IPCC created and controlled by activists

illusion in grey

Be in no doubt

A reader, Simon, made some interesting points when he commented on my assertion that scientists “incite” policy, saying:

The relatively recent trend of activism by individual scientists is solely because of the way their work is being misrepresented and their concern over the changing environment.

What he calls “concern over the changing environment” is the motivation for activism, so I’m glad we agree on that. But if they only looked more closely rather than satisfying their expectations at first glance they wouldn’t detect any change beyond the ordinary. Because no unprecedented climatic fluctuations have been reported. So why be concerned?

He refers to scientific activism as a “recent trend”, blatantly ignoring the fact that the whole climate scam was started by activists, and describes activism by “individual scientists” to imply they are few. In fact, they are thickly distributed throughout the UN, the IPCC, national and international scientific organisations and national governments, and their pronouncements and opinions are broadcast constantly.

How much more must they do before Simon notices them?

He is either deluded or his eyes are shut. Scientists everywhere get into policy, not just those who leave science to become activists. But not all scientists are biased.

The activism of scientists was well established when the UNFCCC was written in 1992 — even earlier, when the WMO and the UNEP set up the IPCC in 1988. Who could deny that their very purpose was climate activism, when the IPCC was prevented by its founding principles from investigating the truth of anthropogenic climate change. They were forced to take it as gospel and simply find evidence for it. Which is not normally considered a scientific approach.

Climate illusions

The opening paragraph of the treaty on the Framework Convention asserts:

that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.

From then and for ever, IPCC investigators have been prevented from examining the truth of those assertions. If they don’t accept them, they don’t get used by the IPCC. Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.

Definition of an activist

The IPCC’s first chairman was Bert Bolin, a meteorologist (in other words, a scientist), who “cajoled a reluctant world into recognising the urgency of the issue [of climate change],” in the words of one commentator. A pretty good description of an activist, I would say. It’s been the same ever since.

Look among the ranks of lead writers, principal authors and other contributors to the IPCC reports and you’ll find many who hold full-time positions with WWF, Greenpeace and other activist organisations — you can be sure they’re not there because of their neutrality towards global warming. Donna Laframboise wrote “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” describing this and other defects of the IPCC authors and processes.

The current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is an activist of the first order and thoroughly involved in promulgating policy and an urgent need for policy.

In his address to the meeting of COP 18 last November he stated openly:

I would like to submit with due emphasis that knowledge from the recent work of the IPCC must drive and define decisions that need to be taken now to deal with the growing challenge of climate change.

Chilling new move

I have just come across this. It is perhaps not surprising to hear of a bold new initiative with the latest Assessment Report, taking the IPCC’s policy involvement to a completely new level, but it is chilling. They’re beginning to leave the heavily controversial science behind them to concentrate on policy. This is revolutionary. Pachauri announced it:

In the case of WGIII, an innovation in AR5 is the “Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning” chapter. This is important because while urban planning is referenced in AR4 there is no comprehensive survey on the role which urban planning can play in adaptation and mitigation. WGIII is also providing greater emphasis on social science aspects of mitigation measures. For the first time, WG III is going beyond the technical aspects and into the social science aspects. WG III AR5 Report is also providing greater focus on technologies, sectors and regions, in order for the distribution of risks and costs to be more specific, i.e, there is less reliance on averages. And finally, it is focusing more explicitly on mitigation options, costs, strategies and policy requirements, with a more integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

It could not be clearer or more stark. Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN? This is the very scenario Lord Monckton has warned us about since Copenhagen in 2009. If we let the UN take control, the world will indeed be damned. We must visit this again; now, moving on…

Activists in New Zealand, too

Here in New Zealand, public scientists active in the “fight” to restrict industry because of its emissions of carbon dioxide include (off the top of my head) David Wratt, Andy Reisinger, Jim Salinger, James Renwick, Keith Hunter and Martin Manning. There are many others — I apologise if I left you out.

I was looking at the Antarctic Research Centre web site, which seems otherwise entirely focused on scientific topics and purposes, when I came across a “Policy” page. For anyone concerned about freedom, it, too, makes chilling reading, for they are fully involved in formulating public policy.

Policy

One of the main purposes of climate science is to provide reliable knowledge that can be used by society to make decisions concerning our relationship and responses to a climate system that is undergoing marked change. This involves:

• increasing our knowledge of the climate system and human interactions with this system (scientific basis),
• helping to understand the nature, scale and timing of climate change risk (vulnerability),
• helping to develop realistic climate change adaptation goals and strategies (adaptation), and
• helping the formulation of realistic climate change mitigation goals and strategies (mitigation).

The role of the ANZICE policy component is to help translate the relevance of the research findings for a policy audience.

To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity. Just look at what has happened to Greenpeace.

Nothing’s happening

People who believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming should stop saying the same things endlessly like a machine and start to notice the real world.

The climate has not been warming dangerously — it hasn’t warmed at all for about 20 years — sea level rise is not accelerating, colder northern winters are not caused by melting ice and the only sign of future dangerous temperatures is unproven computer models.

The climate scam is driven by activists, some of whom are scientists too.

188 Thoughts on “IPCC created and controlled by activists

  1. Rather dishonest to change “concern” to “assert” Richard?

    Alters the whole meaning.

  2. Simon on April 25, 2013 at 5:16 pm said:

    Ease off the conspiracy theory RT. Climate science is a is a key part of Antarctic research for at least two reasons:
    1. Climate change is most pronounced towards the poles. These ecosystems are the most under threat. As an example, a friend passing through from Campbell Island tells me that this year the waters around Campbell are far warmer than usual and the krill has been replaced by a kind of jellyfish. Krill is central to the whole ecosystem.
    2. The environment is relatively pristine and the opportunity for ice samples allow high quality paleo-climatic reconstructions.

  3. You’re on moderation, Perrott, but I had to approve this one, just to say: prove it.

    Enlighten us: how could the UN express “concern” about something they did not “assert”? How does it change their meaning by saying they asserted something they were concerned about? You’re sounding idiotic, but go ahead, explain.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2013 at 5:34 pm said:

    >”Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.”

    Probably the one and only aspect of the climate policy boondoggle that is “unequivocal”:-

    UN IPCC Official Admits ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’

    (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

    (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

    (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

    (EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

    (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

    (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=192624.0;wap2

  5. I don’t use the word conspiracy, nor do I believe it. I simply cite public documents. It’s a fact that the UN wrote Agenda 21. Read it.

    The point about mentioning policy was your denial that scientists get involved with it. Forgotten already?

    1. The Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years — why do you say “poles”? What does “far warmer” mean? Did your friend give you a temperature record showing how SST around Campbell Island have actually changed and by how much over many decades? Do you know anything about the regular cycles of oceanic species? Can you say if the “replacement” of krill by jellyfish is at all unusual, or how long it will last before the krill return? Are you sure, if krill is “central,” that it’s not available nearby? Do you know that there’s no definition of “ecosystem”?

    2. Which environment? If you mean the Campbell Island environment, what’s wrong with pristine jellyfish? What’s the problem with warmth? Where are the ice samples taken? Why does a pristine marine environment make any difference to them?

    Oops, missed the punchline.

    Finally, what makes you think we’re responsible for any warming around Campbell Island, when the global average temperature hasn’t risen for about 20 years? I mean, I could just say, so what the local SSTs have gone up? Tell us how much and when! You’re like all the little delicate warmists — it’s been warming, oooh!! Makes me sick. Talk sense.

  6. Delingpoles book Watermelons describes the history of the movement, if you want to call it that.

    Crispin Tickell and John Houghton were two prominent figures in starting up the IPCC, Houghton being the first head of that organization. Margaret Thatcher was also quite close to this pair in the early days.

    Thatcher later recanted and became quite sceptical, as documented in her book Statecraft.

    Many current commenters seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Thatcher changed her mind, as she also did on the EU project

  7. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2013 at 6:50 pm said:

    ‘The Human-Hating Roots of the Green Movement’

    Behind the environmentalist facade lies a totalitarian agenda that is already being enacted.

    By Arnold Ahlert · April 24, 2013

    Monday was the 43rd celebration of Earth Day, an event hailed as an effort to promote responsible stewardship of the environment. Fittingly, it is also the birthdate of Communist Party creator Vladimir Lenin, a reality that the radical environmentalists responsible for the creation of Earth Day dismiss as a mere coincidence. Yet there is little question that under the guise of “saving the planet,” the earth-firster crowd would be more than willing to impose the same kind of totalitarian control over the masses envisioned by Lenin.

    Like communism, the radical environmentalism that forms the heart of Earth Day celebrations is all about collectivism. In a 2007 column for the Cato Institute, former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus called environmentalism one of the main dangers to freedom in the 21st century. “Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection,” writes Klaus. “Behind their people- and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our values.”

    The Earth Day concept was developed by then-Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), Congress’s foremost environmentalist. Nelson also helped to develop college “sit-ins,” where professors surreptitiously abandoned their curriculums to lecture students on the evils of imperialist America and the virtues of communism, a misunderstood system of governance that merely need better implementation to succeed.

    Nelson’s efforts were facilitated by Denis Hayes. Hayes was a student at Stanford University, where he was elected student body president and became a high-profile anti-Vietnam War activist who once helped lead a student siege of a campus weapons-research laboratory.

    Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich was the third man behind the Earth Day cult. Ehrlich’s claim to fame was The Population Bomb, a book that predicted societal disintegration, and hundreds of millions of deaths from famine — by the 1980s — due to the “cancer” of human population growth. In 1969 Nelson and Ehrlich decided that a nation enthralled by the ethos of Woodstock was ready for a nationwide teach-in on environmentalism. Hayes was brought in to coordinate and implement the operation. The trio decided that the first Earth Day would be held on April 22, 1970 — the centennial celebration of Lenin’s birthday.

    The philosophical alignment between Lenin, who issued a decree known as “On Land,” declaring all natural resources the exclusive property of the state, and environmentalists, who believe that private enterprise and private property are impediments to saving the planet, are unmistakeable. To a large extent, those radical impulses have been realized in the United States. The federal government owns nearly 30 percent of all the land in the country, including five states where it owns more than half. Much of it remains federalized via the Endangered Species Act, which allows government to cordon off property from development if an endangered species is living on it. Furthermore, until the Supreme Court stopped the EPA last year, that agency was using the Clean Water Act to mandate what private property owners could or could not do with their own property, while preventing those owners from seeking recourse in the courts. “In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the court’s decision.

    The EPA was created by Congress eight months after the first Earth Day celebration.

    >>>>>>>>

    http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17854

  8. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2013 at 8:00 pm said:

    ‘Watermelons’ Review – John Brignell

    “As for the insults, they come from a numerous body of hangers-on (Lenin’s useful idiots)”

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/watermelons.htm

  9. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2013 at 8:16 pm said:

    Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day

    By Paul Kengor on 4.22.13

    Environmentalists of the world, unite!

    [From page 1]

    Our more knowledgeable friends on the left will cry foul at my crass connection between Lenin Day and Earth Day. They might note that Lenin was not an environmentalist. True, Lenin was a collectivist. He was also an angry atheist who detested human beings, mowing them down, filling land-fills with them. He did, however, share the penchant for central planning championed by environmentalists. And like environmentalists, more people were a problem for Lenin and his minions. Both environmentalists and Leninists view people as a drain on resources. For environmentalists, too many people consume too much of the earth’s (alleged) limited resources. For Leninists, too many people consume too much of the state’s limited resources. Both see mass collectivism and redistributionism — not to mention government control and seizure of property — as solutions to perceived global problems.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/22/happy-earth-day-and-lenin-day

    [From page 2]

    Indeed, if you want to see real pollution, the communist world had it by the river-load. It was horrid — toxic. If you want to clean up your environment, you need capitalism, because wealthy countries (which are free-market based) can afford it. When you’re communist and dirt poor, your concern is bread or rice, not “paper or plastic.”

    And yet, the environmental movement ultimately became a haven for old communists from the former Soviet Union. One of them, Mikhail Gorbachev, proudly proclaimed himself a “Leninist” (see his 1987 bestselling book, Perestroika) long before he proudly proclaimed himself an environmentalist. When Lenin’s empire alas crumbled at Gorbachev’s feet, the former general secretary went green. Once out of the Kremlin, Gorbachev formed an environmental organization with quasi-religious overtones. It was called the Green Cross, a re-constituting of the Red Cross label. It’s a fitting metaphor for the green-olatry of the movement. The red cross of Christ becomes a green cross of Gaia. You can see this in Gorbachev’s 2000 book, On My Country and the World, where he calls for “a new… environmentalization of consciousness.”

    Most interesting, Gorbachev’s words on Lenin in his 1987 book, Perestroika, were almost worshipful, reverential. A decade and a half later, when Lenin and Gorbachev’s USSR was dispatched to Ronald Reagan’s ash-heap of history, Gorbachev genuflected to Gaia instead of Lenin. He was far from alone.

    Also very telling, Gorbachev’s organization’s full title was Green Cross International. Like Marxism-Leninism, like the communist movement, the environmental movement wants to expand worldwide, with demands for excessive government involvement everywhere. Environmentalists of the world, unite!

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/22/happy-earth-day-and-lenin-day/1

  10. Simon on April 25, 2013 at 9:21 pm said:

    I don’t know why I bother but…
    Only parts of Antarctica are cooling as circulation patterns change. The Antarctic peninsula is warming rather quickly. My Campbell Island example was just that, only a sample. The warm conditions could be very localised for all I know. I’m not attributing it to AGW, merely pointing out that a warmer ocean affects the krill life cycle.
    Please restrict the ad hominem, you are under moderation.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm said:

    Climate change: IPCC 2014 draft report insights

    * Jenner & Block
    * E. Lynn Grayson
    * Global
    *
    * April 22 2013

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is working on its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change to be released in 2014. Interim drafts of certain portions of the report released by one of the three working groups suggest that things are not as bad as predicted in the IPCC’s 2007 report. Emerging insights are good news for the environment but pose greater uncertainty for the scientific community challenged to understand overall climate change impacts.

    The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:

    1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
    2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.

    Whether or not rising temperatures resulting in global warming have stopped altogether is unclear. What we do know is that the slowed progress of global warming, as indicated by the last ten years of global temperature data, means less immediate and perhaps more mitigated climate change-related impacts.

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd

    Lexology is an innovative, web-based service that provides company law departments and law firms with a depth of free practical know-how that would be impossible to produce internally. By collaborating with the world’s leading commercial law firms, Lexology is able to deliver fully tailored intelligence to the desktops of business lawyers worldwide on a daily basis.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2013 at 10:31 pm said:

    Consensus and Controversy: New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield”

    Details
    Published on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:31
    Written by Emil Røyrvik, SINTEF

    This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public “battlefield” that plays out arguably some of the more pressing issues of our time.

    Presenting two broad “ideal type” of positions involved in the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the “consensus” and the “contrarian” perspectives, the report analyses both their cultural premises and places them in relation to the philosophy of science.

    The report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on AGW, that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”.

    The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy.

    SINTEF is the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013042332408/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/consensus-and-controversy-new-report-on-the-global-warming-battlefield.html

    ‘Consensus and Controversy’

    The Debate on Man Made Global Warming

    Author Emil A. Røyrvik

    SINTEF Technology and Society
    Industrial Management
    2013 04 12

    http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf

  13. I don’t know why I bother but…

    Do you agree with anything in the post? For example, do you agree that the IPCC is not and cannot be a scientific organisation, for the reason that it cannot practice normal science, since its own rules prevent it from trying, and it has never tried, to falsify the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming, either with its own work or with a literature review? Do you agree that several thousand scientists write each assessment report, or do 80% of IPCC members have no science qualifications?

    Only parts of Antarctica are cooling as circulation patterns change. The Antarctic peninsula is warming rather quickly.

    So when you find cooling, you say it’s caused by natural variation, but warming is caused by us? Is that what you mean? Since 1979, the UAH satellite record at http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUSPol.html shows no significant trend. The peninsula is a tiny fraction of the continent, extending over 600 km beyond the Antarctic Circle into warmer waters, and lies in its warmest climate. Of course any warming there says nothing about the vast bulk of it, with ice kilometres thick.

    My Campbell Island example was just that, only a sample. The warm conditions could be very localised for all I know. I’m not attributing it to AGW, merely pointing out that a warmer ocean affects the krill life cycle.

    I’m pleased to hear that, thanks for the information, but have you really not noticed the scientists around the world speaking on behalf of governments, associations, professional and environmental bodies, agitating to “take action” and “fight” global warming? Ever heard of bio-fuel or wind turbines?

    Please restrict the ad hominem, you are under moderation.

    Heh, heh. Sometimes my self-control slips. But you’re being too sensitive. I called you little and delicate, which is mild. Your complaint is declined and my self-moderation is removed. On the other hand, I remind you that I advised you to talk sense.

    If you fail to answer any of my questions, either in this or previous comments, then I will stop asking.

  14. If there was a significant body of scientific literature that rejected the AGW hypothesis, the IPCC would be unable to ignore it in their preparation of AR5. That body of evidence does not exist so I suspect that AR5 will reach similar conclusions as AR4 but hopefully with some additional insight into what is going on.

  15. It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well. Anthony Watts rather infamously tried it blame it on the Urban Heat Island effect, unaware that there is a network of automated stations well away from the extremely well insulated huts. It is more complex than the Arctic but things are changing quickly. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/ice-hockey/ for more detail.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 8:26 am said:

    >”I suspect that AR5 will reach similar conclusions as AR4 but hopefully with some additional insight into what is going on.”

    From Lexology.com down-thread, the legal fraternity are already reporting this:-

    The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:

    1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
    2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd

  17. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 8:43 am said:

    From the new SPPI & CO2 Science report:

    “There is little need to ascribe a unique cause to late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.”

    “In considering Qian and Lu’s findings, it is important to note that, once again, no help from greenhouse gas emissions was needed to reconstruct the past thousand-year history of Earth’s global mean temperature; it was sufficient to merely employ known oscillations in solar radiation variability. And as for the future, the two authors predict that “global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s.” Given the cessation in warming observed in the surface and lower tropospheric temperature records over the past decade, it appears their prediction is well on its way to being validated.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/analysis-finds-sun-explains-climate.html

  18. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 9:00 am said:

    SPPI:-

    The claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been responsible for the warming detected in the twentieth century is based on what Loehle (2004)[1] calls “the standard assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports,” that “over a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000), and thus the null model for climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some autocorrelated noise,” so that “any warming trends in excess of that expected from normal climatic variability are then assumed to be due to anthropogenic effects.” If, however, there are significant underlying climate trends or cycles-or both-either known or unknown, that assumption is clearly invalid.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/solar_influence_on_global_temperature.html

    Report:-

    ‘Solar Influence on Global Temperature’

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/solar_influence.pdf

  19. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 9:32 am said:

    ‘Recent Antarctic climate, glacier changes at the ‘upper bound’ of normal’

    University of Washington, April 14, 2013

    In the last few decades, glaciers at the edge of the icy continent of Antarctica have been thinning, and research has shown the rate of thinning has accelerated and contributed significantly to sea level rise.

    New ice core research suggests that, while the changes are dramatic, they cannot be attributed with confidence to human-caused global warming, said Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences.

    Previous work by Steig has shown that rapid thinning of Antarctic glaciers was accompanied by rapid warming and changes in atmospheric circulation near the coast. His research with Qinghua Ding, a UW research associate, showed that the majority of Antarctic warming came during the 1990s in response to El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

    Their new research suggests the ’90s were not greatly different from some other decades – such as the 1830s and 1940s – that also showed marked temperature spikes.

    “If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today,” said Steig, lead author of a paper on the findings published online April 14 in Nature Geoscience.

    >>>>>>

    http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/04/14/recent-antarctic-climate-glacier-changes-at-the-upper-bound-of-normal/

  20. Bishop Hill has a post on philosopher Pascal Bruckner’s new book on environmental catastrophism, entitled The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/25/bruckners-opus.html

    There was a great deal to enjoy. I kept having to pick up my pen to jot down things Bruckner said that had never occurred to me before or older ideas that were explored from new angles:

    The idea of catastrophe has replaced the idea of progress
    Racial minorities, women and slaves have been replaced as principal victims by Mother Earth
    Fear has become something to be desired.
    We are being transformed into children, ready to obey the orders of an enlightened elite.
    Friends of the earth have become the enemies of mankind
    Environmentalism is universal but “end of the worldism” is purely western.
    Environmentalism is about keeping the world for the bobos (bohemian bourgeois)

    I’ve started working my way through the book and it’s not an easy read (although much more straightforward than most works by philosophers). But I think Bruckner’s view on greenery is rather penetrating and it’s a valuable counterblast against apocalyptism. If you like struggling with ideas, it could well be worth a look.

    Looks interesting.

  21. SimonP on April 26, 2013 at 9:51 am said:

    Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist) can explain things better than I can but I know that this will be disregarded out of hand as it is from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/apr/24/reuters-puzzled-global-warming-acceleration?CMP=twt_gu

  22. Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist)

    What makes Dana a “real climate scientist”, as opposed to say Richard Lindzen

    Update: I don’t automatically reject everything from The Guardian. I take each newspaper article at face value, whether it be from the Mail, Telegraph or Guardian.
    Leo Hickman did a good job recently exposing some of the dodgy claims about Afric by David Attenborough, for which his deserves credit.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 10:10 am said:

    >”…but I know that this will be disregarded out of hand”

    Yes and no.

    Truncate the OHC data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2009, ignore therefore the most recent data showing a standstill in OHC, do not make recourse to other OHC datasets e.g. UKMO EN3 that doesn’t exhibit the OHC acceleration that the heavily “adjusted” NCDC dataset does, don’t do a basin-by-basin analysis.

    Otherwise – apart from that scientific trivia – global warming is accelerating in ideological terms.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 10:18 am said:

    >”Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist)”

    Spin it up Simon.

    “Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

    So by your rationale Simon, anyone who has been researching climate science as a hobby is a climate scientist, albeit with transferable knowledge from academia.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 10:34 am said:

    >Dana Nuccitelli ……can explain things better than I can”

    Are you sure about that Simon? There seems to be some mixed messages:-

    Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?

    Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2)

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing

    Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing

    Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing

    SkS have a glitch in their “global” warming going into the ocean meme.

    3-month heat content from 1955 to present

    * Basin time series

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

    – World: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
    2005.875 , 12.637 , 7.849959
    2012.875 , 16.630 , 10.641594

    – Atlantic: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
    2005.875 , 6.256 , 4.896
    2012.875 , 6.882 , 4.491

    – Pacific: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
    2005.875 , 4.188 , 3.291
    2012.875 , 4.227 , 2.858

    – Indian: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
    2005.875 , 2.194 , 1.094
    2012.875 , 5.520 , 3.923

    Over the last 7 years, “global” warming has been going into the [Indian] ocean, and 70% (2.8×10^22) of the 7 yr World: 0 – 2000 meters heat increase (4×10^22 Joules) has gone into the 0 – 700 m layer of the Indian Ocean.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 10:51 am said:

    From page 5/6:-

    With respect to the causes of these and other Holocene RCCs [rapid climate changes], the international team of scientists [the 16 authors of Mayewski et al. (2004)] says that “of all the potential climate forcing mechanisms, solar variability superimposed on long-term changes in insolation (Bond et al., 2001; Denton and Karlén, 1973; Mayewski et al., 1997; O’Brien et al., 1995) seems to be the most likely important forcing mechanism.” In addition, they note that “negligible forcing roles are played by CH4 and CO2,” and that “changes in the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 appear to have been more the result than the cause of the RCCs.”

    And,

    Complicating the matter, however, Raspopov et al. report there can sometimes be “an appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal,” which can be as long as 150 years, and they note that regional climate responses to the de Vries cycle “can markedly differ in phase,” even at distances of only hundreds of kilometers, due to “the nonlinear character of the atmosphere-ocean system response to solar forcing.” Nevertheless, the many results they culled from the scientific literature, as well as their own findings, all testify to the validity of their primary conclusion, that throughout the past millennium, and stretching back in time as much as 250 million years, the de Vries cycle has been “one of the most intense solar activity periodicities that affected climatic processes.”

    As for the more recent historical significance of the de Vries cycle, Raspopov et al. write that “the temporal synchrony between the Maunder, Sporer, and Wolf minima and the expansion of Alpine glaciers (Haeberlie and Holzhauser, 2003) further points to a climate response to the deep solar minima.” In this regard, it could be added again that Earth’s recent recovery from those deep solar minima could well have played a major role in the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age, and, therefore, could well have accounted for much of twentieth century global warming, as suggested a full quarter-century ago by Idso (1988).

  27. Richard T: Even on my unfortunately short span of reading this blog I have come to the conclusion you should ban Simon.. Yes, I know about fairness and being “an open site”, but I also know what realclimate does to skeptic commenters. Boy do I ever. He has ceased to be funny.

  28. I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible. The entire AGW “debate” is built on shifting sand, as protagonists on all sides are at liberty to describe the theory as they please. No falsification is possible.

  29. Yes, Stan, I quite understand. But we persevere. I suggest you try to carry on, because the matter is more important than just feeling comfortable. Our answers, as someone said here recently, strike a wider audience than our proximate interlocutor. At least, I think that’s what he said…

  30. Brilliant, Richard!

    Now why not take a case to the high court – that seems to be the same sort of argument you used last time?

    Just imagine, without such brilliant minds to keep scientists in check they would get away with blue murder.

  31. What nonsense, Ken. As you know perfectly well, we didn’t argue the causes of DAGW in the court case.

    Now please cite the scientific paper you have in mind that sets out an hypothesis to explain the DAGW phenomenon which you’re so convinced is true. There must be one somewhere, surely? You’re a scientist, you know how important it is for everyone to be on the same page — so where is the page that describes the mechanism/s behind dangerous anthropogenic global warming?

  32. Pingback: Friday follies – what happened to the “official AGW hypothesis?” | Open Parachute

  33. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 6:26 pm said:

    The irony being that Ken will have to defer to this paper for anything resembling a hypothesis (not that he would know):-

    ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’

    Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)

    Gerhard Gerlich
    Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf

    3.1 Defi nition of the problem
    After it has been thoroughly discussed, that the physical greenhouse e ffect is essentially the explanation, why air temperatures in a closed glass house or in a closed car are higher than outside, one should have a closer look at the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse e ffects. Meanwhile there are many di fferent phenomena and diff erent explanations for these e ffects, so it is justifi ed to pluralize here.

    Depending on the particular school and the degree of popularization, the assumption that the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation is supposed to lead to

     a warming of the Earth’s surface and/or
     a warming of the lower atmosphere and/or
     a warming of a certain layer of the atmosphere and/or
     a slow-down of the natural cooling of the Earth’s surface
    and so forth.

    Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse eff ect is introduced in harmony with the scientifi c standards of theoretical physics. As already emphasized, the supplement” to Kittel’s book on thermal physics [92] only refers to the IPCC assessments [23, 25]. Prominent global climatologists (as well as climate sceptics”) often present their ideas in handbooks, encyclopedias, and in secondary and tertiary literature.

    3.3 Diff erent versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . 38
    3.3.1 Atmospheric greenhouse e ffect after Moller (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
    3.3.2 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Meyer’s encyclopedia (1974) . . . . 38
    3.3.3 Atmospheric greenhouse e ffect after Schonwiese (1987) . . . . . . . . . 38
    3.3.4 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Stichel (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
    3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Anonymous 1 (1995) . . . . . . . . 39
    3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Anonymous 2 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
    3.3.7 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Anonymous 3 (1995) . . . . . . . . 40
    3.3.8 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after German Meteorological Society (1995) 40
    3.3.9 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Gral (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
    3.3.10 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Ahrens (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
    3.3.11 Atmospheric greenhouse e ffect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics,
    and Astronomy (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
    3.3.12 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and
    Astrophysics (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
    3.3.13 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
    (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
    3.3.14 Atmospheric greenhouse eff ect after Rahmstorf (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 43

  34. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 6:45 pm said:

    The AGW conjecture (in the absence of a hypothesis) being encapsulated in the CO2-forced global climate models. Those now, by the modelers own falsification criteria, on the cusp of falsification:-

    http://www.mutantblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dailymail.jpg

    Word is getting around. Even the law fraternity is reporting climate science’s conjecture-reality mismatch:-

    The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:

    1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
    2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.

    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd

  35. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 7:02 pm said:

    So the AGW conjecture problem is two-fold:-

    1) As G&T point out, “there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse eff ect is introduced in harmony with the scientifi c standards of theoretical physics”

    2) There is no anthropogenic enhancement extension in the literature (a secondary hypothesis) of the effect in 1) which is not formally documented as the primary hypothesis in the first instance.

  36. It is great to know that we are gathering at one of the “echo chamber nodes” according to Ken

    Sounds a bit Red Dwarf/Dr Who to me.

    (* calling all attendees at Node#13, sector A6, conspiracy 5)

  37. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 7:55 pm said:

    Just Ken’s inimitable way of saving the planet, one obscure blog post at a time.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 8:31 pm said:

    >”It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well”

    Steve McIntyre writes:-

    In a recent RC post entitled “Ice Hockey” and a recent Nature article, Steig and coauthors have introduced a novel and very baroque “hockey stick”, one without a blade. A true Halloween of horrors: in addition to Gergis’ zombie hockey stick, the bladeless Hockey Stick of Sleepy Hollow is now at large.

    The appearance of Steig’s bladeless hockey stick was apparently so horrifying that he dared not show it in the RC post. However, I believe that CA readers are made of sterner stuff and will be able to withstand the sight of even a bladeless hockey stick, which is shown below.

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/steig-2013-figure-3.png?w=647&h=438

    Steig described d18O values in “recent decades” as “highly unusual”:

    “Our results thus show that, indeed, recent decades in West Antarctica, which have been characterized by very rapid warming, and very rapid loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, are highly unusual.”

    Steig also asserted that there was a “strong trend” in O18 values in the past 50 years, which was, according to Steig, “largely driven” by high values in the closing portion of the series. Here’s his exact language:

    “Our results show that the strong trend in δ18O in West Antarctica in the last 50 years is largely driven by anomalously high δ18O in the most recent two decades, particularly in the 1990s (less so the 2000s).”

    It seems odd to say that the supposed trend was “largely driven” by higher values in the closest portion: how would one get a trend without higher closing values. For comparison, here is a detail of the WAIS d18O record (plotted from PAGES2K data) for the past century. Values in the 1990s were locally elevated, but values in the 1970s were the lowest in the entire record, contradicting Steig’s claim about “recent decades“. Nor is the “trend” since 1950 even statistically significant. Indeed, the values in the 1990s appear more like a fluctuation, as opposed to a “trend” (let alone a “strong trend”), particularly given the subsequent downtick in the 2000s. Nor is this data set is one that any reasonable person would compare to a Hockey Stick.

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/steig-2013-modern.png?w=680&h=480

    Even with the most liberal allowance for imprecise language and lack of statistical acumen on the part of “real climate” scientists,

    >>>>>>>>

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/23/steigs-bladeless-hockey-stick/#more-17848

  39. Simon on April 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm said:

    Arrhenius, S. A. (1896): On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine (41): 237-76

  40. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 9:56 pm said:

    >”Arrhenius, S. A. (1896)”

    In answer to the question “the [paper] that describes the mechanism/s behind dangerous anthropogenic global warming?”

    Really? G&T:-

    3.6 The hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius

    3.6.1 The traditional works

    In their research and review papers the climatologists refer to legendary publications of Svante August Arrhenius (19 Feb. 1859 – 2 Oct. 1927), a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry.
    Arrhenius published one of the earliest, extremely simple calculations in 1896, which were immediately – and correctly – doubted and have been forgotten for many decades [44{46]. It is a paper about the influence of carbonic acid in the air on the Earth’s ground temperature. In this quite long paper, Arrhenius put the hypothesis up for discussion, that the occurrences of warm and ice ages are supposed to be explainable by certain gases in the atmosphere, which absorb thermal radiation.

    In this context Arrhenius cited a 1824 publication by Fourier18 entitled Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires” [37, 38]. Arrhenius states incorrectly that Fourier was the fi rst, who claimed that the atmosphere works like a glass of a greenhouse as it lets the rays of the Sun through but keeps the so-called dark heat from the ground inside.

    […]

    Arrhenius work was also preceded by the work of Tyndall who discovered that some gases absorb infrared radiation. He also suggested that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change [39{43]. A faksimile of the front pages of Fourier’s and Arrhenius often cited but apparently not really known papers are shown in Figure 18 and in Figure 19, respectively.

    […]

    In which fantastic way Arrhenius uses Stefan-Boltzmann’s law to calculate this eff ect”, can be seen better in another publication, in which he defends his ice age-hypothesis [46], see Figures 20, 21, and 22.

    First, Arrhenius estimates that 18:7% of the Earth’s infrared radiation would not be emitted into space because of its absorption by carbonic acid. This could be taken into account by reducing the Earth’s eff ective radiation temperature Te to a reduced temperature Treduced.
    Arrhenius assumed

    [Equations 64 – 67]

    which corresponds to a lowering of the Earth’s temperature of 14:5 C.
    As one would probably not think that such an absurd claim is possible, a scan of this
    passage is displayed in Figures 21 and 22.

    […]

    It is an interesting point that there is an inversion of the burden of proof in Arrhenius’ paper, which is typeset in boldface here, because it winds its way as a red thread through almost all contemporary papers on the influence of CO2 of the so-called global climate.”

    # # #

    Hardly a definitive GHE hypothesis let alone an AGW hypothesis.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on April 26, 2013 at 11:03 pm said:

    >”I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible.”

    But there is a null hypothesis:-

    ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2′

    Submission to: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 [The Endangerment Finding]

    Summary
    The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first
    principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the
    sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm
    increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

    Based on the arguments presented here, a null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed:

    It is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change to the Earth’s climate, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf

  42. Nice work, RC, thanks.

  43. Nice work again.

  44. Simon,

    We all hope for some insight from the IPCC!

    If there was a significant body of scientific literature that rejected the AGW hypothesis, the IPCC would be unable to ignore it

    You’re quite trusting, aren’t you? Actually, the IPCC has proved itself again and again perfectly capable of ignoring anything inconvenient, as Donna Laframboise describes in her book. For example, they ignored Christopher Landsea’s expert view that global warming does not have a strong influence on hurricanes. As Donna puts it: “Kevin Trenberth, who is not a hurricane expert, had participated in a press conference in which the media and the public were led to believe that a link exists between global warming and more intense hurricanes. When Landsea protested to the IPCC that this was improper, especially given the fact that Trenberth was in charge of the hurricane section of the climate bible then being prepared, he was blown off.”

    Chairman Pachauri refused even to acknowledge an injustice had occurred or to correct it.

    That body of evidence does not exist

    Of course, no AGW hypothesis has been set out (or, please, cite the paper!). And there’s no need for a “body of evidence” to disprove anything — as Einstein said, it requires “just one fact.” But the IPCC ignores inconvenient facts.

  45. Simon on April 27, 2013 at 8:12 am said:

    You are correct RC, Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect existed in the 1850s. Arrhenius formulated his law ΔF = α Ln(C/Co) in 1896
    where C is the CO2 concentration (ppmv),
    Co denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2,
    and ΔF is the radiative forcing (W/m²).
    This is the AGW hypothesis. Disprove it.

  46. Simon, you describe the increased forcing ascribed to an increase of CO2

    However, I don’t think this is the AGW hypothesis, since the equation doesn’t mention heat or temperature.

    The AGW hypothesis has to include the climate response to that forcing.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 9:27 am said:

    >”This is the AGW hypothesis. Disprove it”

    The modern form (Myhre et al): ΔF = 5.35 Ln(C/Co)

    From 2002 – 2012

    ΔF = 5.35 Ln(C/Co)
    ΔF = 5.35 Ln(393.82/373.22)
    ΔF = 0.29 W.m2

    ΔT = λ ΔF

    A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2

    ΔT = 0.8*0.29
    ΔT = 0.23 K/decade

    ΔT 2002 – 2012 GISTEMP Trend: -0.017 ±0.245 °C/decade (2σ)

    Disproved

  48. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 9:40 am said:

    >”I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible.”

    There is the IPCC statements (based on their case) that might be considered hypotheses:-

    e.g. AR5 SOD SPM Detection and Attribution:-

    “It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s”

    For which the competing hypothesis would be:-

    “It is extremely likely that significantly increased solar output in conjunction with the positive phase of the 60 climate cycle caused the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. The subsequent negative phase of the 60 year cycle in conjunction with peak solar output is extremely likely to have caused the standstill in global average surface temperature since the early 2000s”

  49. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 10:03 am said:

    >”Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect existed”

    That being another contention on a huge scale and to which I refer you to the Slayers (real GHE sceptics, not luke-warmers) if you really want to go on with it.

    But in short, the greenhouse effect is restricted convection as has been subsequently proved.

  50. realityrulesok on April 27, 2013 at 10:51 am said:

    Nice to see the two Richard’s admiring their reflections in each other’s highly-polished tinfoil hats.

    Meanwhile, back in the world of real scientists studying empirical data, we’re heading for a re-run of the Pliocene – how far above sea-level do these Richards live, I wonder?

    “Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years, according to new regional temperature reconstructions covering all seven continents. This period of human-made global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience by more than 80 scientists from 24 nations analyzing climate data from tree rings, pollen, cave formations, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and historical records from around the world.

    “This paper tells us what we already knew, except in a better, more comprehensive fashion,” said study co-author Edward Cook, a tree-ring scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the Asia reconstruction.

    The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years…”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422101313.htm

  51. You give no link to the paper, neither does your source, Science Daily. So we don’t know how much it “warmed more”, nor how much hotter the 2003 European summer was than every other European summer in the last 2000 years. That’s a lot of crucial information not to tell us. For if the global climate only “warmed more” by a few thousandths of a degree, as it did in the “record” temperatures of a few years this millenium, who cares? It’s no basis for panic.

    It was known at the time that the 2003 heat wave, which sadly killed many and for which Europe was completely unprepared, hence most died needlessly, was caused by meteorological conditions and not by any kind of “global warming.” For you would have to claim that global warming has raised average temperatures about 18 °F, and you don’t, do you?

    I would be surprised if the paper used the words “fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions” but I would be positively astonished if it provided evidence of such causation.

    It’s hard to credit the sheer incompetence of some people, claiming that man-made global warming “continues today,” when the thermometers have remained essentially stuck for about 20 years. Heh, heh. The kind of global warming that doesn’t raise the mercury?

    “This paper tells us what we already knew, …” said study co-author Edward Cook. But still without revealing the magnitude of the worrying warming. Brilliant. So we still don’t know how much of a panic to start. Oh well, we’ll just run around waving our hands in the air, like you do.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 11:20 am said:

    >”Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years”

    How much has it warmed since 2000 Rob? That’s the issue for those of us not living in the past.

    1971 – 2000 only betters 1908 – 1939 by 0.035 °C

    HadCRUt4 Trend 1971 – 2000: 0.176 ±0.058 °C/decade (2σ)
    HadCRUt4 Trend 1908 – 1939: 0.141 ±0.052 °C/decade (2σ)

  53. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 11:37 am said:

    >’This period of humanmade global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience”

    Baloney. The natural cooling trend ending in the 1600s and subsequent warming from the LIA ending in the 2000s coincides with the quasi-1000 yr Eddy solar cycle e.g.

    ‘High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka’

    1. Caroline Cléroux1,2,
    2. Maxime Debret3,
    3. Elsa Cortijo1,
    4. Jean-Claude Duplessy1,
    5. Fabien Dewilde1,
    6. John Reijmer4,
    7. Nicolas Massei3

    Article first published online: 9 FEB 2012

    [1] This study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream. We focus on the last 10,000 years (10 ka) to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and discuss the centennial to millennial time scale variability. We observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. We interpret the temperature and salinity changes in both regions as co-variation of activities of the subtropical and subpolar gyres. Around 8.3 ka and 5.2–3.5 ka, positive salinity anomalies are reconstructed off Cape Hatteras. We demonstrate, for the 5.2–3.5 ka period, that the salinity increase was caused by the cessation of the low salinity surface flow coming from the north. A northward displacement of the Gulf Stream, blocking the southbound low-salinity flow, concomitant to a reduced Meridional Overturning Circulation is the most likely scenario.

    Finally, wavelet transform analysis revealed a 1000-year period pacing the δ18O signal over the early Holocene. This 1000-year frequency band is significantly coherent with the 1000-year frequency band of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 9.5 ka and 7 ka and both signals are in phase over the rest of the studied period.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011PA002184/abstract

  54. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 12:26 pm said:

    Here’s the paper RT (paywalled):-

    ‘Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia’

    * PAGES 2k Consortium

    Abstract
    Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1797.html

    Steve McIntyre had an advance post on this:-

    ‘PAGES2K Reconstructions’

    The PAGES2K article to be published tomorrow will show eight regional reconstructions, which are plotted below. In today’s post, I’ll try to briefly summarize what, if anything, is new about them.

    Plot:-

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pages-reconstructions.png?w=680&h=720

    Post:-

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/

    From comments,

    miker613

    Couple of questions from an ignoramus:

    1) Is this The Big Meta-Study that combines all knowledge on the last two millenia? If it is, what are the conclusions? Was there a Medieval Warm Period, or not?
    2) What are the final conclusions of the statistics-critics? Are there reliable conclusions that can be drawn from all this, or not, and what are they?
    3) Are the data and methods (finally) completely out? If so, could those who disagree with how various statistics were done – redo them? Are there competing studies done by skeptics?

    I’m trying to see if there are Big Picture conclusions that believers and skeptics should agree on.

    Steve: this study has been out for only a few days. It takes more than a minute or two to figure out what they’ve done. They’ve made a much better than usual attempt to document what they’ve done, but it still takes time. At first blush, pretty much every criticism of (say) Kaufman et al 2009 on varvology or of Gergis/Neukom applies to the new variations.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/21/pages2k-reconstructions/#comment-415861

  55. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 1:24 pm said:

    The fact that solar output was at a 1000 yr high at the end of the 20th century seems to have escaped the attention of the PAGES 2k Consortium:-

    ‘Sunspot activity hits 1,000-year high’

    July 12, 2004

    The Sun is burning brighter than at any time over the past 1,150 years, according to a study by a professor at a Swiss university.

    Professor Sami Solanki said this could be compounding the effects of greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming.

    “We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.

    Last week Solanki, who is a professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, presented the findings at a conference of solar and stellar scientists in Hamburg, Germany.

    His research team reached its conclusions after studying data from samples of ice collected by Swiss scientist Jürg Beer on an expedition to Greenland in 1991.

    Most scientists acknowledge that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have warmed the planet in past decades, but they have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

    >>>>>>>

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive/Sunspot_activity_hits_1,000-year_high.html?cid=3990930

  56. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 2:56 pm said:

    The last time solar activity was as high as the late 20th century was 11,000 years ago. Nothing in between even comes close except for 8,800 years ago. See page 50:-

    ‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’

    Ilya G. Usoskin

    Sodankyl¨a Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit)
    FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

    Published: 21 March 2013
    (Update of lrsp-2008-3)

    Figure 21: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.

    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf

  57. The “AGW hypothesis”, such as it is, can probably be summarised thus:

    (1) The “Greenhouse Effect” due to downward longwave radiation is real, and measurable

    (2) The no-feedback sensitivity of CO2 assuming a blackbody earth is around 1.2 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2

    (3) Net feedbacks are positive (mainly due to increased water vapour), resulting in an increased overall greenhouse effect than from just CO2 alone. The IPCC central estimate of this sensitivity has always been 3 degrees C

    Some people argue about (1) and (2), but the most uncertainty is (3).

  58. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm said:

    Here’s the -4000 BC to 2000 AD half of Usoskin (2013) Figure 21:-

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z36/AlecRawls/Environment%20and%20climate/Sunspots_Usoskin2007_4000BC-2000AD_zps9dc7f477.png

    The DAGW sceptic’s hockeystick.

  59. realityrulesok on April 27, 2013 at 4:15 pm said:

    Richard, it is indeed hard to credit the sheer ignorance of some people, claiming that man-made global warming “has stopped,” when the heating has accelerated for about 20 years. Heh, heh. The kind of scientific illiterate who doesn’t know the difference between the thermal energy of a system and the surface temperature?

    Here are references to the relevant papers (warning – may promote insight / awareness):

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/guemas-attribute-slowed-surface-warming-to-oceans.html

  60. RROK – the IPCC use surface temperatures as their main metric for “global warming”, so we are just following suit. [thanks, Andy -RT]

  61. rrok

    claiming that man-made global warming “has stopped,” when the heating has accelerated for about 20 years.

    The atmosphere gets practically all its heat from the oceans alone. The atmosphere has not warmed in about 20 years (please don’t call it a decade as Perrott does). Therefore the oceans have not warmed in about the same period. Please explain how energy can accumulate without any effect on temperature. My present understanding is that it’s impossible. Note that I said “any” effect on temperature. It may help to phrase the question thus: how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?

  62. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm said:

    Well defined Andy. The thing about the model implementations is that they all return different CS (λ) values, not the IPCC’s calculated value (“naive calculation” is the term I think, see below), e.g.

    http://troyca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure3.png

    Caption:-

    “This is showing the radiative restoration strength in the CMIP5 models examined (each X is a different run from that model), which is generally inversely related to sensitivity. The solid gray line represents the likely value from observations, and the dashed lines represent +/- one standard deviation. As can be seen, the vast majority of these runs fall below the observational likely value for radiative restoration strength, suggesting these CMIP5 models likely have too high a sensitivity relative to the observations. Interestingly, inmcm4 and MRI-CGCM3 are both well above the line, and while they are among the CMIP5 models with the lowest sensitivity, they are not nearly as insensitive as the 50-yr radiative restoration strength would make them appear (which would be ~ 1.2 K for ECS if we performed a naïve calculation).”

    From ‘Sensitivity / CMIP5 comparison paper now in press at Climate Dynamics’

    http://troyca.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/sensitivity-cmip5-comparison-paper-now-in-press-at-climate-dynamics/

    INMCM4 has “X” of 3 (inversely proportional to CS (λ) 0.33 – I think that’s how it works) because it has very low trajectories. It is also the only one mimicing the 21st century near-sfc so far although I don’t anticipate that will continue even over the next 2 years if there’s any cooling.

    >”The IPCC central estimate of this sensitivity has always been 3 degrees C”

    Equates to CS (λ) of 0.8 C/(W/m2), whereas “The solid gray line” of observations above is 0.5 C/(W/m2) [inverse of 2]. I might be wrong here but I think that’s how to interpret that CMIP5 CS comparison above.

  63. Thought I heard my name taken in vain. Richard, for a proof reader you show a shocking tendency to misrepresent.

    FYI
    Decade = a period of 10 years.
    Decadal = pertaining to 10, consisting of tens.

    Hence my use of decadal to refer to several terns of years.

  64. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm said:

    Re Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). Response as for Simon’s oblique reference up-thread:-

    Truncate the OHC data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2009, ignore therefore the most recent data showing a standstill in OHC, do not make recourse to other OHC datasets e.g. UKMO EN3 that doesn’t exhibit the OHC acceleration that the heavily “adjusted” NCDC dataset does, don’t do a basin-by-basin analysis.

    Otherwise – apart from that scientific trivia – global warming is accelerating in ideological terms.

    Re Guemas et al. (2013). Tisdale:-

    The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005. [Figure 1]:-

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-1.png?w=960&h=594

    From post,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/on-guemas-et-al-2013-retrospective-prediction-of-the-global-warming-slowdown-in-the-past-decade/

    Warning – may promote insight / awareness

  65. What nonsense. You said “Cumming only “noted” the recent decadal plateau of surface temperatures because he thinks it fits his story.” It wasn’t a decadal plateau. It was a 20-year plateau. You bristle at nothing. Now, how about the substantive issue of thermal energy? Please?

  66. Bishop Hill has a timely summary of studies supporting low sensitivity to CO2. This links to a similar article on WUWT

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/25/climate-sensitivity-in-ar5.html

  67. Can’t navigate in this mess but this is for Richard Treadgold

    You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often.
    ‘I repeat deacadal = pertaining to 10, consisting of tens. That includes 20 years!

    Now stop diverting pathetically like that.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm said:

    >”…the IPCC use surface temperatures as their main metric for “global warming” ”

    Thing to remember too though is that the largest component of say HadCRUt4 is sea surface temperature (HadSST3) not atmosphere, but that SST and OHC are not necessarily in sync anyway.

    SST (and therefore GMST) has been cooling since about 2003:-

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

    But 0-2000m OHC has only just reached standstill since 2011/12

    2005-3,9.047265
    2005-6,9.440074
    2005-9,9.737721
    2005-12,12.702446
    2006-3,11.986115
    2006-6,13.062301
    2006-9,12.342897
    2006-12,13.410676
    2007-3,13.660851
    2007-6,11.580516
    2007-9,12.458247
    2007-12,12.539561
    2008-3,13.499634
    2008-6,14.740957
    2008-9,13.240829
    2008-12,12.241559
    2009-3,12.811517
    2009-6,12.374052
    2009-9,13.947054
    2009-12,15.183682
    2010-3,16.048752
    2010-6,13.671132
    2010-9,14.129639
    2010-12,15.070600
    2011-3,15.453777
    2011-6,14.812579
    2011-9,17.095699 <<<<<<<<<
    2011-12,14.983609 <<<<<<<<
    2012-3,17.434353 <<<<<<<<<
    2012-6,15.622717 <<<<<<<<<
    2012-9,15.494756 <<<<<<<<<
    2012-12,16.831072 <<<<<<<<

    0-700m OHC has only been accumulating in the Indian Ocean but that is now at standstill to:-

    2000.875 0.838
    2001.875 1.498
    2002.875 0.812
    2003.875 1.048
    2004.875 1.272
    2005.875 1.094
    2006.875 1.925
    2007.875 1.980
    2008.875 1.606
    2009.875 2.691
    2010.875 4.040 <<<<<<<
    2011.875 3.636 <<<<<<<
    2012.875 3.923 <<<<<<<

    That lag is just a measure of the thermal inertia of the ocean and the time it takes to equilibrate at a high energy input level (solar Grand Max). The upper Pacific and Atlantic having already done so and the Pacific now cooling.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm said:

    >”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

    Because the ocean is a heat-sink (reservoir of energy) and the atmospheric response to energy input to the ocean is not instantaneous generally (the only instantaneous response being radiation refection from the surface).

    Planetary inertia – the time lag between change in energy input and energy output in the sun => ocean => atmosphere system – is generally agreed to be around 12 – 14 years. The 14 year calculation being +/- 6 years so anywhere between 8 – 20 years.

    Therefore we should expect to see near-sfc cooling about 8 – 20 years after peak solar input at 1986 and that is exactly what has happened. And ocean enthalpy (total heat) reached maximum at the end of the modern solar Grand Maximum (1930 – 2012), also to be expected.

    The process will go into reverse now that solar output is declining i.e. the ocean will release heat to the atmosphere faster than it is replenished by solar input.

  70. realityrulesok on April 27, 2013 at 7:06 pm said:

    Richard Treadgold says:
    April 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    “Please explain how energy can accumulate without any effect on temperature. My present understanding is that it’s impossible. Note that I said “any” effect on temperature. It may help to phrase the question thus: how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

    WOO-HOO! Would any of the great minds on this blog (RC, Magoo, andyS) like to educate RT as to the difference between heat and temperature, and why it matters? Or are you going to try to pretend the the host of this so-called “Climate Conversation” blog hasn’t just shredded any credibility he may once have aspired to?

    Thought so… OK, RT, here’s a clue, from intermediate school general science:

    http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/heatAndTemperature/heatAndTemperature.html

    An important example is “latent heat”, which is the energy absorbed / emitted when a phase change occurs WITH NO CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE. For example, when ice at 0 C melts to water at 0 C, which accounts for 2.1 % of the current global energy imbalance.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12

    BTW, if you’re genuinely interested climate matters, there’s a great introductory text that you can download – it even mentions some friends of yours…

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/New-textbook-climate-science-climate-denial.html

  71. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 7:26 pm said:

    >”WOO-HOO! Would any of the great minds on this blog (RC, Magoo, andyS) like to educate RT as to the difference between heat and temperature, and why it matters?”

    Except the difference between heat and temperature has absolutely nothing to do with RT’s question (wrt ocean heat and atmospheric temperature):-

    >”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

    The answer is here:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194669

    You might like to have a read and a think Rob, given your off-the-mark response to RT’s question.

  72. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 8:02 pm said:

    BTW Rob, you would look a bit silly trying to calculate OHC without recourse to temperature:-

    ‘Oceanic Climate Change: Contributions of Heat Content, Temperature, and Salinity Trends to Global Warming’

    Christopher M. Mirabito
    November 18, 2008

    2.1 Quantifying Heat Content
    The total heat content of a material is the amount of heat energy stored there. It can be determined by the formula

    Q = cpmT; (1)

    where Q is the total heat content (J), cp is the specific heat capacity of the material at constant pressure (J  kg􀀀1 K􀀀1), m is the mass of the material (kg), and T is the temperature (K). Thus, we can determine the change in total heat content by relating it to the (measured) change in temperature:

    DQ = cpmDT: (2)

    Since sea water has a (high) specific heat capacity of cp = 4184 J  kg􀀀1 K􀀀1, which is more than four times that of dry air, and because seawater is much denser than air (by a factor of about 800), and since the World Ocean is very large, a 1 K rise in ocean temperature changes the global heat content by three orders of magnitude more than a rise of 1 K in air temperature [7].2 Thus, contributions to changes in global heat content from the ocean are expected to dominate atmospheric effects. As pointed out in Table 1, it indeed dominates atmospheric effects, as well as all other effects, despite the small observed temperature increase (compared to that of the atmosphere) [3]. That the oceanic contribution to global heat content dominates all other components is also unsurprising, since the volume of the ocean is much larger than that of the other components (besides the atmosphere). Similar comments to this effect are made in [1].

    3 Changes in Temperature
    Changes in global oceanic heat content are closely related to changes in seawater temperature. It was observed by several authors that global oceanic heat content shows an increasing long-term trend; an increasing temperature trend should thus be expected as well, by equation (2). Indeed, this is generally the case, but the magnitude of the change are highly location-dependent; not all areas of the ocean are warming. The extent of the change is also dependent on depth; in some areas, the top portion of the water column is warming but the lower portion is cooling, and vice versa. As a result, observed temperature anomaly trends are reviewed by depth.

    http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/term_Chris.pdf

  73. realityrulesok on April 27, 2013 at 8:23 pm said:

    RT: “The atmosphere get practically all its heat from the oceans alone. The atmosphere has not warmed in about 20 years (please don’t call it a decade as Perrott does). Therefore the oceans have not warmed in about the same period.”

    Not only does RT not understand the difference between heat and temperature, he doesn’t understand that both the atmosphere and the ocean are heated primarily by insolation, then by the effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere (which reduces heat loss from the ocean).

    He also has no clue that the ocean is itself a complex system, rather than just a large bathtub;

    http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-Ocean-in-Action/NZ-Research/The-Ocean-in-Action

    Again, he needs to grapple with an introductory text if he wants to be taken seriously – not that that probably matters to most of the denizens here, as they appear to have very few clues either. What was that about the blind leading the blind?

    No wonder they so easily fall prey to a smooth-talking scam artist like Monckton, with his faked slides and risible “mathematics”… (except Andy, I expect).

  74. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 8:54 pm said:

    I can’t decipher the model CS diagram at BH Andy but Troy CA has another post on CMIP5 sensitivities that is enlightening (well, for me anyway):-

    ‘CMIP5 Effective Sensitivity vs. Radiative Response in Last 40 Years’

    http://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/cmip5-effective-sensitivity-vs-radiative-response-in-last-40-years/

    Quoting:-

    “If we were confident in that regression, our “likely” estimate for “effective sensitivity” would be right around –2.0 W/m^2/K, which would correspond to an ECS of ~ 1.85 K if we assumed a negligible difference between the “effective sensitivity” radiation response and that response over the full time it takes to equilibrate. However, I don’t think much stock can be placed in that regression, given that we have not used particularly accurate forcing data for the individual model aerosols, and the radiative response is well outside the main cluster of models. I think this latter fact is the more interesting qualitatively – there IS a fairly strong underlying relationship between this 40 year radiative response and the longer term “effective sensitivity”, and only 3 model runs of all the model runs looked at here have this radiative response fall within the 2.5%-97.5% uncertainty range as diagnosed from OHC in my last post. Of those, 1 of those “compatible” runs is a rogue CCSM4 run that is almost certainly affected by an offset issue. I am curious about the other 2 models/runs that diverged from the pack as well, but these don’t seem likely to be “rogue” runs because their corresponding effective sensitivities (which would also be affected by an offset issue) are normal.

    Regardless, given that the modeled aerosol forcings tend to be larger in magnitude than in satellite estimates, this line of evidence would suggest it is even more likely that the effective temperature sensitivity of almost all CMIP5 models is too high.

    This presents an additional test to just comparing temperature trends to models, because temperature and radiative imbalance will be negatively correlated if all else is kept equal. So in the event that you get a lower temperature trend in the real world than models due to La Nina conditions towards the end of the period, you should see an increase in TOA imbalance relative to models as a consequence of this unforced cooling, assuming the radiative response between the real world and models are about the same. However, as both the temperature trend AND TOA imbalance trend are smaller than almost all CMIP5 models over this period, La Nina would not serve to explain the situation. This leaves some combination of the following possibilities that I can see: 1) incorrect diagnosis of TOA imbalance from 0-2000m OHC, 2) aerosol forcing greatly exceeds that of GISS (which itself greatly exceeds the IPCC best estimate), 3) some other unknown forcing, 4) too high of effective temperature sensitivity in the CMIP5 models.”

    # # #

    Hmmm……. “some other unknown forcing”

  75. Richard C (NZ) on April 27, 2013 at 9:09 pm said:

    >”Not only does RT not understand the difference between heat and temperature

    Missed this did you Rob?

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194689

    At least TRY to keep up. The difference between heat and temperature is totally immaterial to RT’s question (and the answer linked)

    >”…the ocean are heated primarily by insolation”

    Thank you Rob, you got this right.

    “>….then by the effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere (which reduces heat loss from the ocean).

    Whoahhhh, not so fast cowboy. The IPCC has not yet, after 25 years of trying, defined any posited GHG ocean heating mechanism. They only “expect” air-sea fluxes. And it’s all highly problematic:-

    Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?

    Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2) [where they succumb to Revkin’s and their own “single study syndrome”]

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing

    Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing

    Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing

    Basically, your problem is Rob: why is heat restricted from leaving the ocean surface the second time around after (supposedly) being reintroduced to the ocean after unrestricted egress the first time around?

  76. rrok,

    An important example is “latent heat”, which is the energy absorbed / emitted when a phase change occurs WITH NO CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.

    First, please forgive my ignorance. I checked out the oddly-named Zona Land Education reference you kindly provided but it proved to be very low level and added nothing to my knowledge. But thank you anyway. I’ve avoided the Skeptical Science references because they can’t spell sceptical. Second, I’ll try to keep this short and simple for you, because I’m having trouble wading through the ad hominem attacks you launch and the political messages you broadcast to discover the substance of what you’ve said. Now:

    I’m not under the impression that the water in the oceans is anywhere near a phase change, except for the top few micrometres, where it constantly evaporates. So I don’t know why you mention phase changes, as the ocean water is nowhere near boiling. That means that incoming shortwave solar energy, rather than contributing to a phase change instead of raising the temperature, raises the temperature. Is this all right so far?

    Please tell me if you disagree.

  77. realityrulesok on April 28, 2013 at 4:23 am said:

    Wrong again, RT, as you are ignoring the melting of ice by said oceans (e.g. sea ice, glacier tongues, ice shelves), plus the movement of heat within the oceans on multiple time scales:

    http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-01.html
    (simple)

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/rahmstorf_eqs_2006.pdf
    (intermediate)

    Sorry, RC, but I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher; do let us know when that happens.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 9:47 am said:

    >”Sorry, RC, but I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher”

    Got nothing to do with publishing Rob. What that series does is document events and reveals just how tenuous and problematic the claims of anthropogenic ocean heating are. The internet will do the rest.

  79. Nope, the studies showing the “warming” of the Antarctic peninsula are almost entirely from the west of the divide (the mountain range). Our intrepid climateers tend to avoid the east because it’s too cold there. The recent change is that the climate contrast between west & east has recently sharpened. This can be seen in the sea ice, of which there is little on the west side but considerably increased on the east side. But the average temperature of east & west is a wash.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 10:36 am said:

    So your answer to RT’s question Rob – that being:-

    >”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

    Is to link to a “simple” blog article which doesn’t actually answer the question except for:-

    One consequence of the ocean’s ability to absorb more heat is that when an area of ocean becomes warmer or cooler than usual, it takes much longer for that area to revert to “normal” than it would for a land area.

    Nothing at all about oceanic thermal lag (inertia) and the time frame between solar insolation => ocean heat-sinking => temperature change in the atmosphere.

    Moving on to “intermediate”. Lots about internal oceanic circulation and a bit about mixing after insolation but nothing whatsoever about oceanic thermal lag (inertia) and the time frame between solar insolation => ocean heat-sinking => temperature change in the atmosphere.

    Let’s move on to “advanced” then Rob. Keeping in mind that RT’s question was answered here:-

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    April 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    >”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

    Because the ocean is a heat-sink (reservoir of energy) and the atmospheric response to energy input to the ocean is not instantaneous generally (the only instantaneous response being radiation refection from the surface).

    Planetary inertia – the time lag between change in energy input and energy output in the sun => ocean => atmosphere system – is generally agreed to be around 12 – 14 years. The 14 year calculation being +/- 6 years so anywhere between 8 – 20 years.

    Therefore we should expect to see near-sfc cooling about 8 – 20 years after peak solar input at 1986 and that is exactly what has happened. And ocean enthalpy (total heat) reached maximum at the end of the modern solar Grand Maximum (1930 – 2012), also to be expected.

    The process will go into reverse now that solar output is declining i.e. the ocean will release heat to the atmosphere faster than it is replenished by solar input.

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194669

    One calculation of planetary inertia from thermodynamic principles is the following from Abdussamatov (2010) and (2012), the latter here:-

    ….changes of the thermodynamic temperature of the Earth due to variations of the Bond albedo and TSI do not occur instantly but with significant time-lag, determined by the
    thermal inertia of the planet (Abdussamatov et al., 2010).

    t = 0.095 (1 + 0.42·l) yr, (12)

    where l – is the depth of the active layer of the Ocean. If the depth of its active layer is about 200-500 м, the thermal inertia is:

    t = 14 ± 6 yr. (13)

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/abduss_APR.pdf

    That’s the “advanced” answer from peer-reviewed literature Rob. There are others using different methodology (e.g. Scafetta who argues for 2 stage lag consideration, 1 yr and 12 yrs) but this method is in terms of planetary enthalpy.

  81. Simon says: “It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well. Anthony Watts rather infamously tried it blame it on the Urban Heat Island effect, unaware that there is a network of automated stations well away from the extremely well insulated huts.”

    Why, this representation is a total lie, AW never said anything of the sort. This “Simon” is obviously out to dissemble, and isn’t worth bothering with. The “Simon says” of our childhood was fictional but still a higher ethical calibre than this “Simon”.

  82. realityrulesok on April 28, 2013 at 11:55 am said:

    Hmmm… I think I see your problem, RC; you believe, as an article of faith and despite all observations to the contrary, that changes in solar output are the fundamental driver of earth’s climate.

    This is, of course, arrant nonsense. In the words of Ray Pierrehumbert:

    “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

    Such nails include the paleoclimate record and direct solar observation by satellite. The following link lists genuine papers, not junk science from the Exxon-funded denier sites you apparently prefer:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    BTW, why can’t RT speak for himself? Despite appearances to the contrary, this is his site, not yours.

  83. Great checkerboard image, thanks for that. It shows the amount of processing which our minds do to make sense of the world, and by analogy, all that could be hidden or lost by that processing — especially the processing not related to our lyin’ eyes.

  84. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 12:01 pm said:

    New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2

    A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2, demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2 emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25% from 2003-2011, but growth in atmospheric CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures. The data demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels due to ocean outgassing, man-made CO2 does not drive temperature, and that man is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels.

    ‘Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends’

    * Roger J. Francey,
    * Cathy M. Trudinger,
    * Marcel van der Schoot,
    * Rachel M. Law,
    * Paul B. Krummel,
    * Ray L. Langenfelds,
    * L. Paul Steele,
    * Colin E. Allison,
    * Ann R. Stavert,
    * Robert J. Andres
    * & Christian Rödenbeck

    Nature Climate Change 3, 520–524 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1817

    Published online 10 February 2013

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html

  85. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 12:20 pm said:

    >”Such nails include the paleoclimate record and direct solar observation by satellite. The following link lists genuine papers, not junk science from the Exxon-funded denier sites you apparently prefer:”

    It’s the wildly diverse estimates prior to the satellite record that are the problem for the IPCC Rob (the 11 yr cycle is irrelevant). From IPCC AR5 SOD, Chapter 8:Radiative Forcing, Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012):-

    [25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum of 6 W m.2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum [Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in K07 and L09.

    I think we can discount Schrijver et al., 2011 given that during the Maunder Minimum people walked across the frozen Bosporus to Constantinople. I don’t recall those conditions being in the 2009 news.

    BTW, I see you’re resorting to argumentum ad auctoritatem Rob – is he some kind of Oracle/Guru/Priest/Pope/Judge/Jury/Executioner?

  86. A gamebreaker! The paper shows quite a different curve from the Mauna Loa graph so they must have used different data. I can see the first page in ReadCube and the last incomplete sentence on the page says

    Figure 2a shows our most precise indication of the recent slowing
    trend in global CO2 growth using stringently selected baseline
    data measured at Cape Grim (CGO, 41◦ S, 141◦ E) from 2002

    so Cape Grim it is. I might spend $4.99 to see the whole paper. Busy now but this looks like dynamite.

  87. Ken
    “You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often.”
    Reding? Perhaps you should check your dictionary Ken

  88. rrok,

    Wrong again, RT, as you are ignoring the melting of ice by said oceans (e.g. sea ice, glacier tongues, ice shelves), plus the movement of heat within the oceans on multiple time scales

    About as much ice as is melted freezes in the other hemisphere. The movement of heat is significant, but not overwhelming. You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day. But let a little of the phase change and most of the long-term movement by current modify my next comments.

    I don’t believe you’ve answered my question. Let me reiterate:

    …the ocean water is nowhere near boiling. That means that incoming shortwave solar energy, rather than contributing to a phase change instead of raising the temperature, raises the temperature. Is this all right so far?

    You are wrong to say the atmosphere is heated by insolation, as the incoming short-wave radiation leaves it virtually unscathed. It warms instead by long-wave IR from land, ice and water.

  89. Careful, Richard.

    Dynamite could just blow up in your face!

  90. Sure David – but it’s a childish complaint.

    In this case my problem was not dictionaries or senility but that in trying to correct mistakes the comment ended up being posted twice without any indication in my browser.

    But – you get the story and it has shut Treadgold up, hasn’t it?

  91. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 2:19 pm said:

    From the prior-linked article at The HS:-

    Bart says:
    January 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm

    “human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere”

    They’re actually not. It’s going to take a long time to seep through the mental block which has accumulated over time, but that was never more than an assumption, for which evidence consistent with it was sought, but falsification was never attempted.

    If, however, you actually look at the data, it is clear that temperatures are driving CO2. This plot

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/gistemp/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075

    shows that, since accurate records began, CO2 has evolved to a high degree of fidelity according to the difeq

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)

    where k is a coupling constant, and To is an equilibrium temperature. This is simply a 1st order Taylor series expansion of a continuous transport process for which the rate of change depends on temperature. One such process is the continuous transport of CO2 into downwelling waters and out of the upwelling waters of the thermohaline circulation. With this equation, if you have the starting point and the temperatures in between, you can calculate the CO2 concentration to high accuracy at any time up to the present. You don’t need to know anything about human inputs at all.

    The relationship precludes any significant contribution from human emissions. This is because the coupling constant k which matches the variation also precisely matches the trend. Since the rate of human inputs also has a trend, k would have to be reduced to make room for it, but then the variation would not match. The conclusion is necessarily that human inputs are rapidly sequestered, while temperature determines the equilibrium concentration of CO2.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/single-graph-demonstrates-man-made-co2.html

  92. Well, life’s dangerous. Got anything to say about climate or the IPCC? It’s notable that you trolls have been silent on the egregious failings of the IPCC.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 3:01 pm said:

    You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”

    Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.

    The Global Longwave Radiation Cascade indicates that energy leaves the Earth’s surface through three different processes. 7 units leave the surface as sensible heat. This heat is transferred into the atmosphere by conduction and convection. The melting and evaporation of water at the Earth’s surface incorporates 23 units energy into the atmosphere as latent heat. This latent heat is released into the atmosphere when the water condenses or becomes solid. Both of these processes become part of the emission of longwave radiation by the atmosphere and clouds. The surface of the Earth emits 117 units of longwave radiation.

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i.html

    But WHEN does that release occur in response to changing energy input? Even if just the annual solar cycle is considered it certainly isn’t that “very day”:-

    ‘Temperature response of Earth to the annual solar irradiance cycle’

    David H. Douglass a, Eric G. Blackman a,b, Robert S. Knox a,b,∗

    a Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0171, USA
    b Laboratory for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14623-1299, USA

    Received 18 December 2003; accepted 17 January 2004

    5. Discussion and conclusions

    Fig. 3(a) shows the measured phase lags φ and corresponding τ obtained from (13). In the southern hemisphere φ ∼ 1.5 mo, and in the northern hemisphere φ ∼ 1.0 mo. This trend of decreasing φ is expected if τ is determined by cS , since the south has a larger ratio of water (higher specific heat) to land (lower specific heat) than the north.

    [“mo” = months.]

    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DBK%20Physics%20Letters%20A%20.pdf

    When the time-frame is extended to millennial scale the solar-ocean-atmosphere lag is 8-20 years as per Abdussamatov, Scafetta and others. White, Lean, Cayan and Dettinger (1997) found ocean temperature response to solar change had 3 separate frequency bands of periods >100, 18-25, and 9-13 years.

    http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/white1.pdf

    Obviously the atmosphere is inextricably linked to the same lag as the ocean, the major being around 12 years plus or minus a few.

  94. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm said:

    Should be (your statement in quotes RT):-

    >”You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”

    Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 5:07 pm said:

    Another paper demonstrating air temperature lag behind the annual solar cycle:-

    ‘The spatial structure of the annual cycle in surface temperature: amplitude, phase, and Lagrangian history’

    Karen A. McKinnon, Alexander R. Stine and Peter Huybers

    Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
    (2013)

    22 1. Introduction
    23 It has been long understood that the annual cycle in surface air temperature is largely
    24 controlled by the annual cycle in solar radiation, local surface conditions, and atmospheric
    25 circulation. Generally, oceanic climates have a small amplitude and large phase lag with
    26 respect to solar forcing, while continental climates have a large amplitude and small lag
    27 (Von Hann and Ward 1903), with additional structure associated with the direction and
    28 strength of prevailing winds (Ward 1906). This qualitative understanding of the systematic
    29 patterns in amplitude and lag of the annual cycle has also been supported by quantitative
    30 analysis, with a historical focus on obtaining a single measure of “continentality” that would
    31 reflect the relative influences of land and ocean.

    72 2. Structure of the annual cycle

    95 Gain and lag exhibit coherent spatial structure (Fig. 1). Gain is generally larger over
    96 Northern Hemisphere land masses, increases from west to east across continents, and in
    97 increases more rapidly across North America than Eurasia. The smallest gains are found in
    the Southern Ocean and the North Atlantic, while the largest are in
    98 northeastern Eurasia.
    99 Lag exhibits a clearer land-ocean dichotomy, with an average lag of 28 days over land and
    100 58 days over ocean.

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/McKinnon_JofC2013.pdf

  96. realityrulesok on April 28, 2013 at 6:31 pm said:

    RC, your “series” and $3.50 will buy you a cappucchino.

    No doubt you have a perpetual-motion machine in your garage as well?

  97. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 6:31 pm said:

    Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate is 1.5 times as sensitive to 22-year cyclical forcing relative to 11-year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertia of the oceans induces a lag of approximately 2.2 (± 2) years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data.

    ‘Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite’

    N. Scafetta
    Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
    B. J. West
    Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

    Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
    Received 17 June 2005; revised 1 August 2005; accepted 26 August 2005; published 28 September 2005.

    [14] Figure 4 compares the band-pass curves D7(t) and
    D8(t) for the TSI data and global temperature anomalies.
    For the period 1856–1980 we apply the MRA to the TSI
    proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], while for the
    period 1980–2002 the MRA is applied to the ACRIM
    TSI. Several 11-year solar cycles are easily recognizable in
    the corresponding D7(t) temperature cycles, in particular
    after 1960. The slow 22-year solar cycles are clearly
    recognizable in the temperature detail curve D8(t) and
    the temperature response lags the Hale solar cycles since
    1900 by approximately 2.2 ± 2 years.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf

    # # #

    So the longer the solar cycle considered, the longer the solar-ocean-atmosphere lag.

  98. Ken seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of this blog. His latest post uses more material from here.

    The guys at Hot Topic seem to be having a conversation with someone that they think is me

    The world is getting weird

  99. Richard C (NZ) on April 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm said:

    From Tallbloke’s Talkshop:-

    Since the advent of satellite observations of lower tropospheric temperature in 1979, we have been able to make accurate comparisons of air and sea surface temperature. What we find is that changes in sea surface temperature precede the consequent changes in air temperature by several months. The ocean surface temperature is apparently driving air temperature, not the other way round.

    The lag of air temperature in red behind sea surface temperature in green is clear from this plot:

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sst-lt.png?w=921&h=690

    # # #

    But SST is not the same as OHC at progressively reducing temperature from surface down to 300m, 700m, 1000m, 2000m etc. There are entirely different dynamics and timeframes operating between the surface and the lower layers and then different dynamics and timeframes again between the lower stratifications, particularly tropics vs extratropics and polar say.

  100. realityrulesok on April 28, 2013 at 7:21 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) says:
    Richard C, April 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    “Should be (your statement in quotes RT):-

    >”You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”

    Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.”

    Yes, I’d like to see the source of that statement as well, RT; [some pseudo-science denial site, perhaps, or did you just make it up to sound sorta, kinda “sciency”? – Cut it out, mate. Nobody’s keeping score, you know. You don’t lose marks when you’re courteous. Above this you’ll find an answer to the request for a citation. – RT]

  101. realityrulesok on April 28, 2013 at 7:22 pm said:

    It goes with the weird weather, old boy.

  102. His latest post uses more material from here.

    Glad to be of service!

    Hot Topic conversing with phantoms, eh? That’s hilarious!

    To add to the weirdness, I haven’t been able to access email or my own domains for two or three hours; I was blocked by the web server, which thought I’d been hacking into it. Which I hadn’t. Really. There’s hardly any need, is there?

  103. David on April 28, 2013 at 8:11 pm said:

    “You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often”
    ” it’s a childish complaint”

    Quite so

  104. I haven’t noticed any weird weather. The record snow and cold in Scotland, France and Spain did cross my radar during my recent travels, but I wouldn’t describe it as “weird”

  105. He’ll be surprised to hear that there’s no Global Weirding after all.

  106. Well said, Willy. I could hardly believe it. My lyin’ eyes! Of course, our eyes don’t lie, nor are they all that deceived. They simply understand what happens to colours in the shade. When two shades are adjacent, the eyes will see their similarity or their differences.

  107. Sorry, there’s no citation. I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface. Practically all the heat in the surface atmosphere comes from the oceans, land and ice, mostly by convection, and not directly from insolation. Some thermal energy finds its way beneath the surface before it returns to it by convection. That energy may exit the ocean on time scales of months, years, decades, centuries or longer. But that is a minor fraction of the insolation falling on the oceans. Hence I say “most of it” gets to the atmosphere “that very day.” If this is incorrect, I’m very happy to be corrected.

  108. I must be a Global Weirdimg Denier,.

  109. realityrulesok on April 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm said:

    Too easy – or haven’t you heard of Google, RT / Andy?

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/10/10/weather-disasters-climate-change-munich-re-report/1622845/

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/03/20/weather-extremes-global-warming-climate-change-louis-uccellini/2003513/

    But, hey, what do the reinsurance companies and US National Weather Service know about extreme weather, compared to the mighty minds of the Climate Conversation Group and their ability to ignore uncomfortable truths?

  110. Hmmm, are you sure about that extreme weather? The data doesn’t seem to back your theory on that one:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

  111. Well done, Magoo. I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today, cited by rrok.

    rrok,

    You’re perfectly content to insist: “I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher” when it suits you, but still you cite tabloids or alarmist nonsense from the insurance industry back to us. You are, sir, incredible.

  112. I didn’t say that, Andy, you did. Actually, to be honest, I couldn’t say it. With the misspelling I don’t know how to pronounce it. ;-/

  113. For some reason (possibly connected with ownership of a seriously damaged Christchurch property) I don’t have a very high opinion of insurance and re-insurance companies.

    Besides which, they are hardly a non-partisan player in the climate change game.

  114. Any hope for climate science is now lost. Lewandowsky has been awarded the “Wolfson Research Merit award” by the Royal Society.

    As Bishop Hill puts it

    It’s hard to imagine anything funnier. If Manchester United signed up a three-legged pug dog to play centre forward you wouldn’t laugh any less.

    First Erlich, now Lewandowsky. What next? Homeopaths? A fellowship for Kim Jong Il? A cabbage patch doll?

  115. realityrulesok on April 29, 2013 at 12:12 pm said:

    Wow, Andy and RT, what great examples of epistemic closure you offer…

    “Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting-conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News.

    Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This epistemic closure …”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

  116. Are you able to be a bit more specific about what you are actually referring to?

  117. Richard C (NZ) on April 29, 2013 at 1:00 pm said:

    >”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.”

    The ocean predominantly gains heat in the tropics and loses it in the polar regions. The time lag of heat transport, tropics to polar, is rather more than “seconds or minutes”. This ocean heat gain/loss paradigm is what is taught at Columbia University, among most other oceanography institutions that I know of, so if you think that paradigm is incorrect you better advise them to change their curriculum to your version:-

    In a steady state condition ocean currents must carry heat from the ocean areas with excess heating to regions with a deficit of heat, […]

    Generally heat transport across latitudes is from the tropics to the polar regions, but in the South Atlantic Ocean the oceanic heat transport is directed towards the equator! This is due to the thermohaline circulation- as warm upper kilometer water is carried northward, across the equator, offsetting the southward flow of cooler North Atlantic Deep Water near 3000 m. Much of the heat lost to the atmosphere in the North Atlantic is derived from this cross equatorial heat transfer

    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html

    If heat generated by solar insolation was immediately transferred to the atmosphere in “seconds or minutes” as you assert, there would be no thermohaline circulation currents.

    >”Practically all the heat in the surface atmosphere comes from the oceans, land and ice, mostly by convection, and not directly from insolation.”

    All planetary heat, except for geo-heat, came directly from solar insolation in the first instance. Ocean and land is the matter that converts the incoming solar energy in the form of radiation to energy in the form of heat but radiation is an almost instantaneous process (speed of light), conduction/convection through matter is on a much longer time scale. The time scale of heat propagation is dependent on the thermal characteristics of the material. Conduction is the most significant means of heat transfer within a solid and conduction is greater in solids because the closer spatial relationships between atoms transfers energy more efficiently. Fluids (and especially gases) are less conductive. This is due to the large distance between atoms in a gas; fewer collisions between atoms means less conduction. This gives rise to the concept of the ocean being a “heat-sink” (reservoir of energy) because the inertia of internal energy propagation means heat transfer is relatively slow.

    Convection in the ocean is not necessarily directly from depth to surface and is mostly horizontal, tropics to poles (see Columbia link). This is because of wind, overturning, mixing, thermohaline circulation etc. There will be direct upwards convection in ideal conditions but weather tends to foil convention.

    Ice is an absence of heat below 0 C for non-saline water. It’s the solid-liquid ice-water change of state by melting that releases heat to the atmosphere but freezing is the opposite process. No heat being released to the atmosphere when ice is forming.

    >”Some thermal energy finds its way beneath the surface…”

    In the case of the ocean, except for reflection (albedo) and low angle-of-incidence, most of the radiation penetrates many metres below the surface, especially in the tropics and at either extremity of the tropics is where by far the majority of ocean heat gain takes place. Columbia again:-

    Solar Radiation: Much of the direct and diffuse solar short wave (less than 2 micros, mostly in the visible range) electromagnetic radiation that reaches the sea surface penetrates the ocean (the ocean has a low albedo, except when the sun is close to the horizon), heating the sea water down to about 100 to 200 meters, depending on the water clarity. It is within this thin sunlit surface layer of the ocean that the process of photosynthesis can occur. Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.

    And this profile of ocean temperature along a meridian at approximately 20°W (eastern Atlantic Ocean). South Pole at left, North Pole at right. Land areas and seafloor are black; major features, left to right: Antarctica (approx 90-75°S), Mid-Atlantic Ridge (approx 40°S), continental slope off Africa (approx 15°N), Iceland atop Mid-Atlantic Ridge (approx 65°N), and eastern edge of Greenland (approx 80°N). All temperatures in °C; contour interval is 2°C

    http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2010/02/DeepOcMRsecA1cvLG.jpg

    >”That energy may exit the ocean on time scales of months, years, decades, centuries or longer.”

    Numerous studies return this finding to the degree of identifying periodicity as evidenced by the papers cited up-thread. The longer the solar cycle in consideration the longer is the atmosphere temperature lag behind solar change.

    >But that is a minor fraction of the insolation falling on the oceans.>

    Hand waving. Prove it, cite it. And see above.

    >”Hence I say “most of it” gets to the atmosphere “that very day.” If this is incorrect, I’m very happy to be corrected.”

    I think you are completely at odds with the conventional oceanographic paradigm as per Columbia above, and if you can’t back up your assertion with anything substantial from literature or academia than you’re just hand waving.

    BTW Tallblokes plot up-thread showing satellite-measured atmospheric temperature lagging SST by months effectively disproves the notion that atmospheric GHGs control sea temperature.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation