump around a bit, often by many degrees month-on-month. If one sets a fixed period, for example ten years, one has 10×12=120 data points to play with. This is N. N won’t vary as long as we stick to 10 years and monthly data, which we will do here for convenience.

    Now we know the monthly temperature anomalies vary greatly for a single station. Therefore the standard deviation is relatively large – it’s just a mathematical measure of the “variation” of the data over the ten year period.

    As we add new stations, for any one month we will average the other station temperature anomalies with the new station, building up station after station. What we see as we keep adding stations is that the monthly variation slowly reduces. This is because local weather effects at any one station get swamped by what is happening at all the other stations. Random effects cancel each other out – a warm month in Auckland will likely be cancelled by a cold month in, say, Johannesburg. The noise reduces, so to speak, as we add more stations globally.

    As more and more stations are added (or we use satellite data that sweeps across the globe), what starts to emerge is a true statistical global pattern rather than a local or regional pattern. For example, a strong El Nino might appear, since its effects were felt to some degree or another by all stations. The variation month-on-month has now dropped to only tenths of a degree, where the one station on its own varied by full degrees.

    What this means is that the standard deviation reduces as more stations are added. Remember though – our N number has remained the same: there are still only 120 months of data, but now the averaging process has so reduced the variability that the standard deviation is a fraction of what it was. The more stations the better, basically.

    The same reasoning applies to the linear trend we calculate from the data. As the variability of the data reduces, so we have more “confidence” in the trend.

    So Ken made two errors when he applied the NZ 7SS confidence interval to the global data trend – he assumed the standard deviation was the same (it isn’t) and he used different N values, which again changes the result, because in order to work out the confidence interval from the standard deviation, one also uses N in the calculation.

    For reference, the NZ 7SS trend with 95% confidence interval (Oct 2001-Mar 2012) is 0±4°C/century, roughly, and the UAH global trend with 95% confidence interval for the same period (also using monthly data) is 0.0±0.9°C/century.

    What this means in terms of conclusions is that we can exclude the hypothesis at the 95% confidence level that the world has warmed in the last decade by the IPCC model mean (A1B) of 2.1°C/century, but we cannot exclude a NZ warming hypothesis, since we don’t have a specific IPCC projection just for NZ. If you know of one, please let me know.

    If we assume that NZ should also be warming at the same rate as the IPCC global projection then the actual NZ trend of pretty much 0°C/century gives one little hope that a real IPCC-related NZ trend of 2.1°C/century is being realised in the background, so to speak, and it will one day simply become significant as more data is added and the confidence interval shrinks.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath though: with only seven stations it will probably take fifty years or so before we can determine a NZ trend at the 95% confidence level, especially if the actual trend remains where it is now – close to zero.

  30. Richard C – actually read the link you gave. While the data presentation is confusing (and I am not going to devote time to sorting that out) the commentary includes these comments on calculating trends in global temperature:

    “It’s well understood and explicit (not explicit enough for everybody it seems, but certainly not a hidden footnote either) that this trend is not expected to show over short windows of time; but only over windows of time long enough to smooth out untrended variations sufficiently.

    Recent work has identified 17 years as a window over which the underlying trend starts to show. “

    In other words – we have a dishonest trick where we do the calculations and find “no statistically significant” trend over 10 or 15 years. And we hide the fact that over that time period we would not detect a trend of the order reported in the literature.

    As your link says – this only starts to show as significant after about 17 years.

  31. Bob D – you misrepresent me – but first congratulations – you have actually admitted the large confidence level in your graph. You say: “the NZ 7SS trend with 95% confidence interval (Oct 2001-Mar 2012) is 0±4°C/century.” (I got 0.06 +/-0.45 degree/century. The slight difference will be because of different sources – I think you missed the fact that the correction dates had changed in the first few years of your data. But never mind – we are obviously treating the data in the same way).

    So you will acknowledge that use of your data to show the warming in NZ had “halted” (Treadgold’s headline) was dishonest. +/-4.5 degree/century easily covers the 0.9 degree/century reported by NIWA (calculated from 100 years data with a 95% confidence range around 0.3 degree/century). And I should add it was hardly honest of you to put a value of -2.6 degree/century on your graph – or to snidely comment ” If this trend continues, well then, I just don’t know what will happen…”)

    And I like your final comment:
    ” it will probably take fifty years or so before we can determine a NZ trend at the 95% confidence level”

    Now could you tell Treadgold to stop his nonsense. Using New Zealand data for the last 10 or 15 years to declare warming has halted. (His headline – ” NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt”) He is just lying and you admission of the confidence levels and what they mean underline that.

  32. Bob D – I am quite aware of how accumulation of sites will tend to “average out” data. But the fact remains that there is a natural temperature variation – obvious when you look at any temperature record (including global ones). What the confidence range indicates in combined site data is the surviving country-wide or global temperature variations. It is this variability (yes the confidence ranges could be lower than for an individual station depending on circumstance) that remains a problem for talking about global warming stopping or halting. “Averaging out” data from different sites does not remove natural global or countrywide variations.

    When one uses the word “statistically significant” you are conceding there could be a trend still occurring but not detectable because it lies within the confidence range.

    I was not (as you claim) applying the NZ values for the data in your graph to global data by any means – just arguing that the same statistical considerations apply.
    Look back to the reply I gave to Richard C – his link revealed that one should just not expect to see a trend of the order reported in the literature for the last 50 years or so in 10 or 15 years of data.

    Yes, I note you quote a high simulation result from a model – not the reported trends. But I think it is ridiculous to take speculative projections for likely future scenarios which rely on a rage of possible inputs, related to economic activity and political situations, and make judgement about them on existing data for the last 10 years.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm said:

    You’re confused Ken? How hard can it be to work that out? It was only a couple of minutes work on my part in the first place.

    Try again, this time in annotated segments:-

    Bob D’s NZ 10 yr trend fits in between RSS and HadCRUT3, -0.067 and +0.012/decade [the RSS – HadCRUT3 0.079 C 15 yr 95% confidence range]

    or +/- 0.395 C/century [0.79/2, the 95% confidence range from 15 yrs data, RSS – HadCRUT3 with NZ 10 yr in the middle]

    similar to Ken’s quoted “+/-0.3 degree for 100 years data” [0.395 vs 0.3]

    i.e. 15 yrs data only adds +/- 0.095 C to the 100 yrs data and the NZ 10 yr data trend is consistent with the 15 yr global data trends.

    Simple.

    So even though the NZ 10 yr 95% confidence level is ±4°C/century. (8 C range) or whatever – who cares? Because the NZ 10 yr trend is smack in the middle of 2 global datasets (RSS and HadCRUT3) where the 100 yr 95% confidence range from 15 yrs data is only 0.79 C (0.395*2) i.e. consistent (not an outlier or aberration).

    Now Ken. What is the anthropogenic component of the HadCRUT3 +0.012 C/decade trend?

    And why?

    And why is the actual trend 19 times less (0.23/0.012) than the average 2.3°C/century (0.23 C/decade) anthropogenic warming rate projected by the IPCC during the first decades of the 21st century?

    Could it possibly be that natural variability has gazumped CO2 forcing (as generally conceded even by our own MftE Climate Change Office) i.e. CO2 is NOT the dominant climate driver after all?

    BTW, it is also now generally conceded (NZ MftE CC cites Easterling and Wehner 2009) that one or two decades of natural variability dominance (events) can be expected at indeterminate times in the century ahead.

    You might have another 10 yrs to wait for CO2 to kick in again Ken – I hope you’ve got the patience.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on May 2, 2012 at 6:52 pm said:

    Actually “the 100 yr 95% confidence range from 15 yrs data is only [0.53 C]” (0.079*100/15) not 0.79 C but hey – you get the picture (I hope)

  35. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 7:05 pm said:

    Ken:

    Bob D – you misrepresent me

    Do I? You said:

    Richard Treadgold – don’t tell me something has finally sunk in!! You now say:
    “global temperatures have not displayed statistically significant warming for 15 years.”

    Now all we have to get you to do is quantify that “statistically significant.” You and I know it means +/- 4 degree/per century. Much larger than the anthropogenic warming trend reported in the literature.

    I called you on that, you replied:

    And of course the variability for the global data is similar to that for the NZ data.

    And once again:

    Averaging enables you to work with a “global temperature” but it doesnt reduce the variability of that temperature. But again – work it out – prove me wrong.

    So I proved you wrong.

    Again.

  36. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm said:

    Ken:

    I was not (as you claim) applying the NZ values for the data in your graph to global data by any means – just arguing that the same statistical considerations apply.

    Nonsense. That’s exactly what you did.
    Quote:

    Now all we have to get you to do is quantify that “statistically significant.” You and I know it means +/- 4 degree/per century. Much larger than the anthropogenic warming trend reported in the literature.

    You claimed the uncertainty interval for the global temperature trend was ±4°C/century, which was larger than the anthropogenic warming trend in the literature, implying that it was impossible to declare a lack of warming in the global temps.
    When called on it explicitly you re-iterated your viewpoint that the variability was unchanged (see my previous comment).

    You really should learn to admit to your errors – after all, you make enough of them.

  37. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 7:37 pm said:

    Yes, I note you quote a high simulation result from a model – not the reported trends.

    The actual emissions have exceeded A1B. It’s not a “high” simulation result at all.

    But I think it is ridiculous to take speculative projections for likely future scenarios which rely on a rage of possible inputs, related to economic activity and political situations, and make judgement about them on existing data for the last 10 years.

    Do you? But then shouldn’t you be telling that to your mates at Hot Topic instead of us? They do little else. Every little weather event is blamed on global warming. We’re told there are already climate refugees, and that we’re already past the tipping point.
    And yet here you are telling us we can’t even expect to tell with any certainty whether it’s warming or not!
    By the way, you’d better write off and tell Dr Hansen at once. In 1988 he wrote the following in a peer-reviewed paper:

    The greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable in the 1990s

    and later:

    The temperature changes are sufficiently large to have major impacts on people and other parts of the biosphere

    Well we’re in the second decade after the 1990s, and you’re telling us we still can’t detect the warming? Wow, this global warming is scary stuff indeed.

  38. Bob D on May 2, 2012 at 7:59 pm said:

    Ken:
    This is my last comment on this thread, we are now so far off topic we can’t even see the starting point.

    Regarding the “admission” (for Heaven’s sake!) of my NZ uncertainty interval, I will once again state my finding:
    “There has been no significant warming over the past decade in New Zealand”.

    For interest, the actual trend observed over this time was -0.26°C/century (not -2.6 as you state) which, although not statistically significant at the 95% level, is nevertheless considerably less than either the current 0.9°C/century declared by NIWA, or the 2.1°C/century projected by the IPCC.

    It is, however, entirely consistent with the global trend of 0.0±0.9°C/century, and therefore there is no reason yet to doubt it. It is true that it could suddenly start to trend upwards tomorrow, and continue thus for the next fifty years until it is significant, but somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen. 😉

    Equally, I can state that the IPCC model mean projections for the balanced scenario A1B are declared invalid over the past decade, based on actual records.

  39. Bob -D: As I suspect you wish to divert the issue by misrepresenting me.

    However, the fact remains that you have acknowledged (after I downloaded the data and did the calculation myself) that when you talk about “no statistically significant” warming you actually mean nothing outside the range +/- 4 degree/century) (or possibly more like 4.4 degree/century from my calculation).

    And you now say “however, entirely consistent with the global trend of 0.0±0.9°C/century, and therefore there is no reason yet to doubt it.” Which is what I have been trying to tell the great minds here from the beginning of this discussion.

    So, NOW, you clearly have clearly shown Treadgold wrong with his declaratory headline: “NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt.”

    Why did you not correct him when he first wrote that headline? Why did you not respond when I put the question to you and others here about the confidence range and the time period required to detect a trend of that order?

    But this little discussion has confirmed my argument from the beginning. The people like Treadgold are being dishonest when they use 10 or 15 years of data showing “no statistically significant” warming to undermine current scientific understanding of climate change. It’s a very common “trick’ used in the climate changer denier echo-chamber. And one which commenters here should now be ashamed to ever bring up again. By producing your =graph, and (finally) acknowledging what “statistically significant” means for your graph you have produced a beautiful illustration of this often repeated trick and why it is so dishonest.

    Is Treadgold going to apologise for his fibs?

  40. Bob D on May 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm said:

    OK, I’ll break my promise and add to this thread again. Apologies to all those bored to tears with Ken’s nit-picking.

    And you now say “however, entirely consistent with the global trend of 0.0±0.9°C/century, and therefore there is no reason yet to doubt it.” Which is what I have been trying to tell the great minds here from the beginning of this discussion.

    And in what way have we ever suggested otherwise, than that the NZ trend over the past decade is entirely consistent with the global trend of zero (or, to be more exact, contained within the interval -0.9 to +0.9°C/century)? You’ll notice that -0.26°C/century falls within that interval.

    Now, as to uncertainty intervals, although the NZ record over the past decade cannot exclude the possibilty at the 95% confidence level that NZ has warmed by 2.1°C/century as suggested by the IPCC, it can exclude it at the 66% confidence level.

    So using the IPCC jargon, we can say that for New Zealand it is likely (66% probability) that the IPCC projection of 2.1°C/century has not been met over the past decade, and for the globe it is extremely likely (95% probability) that the same IPCC projection of 2.1°C/century has not been met over the past decade either.

  41. Bob – D – you are tiresome in your avoidance. You asked: ” And in what way have we ever suggested otherwise.”

    Do I have to repeat, once again, Treadgold’s heading to your graph – “NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt.” That is the lie I have argued against from the beginning and your data and recent comments support me. I would have thought the reasonable response would be to just agree and leave it at that. The constant personal attacks and attempts at diversion are just a childish response.

    It is silly of you to now go on about 66% probabilities.

    And where the hell did you get the claim “that NZ has warmed by 2.1°C/century as suggested by the IPCC” – please quote the detailed reference to that. I certainly haven’t picked that up.

    I think you are confusing scenario projections with predictions and global with New Zealand. I commented before on why it was disingenuous to use scenario projections as predictions, and certainly dishonest to apply them to the last 10 years of New Zealand’s record.

  42. Bob D on May 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm said:

    Ken,

    And where the hell did you get the claim “that NZ has warmed by 2.1°C/century as suggested by the IPCC” – please quote the detailed reference to that. I certainly haven’t picked that up.

    In order to determine whether NZ has warmed according to AGW principles we need to know the warming expected for NZ only. I wrote earlier (you may have missed it):

    What this means in terms of conclusions is that we can exclude the hypothesis at the 95% confidence level that the world has warmed in the last decade by the IPCC model mean (A1B) of 2.1°C/century, but we cannot exclude a NZ warming hypothesis, since we don’t have a specific IPCC projection just for NZ. If you know of one, please let me know.

    I then postulated the use of the IPCC global model mean trend as a stand-in:

    If we assume that NZ should also be warming at the same rate as the IPCC global projection then…

    Which is what I then did.
    You say:

    It is silly of you to now go on about 66% probabilities

    Why? If one wishes to assess the probabilities of an event occurring, one always checks to see at what uncertainty level the event is excluded. In this case, it’s excluded at 66%. Which puts it in the IPCC “unlikely” category. Go and check – Box 1.1.

    I commented before on why it was disingenuous to use scenario projections as predictions

    You did, and did you do as I asked and go over to all your alarmist friends to find out why they have been doing little else for years now?
    What about all the media reports detailing the myriad ways climate change was going to affect us, all based on IPCC projections?
    What about the RSNZ sea level rise report, did you complain stridently to them that they were basing their figures on projections? That coastal towns across NZ now have to spend money they don’t have planning for sea level rise of at least 0.8m by 2100, or (as I heard a NIWA representative – Rob Bell – suggest on the radio yesterday) 3 to 4 metres?
    Have you complained yet Ken? Why not?
    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t scream blue murder about projected disasters, and then complain when people check to see whether the projections are happening.

  43. As I thought Bob – D. Your reference to IPCC predictions for NZ is fictional. Another diversion.

    As is your final Gish Gallop at the end.

    I think we are finished here. Your have revealed the statistical analysis behind the graph you gave to Treadgold and that he used for the highly dishonest headline: “NIWA’s data proves NZ warming halt.” it confirmed my own analysis (forced on me because you guys were so reticent).

    I would like to think this discussion would make you guys stop and think before blatantly misrepresenting data like this again. But we will see.

  44. Ken, this discussion has been hard to follow by one not versed in statistics. However, I object to being described continually by you as dishonest. In my defence, and without resorting to statistics, because I’m unable to, let me say that it’s obvious by looking at the graph Bob provided that temperatures over the period did not, in aggregate, rise. That’s the same thing as saying they didn’t go up, Ken. Which is identical to saying that any previous rise had, for that period, stopped, see? For that matter, any previous decline had also stopped.

    No amount of clever statistical trickery will make those simple facts vanish, Ken, so stop your stupid games. No trend line will ever make those temperatures rise over that period.

    Now please start talking sensibly or go away.

  45. Bob D on May 3, 2012 at 4:46 pm said:

    Very well, I’m bored with this too. I would suggest you have that chat with your mates though.

    Richard T, perhaps as a token of our appreciation for all Ken’s hard work you might consider changing the title of the post in question to NIWA data proves NZ warming unlikely.

    🙂

  46. Sure. I eagerly anticipate considering it and will advise you in due course. Thank you both for your tireless efforts. On performance overall, I’m delighted to proclaim Bob the winner.

  47. Bob D on May 3, 2012 at 5:00 pm said:

    Why thank you. So unexpected, so many people to thank…

    Do I get a chocolate fish?

  48. Sorry, we’re out of fish, but perhaps a beer…

  49. Bob D on May 3, 2012 at 5:14 pm said:

    Sounds excellent!

  50. As Bob-D has pointed out his estimate of the confidence range was +/- 4 degree/century. My estimate was closer to +/-4.4 degree.

    Now you may not understand that. But that is one reason you are not being asked to advise governments on this issue. You don’t have the skill.

    Put simply – NIWA had estimated a NZ warming of 0.9 degree.century (+/- 0.3) Bob’s calculation of 10 years data estimate that any rise was within +/- 4 degree per century. This is not evidence of any “Halt.” His data was quite consistent with NIWA’s conclusion from 100 years data.

    As Bob has pointed out to you this means you headline was dead wrong. You had no evidence that warming had stopped.

    Surely, even without a a statistical understanding it should be clear (at least now) to you that one can’t (or shouldn’t) go around making claims like you have based on 10 years or 15 years of data. Because of the obvious variations in the data.

    Richard – you should draw a lesson from this. Don’t go out on a limb making claims that you don’t have the skills to understand. Bob D has finally shown why you were wrong. His arguments are exactly the same as mine.

    I referred to the reason why governments ask experts for advice – not scientifically illiterate people. This example should make clear the reason why.

    You have been so wrong, so many times, and your scientific confusion is obvious. Who, in their right minds, will see your comments on science, and scientists, as credible now?

  51. Bob D on May 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm said:

    It seems reports of Ken’s finishing up have been greatly exaggerated.

    For the record, I do not agree that “Bob D has finally shown why you were wrong.” I in fact showed that IPCC-like warming over NZ in the past decade is unlikely at the 66% level. The “halt” hypothesis (zero trend) is contained within the 95% confidence interval.

    Richard T could only be proved wrong by showing that the NZ decadal trend was positive and that the 95% confidence interval did not contain zero.

    Also, my arguments were not the same as Ken’s by any means. He was all for using the NZ 95% confidence interval on the global trends (to draw the conclusion that one couldn’t determine if the trends differed). I would shudder to support such a thing.

    One last thing for the record: we were able to exclude the expected IPCC warming trend using 10 years of data, so yes one can in fact base conclusions on 10 or 15 years of data.

  52. Ken,

    You don’t have the skill.

    Sorry, you get no points for that because I already told you.

    You had no evidence that warming had stopped.

    The evidence was in NIWA’s graph. I repeat: “temperatures over the period did not, in aggregate, rise” and “No trend line will ever make those temperatures rise over that period.” No rhetorical devices will prove those assertions incorrect. Also, that’s hardly different from Bob’s final suggestion for a new heading: “NIWA data proves NZ warming unlikely.”

    Perhaps this shows how ordinary people view simple things like graphs. If you think they’re wrong, you must persuade them with better arguments than you’ve used here. Because you haven’t persuaded me that temperatures might have risen. If you dust your hands together and stalk off with your nose in the air you’ll lose the political battle even though you might have won the science.

    I say that with my heart in my mouth, because you’ll probably be tempted to claim I said you’ve won the science battle over global warming, which I haven’t said. Nevertheless, that’s the choice you face, to speak directly to people because you care for them or to argue emptily over their heads.

  53. Pingback: Shang a de Lange

  54. Gareth sayeth: “Life’s too short, basically, to debunk an article of dubious provenance now 12 years old.” But he goes on breathlessly to research the author AND the publisher as though they are much more fascinating than the topic. I read the whole post avidly only to discover he said nothing of interest. Of course, despite his protest, he is not averse to citing articles and papers of any antiquity if they support his views.

    He sayeth also that we at CCG “support an oddball contention, that ocean warming somehow has nothing to do with the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” One must assume he holds the opposite view, that a minor gas (constituting 0.038%) of the vaporous atmosphere does in fact warm the so-solid ocean. And not by touching it, exactly, but by radiation. Would you warm the bath by leaning over it?

    What is strange about that concept is that the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere can be accommodated in just the top 3.2 metres of the oceans, yet a tiny fraction of it is sufficient to warm the entire ocean. The world’s oceans have a mass of 1.4 × 1021 kg. The CO2 part of the atmosphere that, it’s claimed, warms the oceans has a mass of only 3.16×1015 kg.

    The ocean is a million times more massive than the carbon dioxide. The tiny heats up the gargantuan. Yeah? Gareth must give a reference for this one! We’ve not heard of a paper supporting such a magical event. Shall I hold my breath until his reply?

  55. Bob Maginnis on May 4, 2012 at 1:59 am said:

    Stevenson wrote:

    “…The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimetres into the ocean [Dr de Lange maintains this distance is actually in the tens of micrometres (microns). Confirmed at Real Climate, strangely — though the discussion there of why the tiny thermal effect of that OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) on the “skin layer” warms the whole ocean is oddly complex and unconvincing. – RT]. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few [microns] of the ocean. Water just a few [millimetres] deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere. Further, it is in those top few millimetres in which evaporation takes place. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.”

    I say that it isn’t oddly complex, that even if only the top millimeter is affected by downward LWIR, it reduces losses from the Sun warmed deeper water, thus allowing a warmer Ocean.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2012 at 8:49 am said:

    Ken you remind me of a one-trick-pony unable to learn new tricks that has lost the ability to give a commanding performance. . You have been unable to take on – let alone understand (you at least admit you are “confused”) – audience requests to refine and expand your act to make it worthwhile because you are obsessed with your one and only but now stale routine.

    Unfortunately for you Ken your act has been seen over and over at the fairground but now it’s of limited value. Only a dedicated but small fan base is now willing to pay to see it at the AGW circus but it has not held the crowd’s attention (it’s just not a “crowd pleaser” Ken).

    I suggest Ken, that you go away and learn some new tricks because the crowd has gone down to the IPCC’s freak show tent where they’ve got some really whacky stuff going on.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2012 at 9:05 am said:

    “Shall I hold my breath until his reply?” – No.

    The request for citations has been made ad infinitum at Hot topic but all you get is:-

    Crickets………birds chirping…………

  58. Bob D on May 4, 2012 at 10:33 am said:

    True enough, but the effect is miniscule, compared with the higher radiative energy transfer (4th power law) and increased evaporation.
    The reality is that the greenhouse effect and heat transport from the oceans to space is all about water vapour, not CO2.

  59. David on May 4, 2012 at 10:53 am said:

    Well said Richard C.
    Good thread- I learned a lot. Thanks to all of you for your efforts.I admire your patience 🙂

  60. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2012 at 10:56 am said:

    Bob Maginnis, actually it’s only the top 10 Microns (10/1000 of a millimetre) that are impinged, see plot:-

    http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

    Absorption is also 1000 times less than in the solar IR range at 1 micron WL (absorption coefficient on the left scale is a DECREASING scale).

    Reduced losses (heat is still lost) are only by conduction (sensible heat Hs) but radiative (Rnl) and evaporative (latent heat Hl) losses are by far the more significant (evaporation actually enhanced). See Table 5 ‘Cool-skin and warm-layer effects on sea surface temperature’ Fairall 1996:-

    ftp://ftp.etl.noaa.gov/users/cfairall/wcrp_wgsf/computer_programs/cor3_0/95JC03190.pdf

    To posit reduced oceanic heat loss by LWIR is contradictory to the core tenet of AGW (increased evaporation and therefore increased oceanic heat loss).

  61. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2012 at 12:30 pm said:

    BTW David, top billing at the IPCC Freak Show tent includes: the Uncertainty Monster, the Sea Level Spectre, the Feedback Freak and the Glacier Ghoul.

    Go on down there – it’s a hoot.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm said:

    The Modeling Clown Troupe lighten things up a bit – one of my favourites.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on May 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm said:

    Other attractions at the AGW Circus: Michael Mann’s House of Mirrors, Phil Jones’ Card Tricks and Madame Pachauri’s Fortune Telling Tarot Card tent.

    /Silliness

  64. rob taylor on May 4, 2012 at 5:56 pm said:

    Richard, stick to your day job – which is what, exactly?

    [Juvenile ad hom removed. – RT]

  65. Bob Maginnis,

    I say that it isn’t oddly complex, that even if only the top millimeter is affected by downward LWIR, it reduces losses from the Sun warmed deeper water, thus allowing a warmer Ocean.

    If it was simply a matter of two competing flows of heat energy, I’d agree with you. But when you read the article “Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean” at Real Climate, it concentrates on the top millimetre of the water as though it was a different phase of matter. It tries to persuade us that even a small flow of heat in the “opposite” direction foils the major flux from below.

    But eventually you get the strong impression you’re in the presence of a snow job. What do you think? Does it persuade you?

    For how can it be that merely leaning over the bath will warm it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation