Discussion > Explaining a glaring contradiction
For "natural warming" read "natural variation".
simon abingdon
Your basic premise is considered false.
See http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
BitBucket
Don't listen to the troll, listen to what the senior Met Office climate scientist had to say about it:-
"RKS: no, the last 15 years cannot be ignored. To date, this flatlining is still (just about) within the range of natural variability simulated by the models, so on the face of it, it doesn't disprove the models. However, it is part of our research programme to understand the reasons for this - is it just internal variability, or negative external forcing (sun, aerosols, etc) - or indeed is it the case that the positive forcing has been overestimated? There are genuine scientific questions here, which should not be dismissed.
Aug 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM | Richard Betts"
In other words - 'Dunno Guv, my models predict correctly within the limits of 0 decC to 6 degC temperature rise, but give us another £100 million and a bigger computer and we'll get back to you. but whatever you do don't tell the taxpayers about this'
RKS
Your basic premise is considered false.
See http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
Dec 8, 2012 at 12:34 PM | BitBucket>>>>>>
Skepticalscience? - Pratt!!
RKS
The contradiction is not what you thnk. It is between the certain and the uncertain. To be a full-blooded warmist catastrophist you must not show any room for doubt. If you are a sceptic there is always doubt. The sceptic view works best for science. In this case you'd say that lockstep is disproven, but warming is not. The spectre of the balanced cooling effect is a mere conjecture. The alarmist view is aimed at policy, and cannot admit of uncertainty. It must obscure any suggestion of uncertainty with screaming and arm-waving. But little is really certain, and that is why they have to cheat.
rhoda
A brilliant piece of [on topic] work my Lord Monkton at the Dohar fest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/#more-75426
RKS
RKS:
Skepticalscience? - Pratt!!
RKS?[snip - unnecessary]
BitBucket
So 'Pratt' is considered "necessary" but my return insult is not ? Odd.
BitBucket
Simon
A paper was on WUWT this week showing work done by the US Dept of Energy on CO2 and they calculated that of all the CO2 emitted by humans, one third of it was emitted since 1998 and yet as you point out, there has been no warming in that period. When you add in Murry Salby's work which shows a disconnect between annual CO2 emissions and annual levels of CO2 the conclusion I draw is that CO2 is either not a driver or is a very weak driver of temperature.
Another issue is that papers like the Watts et al one cast doubt on the temprature anyway. It could turn out that the Earth has in fact been cooling.
Dung
So far this century: Global temperature flat. CO2 relentlessly up. See a connection anyone?
simon abingdon
So far this century: Global temperature flat. CO2 relentlessly up. See a connection anyone?
Dec 8, 2012 at 6:06 PM | simon abingdon>>>>>
It's obvious that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes zero to catastrophic global cooling.
Where do I go to apply for my research grant?
RKS
Simon, have you read the SkS article? What do you consider to be the main errors in the discussion there?
BitBucket
BitBucket said:
Simon, have you read the SkS article? What do you consider to be the main errors in the discussion there?
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, global warming is defined as:
Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface.
Skeptical (sic) Science as usual erects a strawman to demolish and seeks to redefine global warming by including
ocean heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth
Skeptikal Science is just the name of the website. It has nothing to do with skepticism nor science.
Scottie
Hey Scottie, where did you get that little gem? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just unfortunately ignorant and not wilfully so.
When you quote the EPA as saying, "near Earth's surface", what do you think that includes? Not 3000m below sea level, evidently. I live at nearly 3000m above sea level; am I included? And aircraft normally fly at 10,000m; do you imagine they are spacecraft? Or are they included too? And weather baloons rise to 50km (50,000m, if you are not sure); do you think the atmosphere up there is included too. And there's more beyond...
BTW, assuming you accept that Earth is not flat, it has a radius of over 6300km.
Someone beam him up...
So come on Simon (or RKS and anyone else), what do you consider to be the main errors in the discussion at SkS?
BitBucket
1. There is no long record of deep ocean temperatures. Not even over one oscillation cycle. We don't know what is going on. We should admit the uncertainty rather than push one theory in terms of conviction when it is not justified.
2.Warmists ignore ocean temp data which does not suit them
3. There seems to be no explained mechanism for how the heat got there without affecting shallower temps.
4. Nobody has to prove anything in SkS wrong. They doctor their own history. If they are right, why do they need to cheat?
rhoda
BB, the main problem with SkS is that it is an alarmist site purporting to be scientific. Cook has also been caught out altering response threads to suit his alarmist narrative, well after the fact. By citing SkS you only diminish your own credibility. Science of Doom is more credible as a warmist's bible, so perhaps you should do some research there.
Chris M
a lot of the SkS "argument" is based on ocean heat content increasing. However, this is not borne out by ARGO data quoted in this paper:
"Using the ARGO ocean buoy data from Josh Willis, Knox and Douglass still can’t find that missing heat in this paper published in the International Journal of Geosciences, currently in press here.
Recent energy balance of Earth
R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Abstract
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find
by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
1. Introduction
Recently Lyman et al. [1] have estimated a robust global warming trend of 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2 for Earth during 1993–2008, calculated from ocean heat content anomaly
(OHC) data. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003-2008 data, we find cooling, not warming.
This result does not support the existence of a large frequently- cited positive computed radiative imbalance (see, for example, Trenberth and Fasullo [2]).
A sufficiently accurate data set available for the time period subsequent to 2001–2002 now exists. There are two different observational systems for determining OHC. The first and older is based upon expendable bathythermograph (XBT) probes that have been shown to have various biases and systematic errors (Wijffels et al. [3]). The second is the more accurate and complete global array of autonomous Argo floats [4], which were deployed as of the early 2000s. These floats are free from the biases and errors of the XBT probes although they have had other systematic errors [5]. We begin our analysis with the more accurate Argo OHC data. There are issues associated with a “short-time”
segment of data, which are addressed."
You might also consider the issue of how they calculate the moving averages in their scary temperature trendlines - 11 year moving averages will cut out the last 5 years of data - since the paper they quote came out in 2008, this implies that they did not use any temperature data after 2003 to compute the trend, which means that the 90s warming is emphasised, and how did they deal with end-point padding?
diogenes
BitBucket,
Living on a mountain top as you do, it appears you may be suffering from hypoxia. I recommend you consult your physician.
Scottie
Anybody quoting from the propaganda site SkS as a source for climate science shows themselves to be an utter pratt.
RKS
I would like to add that we know with any degree of certainty next to nothing about ocean heat content. The measurements pre and post the ARGO deployment do not match up very well. All things being equal, ARGO should give better data, but the global reach was only achieved in about 2005. So we have about 7 years of reasonable but still very patchy data. Any conclusions on OHC are therefore of dubious worth. And this kind of destroys that line of argument on Sks. But no doubt that BB has a wicked riposte of total irrelevance...probably about the fact that I am descended from a member of the aristocracy so can be ignored. Or maybe he will try the "Richard Drake" defence.
diogenes
Hey Scottie, where did you get that little gem? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just unfortunately ignorant and not wilfully so.
When you quote the EPA as saying, "near Earth's surface", what do you think that includes? Not 3000m below sea level, evidently. I live at nearly 3000m above sea level; am I included? .........
Dec 8, 2012 at 9:36 PM | BitBucket>>>>>>>I'm not sure if you're just unfortunately ignorant and not wilfully so - did nobody ever explain lapse rate to you and how that affects the temperature at 3000m above sea level?
It's no wonder you're regarded as the court jester when you present us with 'science' from the paranoid lunatics at the SkS propaganda site, and scoff ignorantly when Scottie provides you with the definition of how the US Environmental Agency defines global average temperatures as being measured close to the Earth's surface [which is where the weather stations are usually located - often bang in the middle of an urban heat island]
There again - why am I wasting time and effort on a troll again?
RKS
To show an 'increasing' trend when there is scant data in the early part of a series - there has to be a special category of fraud for this.
The other thing is, why call it 'global warming' then? Call it ocean heatcontentification.
BB seems to have become particularly neurotic. Almost ZBD-like.
shub
ChrisM - I wasn't aware I had any credibility, so no worries there.
ChrisM/Rhoda/Diogenes, thanks for sensible replies. I wasn't aware of the doctoring of comment threads you mention. But how does that affect whether what the article says is correct or not?
Diogenes, well done on the cut and paste. You'll progress to links next... The Knox/Douglass paper is referenced indirectly from the SkS article (not positively). On the trend-lines, the plots seem to stop at around 2003, which would seem right (5 years before, 5 years after). So your issues with them are non-issues.
RKS, if you are defending Scottie's proposition that the deep ocean is not within the scope of the EPA's definition, then you are in serious need of help.
Shub: 'heatcontentification', really! Join the queue behind RKS.
I am surprised at you all. Simon hasn't bothered to explain where he differs with SkS and others seem to think it sufficient to slag off the site without addressing the content. If SkS is such a laughing stock amongst you all, it should be easy for you to point out where the article is wrong. Only the Greek attempted to justify his rejection of the site (kudos to him), although he seemed to backtrack on that later.
My conclusion is that you have no idea why you collectively reject the SkS article beyond raw prejudice. Some skeptics!
BitBucket
I think RKS answered your original question in his 12.43 post yesterday, BB.
SkepticalScience is an avowedly warmist blog and Cook and his assorted sidekicks are not to be relied on for anything factual.
RKS quoted Richard Betts who is a practising climate scientist.
Of course if you prefer to rely on the charlatan Cook rather than someone with experience and expertise in the field then that is up to you but don't expect a lot of sympathy from the grown-ups.
Diogenes' answer at 9.57 ought to have provided you with a further reason to dismiss Cook but instead you simply chose to fling a few gratuitous insults around the place.
So there you have two reasons why we choose to reject virtually everything that trickles out of Cook's cesspool and Chris M has even, quite generously in my view, directed you to a warmist web site which is usually considered to be pretty reliable. It seems you are too thick to have noticed (probably the hypoxia Scottie referred to).
From being an occasional pain in the arse (which we are all entitled to be now and again) you have morphed into a BBD clone whose only rationale appears to be to be as offensive as possible while making sure that you disrupt any thread you contaminate with your presence.
Mike Jackson
This is old hat and altogether basic but I still find it very puzzling. While it seems to be readily accepted that there has been no significant global warming for the last 16 years, CO2 emissions worldwide have at the same time significantly and relentlessly increased. Since we are told that CO2 causes warming there must have been an equal and opposite compensating cooling influence marching in lockstep. This cannot be a coincidence (natural warming); it must have been somehow driven by the excess CO2 itself. What is the official (climate science) explanation as to how?