Critics of climate change often claim that warming has stopped since the late 1990s. While this is categorically false (the last decade was the warmest on record and 2005 and 2010 are generally considered tied for the warmest year), scientists do admit that warming hasn’t occurred over land as rapidly as predicted in the last ten years, especially given continually rising greenhouse gas emissions. But a recent study in Geophysical Research Letters has found this so-called missing heat: 700 meters below the surface of the ocean.
“Increasingly in the past decade, more of that heat has been dumped at levels below 700 meters, where most previous analyses stop. About 30 percent has gone below 700 meters in depth,” explains co-author Kevin Trenberth with the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. “This is fairly new, it is not there throughout the record.”
Scientists have long known that around 90 percent of the heat from climate change ends up in the oceans and they suspected that this was where the ‘missing heat’ would be found. The study find that climate change has revved up worldwide, instead of stopping.
“This signals the beginning of the most sustained warming trend in this record of [ocean heat content],” the scientists write in the paper. “Indeed, recent warming rates of the waters below 700 meters appear to be unprecedented.”
MikeN says:
4/1/2013 at 11:03 am
Is that a yes or a no? /// Yeah, thats fair enough. I didn’t even look at your links the set up is so facetious on its face. But still….
This site seems to have some tech people on it. Unlike some other climate science papers, Mann’s data and code are available for review for this paper. It should be straightforward for people to look at the Matlab code, and see if he used data upside-down as accused. /// Lets assume the article is one hundred % correct. That would amount to a single anomaly in a mountain of evidence. Aka—so what.
And generally, all “honest” science will have anomalies for all the reasons there are: mistake, fraud, unknowns, god f*cking with us, magic, quantum mechanics, Schrodingers Cat loose, etc. Anomalies = noise. A few disprove the hypothesis. Rare. What do you think sediments in one lake proves? The general rule or the anomaly. Why do you confabulate the difference?
Thats why I so often provide my own best evidence so often. My link to the Wiki of the Ocean Sea Level rise. Objective proof the oceans are rising. Sure–more water and temperature expansion. Proves only GW and not AGW. The missing link is to showing the increase in atmospheric co2 and that that co2 is from burning fossil fuels.
Why focus on the rare examples of “evidence” that doesn’t fit the general rule? One day you walked into a Casino and the rouletter wheel came up with 00. Are you going to bet on 00 yourself? Why not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Funny how you claim not to read a post, but you knew it had to do with sediments on a lake. Hmmm.
Bigger issue isn’t whether some data was used upside-down, though that is quite embarrassing for the scientists involved, but what happened after it was pointed out? Did they acknowledge and correct the mistake, or did they keep using things upside-down to make their point. If the latter, then it makes all of the scientist’s work into question, and when others don’t call him on it, it threatens the whole field. If the next IPCC report makes reference to a paper that used upside down data, we might as well throw the whole report in the trash.
Now that Steve McIntyre has destroyed another hockey stick to the point where even the authors are saying their results are not robust for the last 100 years, we are left with The Scythe!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/01/introducing-the-anti-hockey-stick-the-scythe/
omnologos says:
April 1, 2013 at 11:39 am
How far are we from full glaciation?
How is it possible that the change by 0.60 °C per century is a “sign of a looming catastrophe” while the same unexpected change by 0.60 °C – but now per 12 years (a much faster change) – is a tiny error or an effect that may be ignored?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html
ummm, because you are lying or don’t understand either data presentations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now: http://tinyurl.com/823h6hc
Hi McGuyver. NO ONE denies it has been hotter and colder in the past and will be in the future.
I can guess, but what is your point?????
You do understand what a point is …… right?
Variables in the Past, Variables Now, Variables in the Future. You add them all up—-and what do you get????
…………………………Thats right………………….
………………………………………………………….
Climate as the long term with weather day to day.
Ha, ha.
Poor McGuyver. all that intensity, and you go Anti-Science. Why is that?
Based on climate “science” of today, we now know that man-made CO2 caused global warming back during the Roman Times. Duh!
A crippling inability to make accurate predictions… but we make some pretty slick simulations based off of assumptions being true.
Strange how you call someone who insists on empirical evidence and the scientific method as being anti-science. But who am I kidding, you think Agnosticism is a form a Christianity. 🙂
Uh oh, don’t you be saying the climate scientists are wrong. This particular climate scientist, Esper, is famous for not providing the data behind papers, so who knows.
Here is some info on the missing heat and the models from the economist.
http://tinyurl.com/cqnv7xk
If enough heat gets dumped in the ocean and the Atlantic thermocline gets disrupted, the entire climate would change. But that’s a lot of heat.
meh…
Mankind has been killing off himself and everything around him for centuries, why would we expect any different now?
Dodo birds, ocean reefs, nuclear bombs, we do it all.
I don’t know about you, but I welcome our futuristic, post-apocalyptic, neo-lithic, zombie-filled, f**k-fest, that we are bringing on to ourselves — it will give me a chance to use my “assault-like” firearms for more than simple target sports.
😉
Call me when we can store this heat and use it in the winter.
Until then global warming is not particularly helpful.
Actually, global warming will have the most effect in the winter, and at night, and in colder regions. Heat applied will affect the coldest places more.
Climastrology – it always makes me laugh!
There is no “global warming”.
So they create press releases and tell stories to gullible reporters and bloggers for maximum attention to try and scare the public, then when errors are pointed out, they just move on to the next scare story.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/trenberth-still-searching-for-missing-heat/
This reanalysis is the use of a model to get the results they wanted.
More shocking in the earlier years is they did the same thing when they included water vapour in the model. Seems the increased heat it created was exactly canceled by the reflection of radiation before it got absorbed. The model left out the most common green house gas but was still accurate.
That made me become an agnostic. Before that, I was a believer simply because if you put co2 into a balloon it will heat up faster than one without it. Isolating only ONE variable among the 1000’s (if not trillions?) of variables, but still, the result was dramatic.
Then I see all the glaciers melting but claims the ice is getting thicker in antarctica…so what you gonna believe?
I cam up with the raising sea level as a “summing up” of all the variables. Hint—it keeps rising even as idiots dither away on some imagined conflict of evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
No one ever answers the chart. Neither volcanic action nor sea unicorns.
You’ve had enough chances….I’ll put you down as “Devo.”
> if you put co2 into a balloon it will heat up faster than one without it.
That’s not how global warming operates with regards to CO2. Hint: there are three types of heating.
I said it isolates one out of trillions of variables. The fact, even if true which I doubt, that co2 has 3 ways it heats is irrelevant to the point I demonstrated.
The fact that you can’t follow the simplest of possible points made………
“That made me become an agnostic. Before that, I was a believer..”
Sorry Bobbo, but if you not a believer anymore you are not considered agnostic, there are no agnostics. You are smack dab in the middle of denier territory, pal.
Welcome to the light.
Sea level has been rising for far longer than the 4 decades of global warming they are claiming, which is more like 2 decades. Somehow we are getting the same rise as before. Sea level rise of a few mm a year, amounts to after 100 years? Less than one meter, more like one foot. Your planet is doomed!
Yes, the sea level rise warning is all about a meter or so in 100 years, then more thereafter “unless” an ice shelf somewhere falls off. Things that are too hard to model.
The Atlantic thermocline has decreased about 30% in the past 30 years. It could “break” at any moment…. we just don’t know.
According to Wikipedia, “Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by more than 120 m (averaging 6 mm/yr) as a result of melting of major ice sheets. A rapid rise took place between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago at an average rate of 10 mm/yr which accounted for 90 m of the rise; thus in the period since 20,000 years BP (excluding the rapid rise from 15–6 kyr BP) the average rate was 3 mm/yr.”
So sea level rise has varied between 3mm and 10mm per year for the past 20 millennium. The average is 6mm/yr.
So in what way is today’s observed sea level rise outside of normal variability?
Yup, that’s the problem with the sea level chart. If the sea level rise is the same now as 40 years ago, then the part that is due to CO2 is ZERO.
Oh, and somebody decided to apply a trick to that sea level chart. It is not what it was before. Look closely and you can see a downturn at the end. Before it was obvious, but now they have added a few more charts with a darker color to make it harder to see the downturn. Another trick to hide the decline.
Yeah, I noticed a few weeks ago, now fully, that the trend lines seem to be in conflict for this last 10 year zig/zag. I’ve read we are cooling and we are warming.
But I’m patients. No need to zig zag myself with each new herring dragged upon the shore.
…….So–what is the best idea about what happens to the Billions of Tons of Co2 we pump into the atmosphere each year and the three ways it heats the atmosphere?
You know–do you think most likely something bad, something good, or it magically does nothing?
Doesn’t heat the atmosphere 3 ways. That’s why your balloon example is irrelevant.
That was a joke son….as agreeing with you most often is. Pretty obvious.
Balloons with extra co2 heat up faster actually proving is a green house gas.
How can PROOF be irrelevant????
I suppose a balloon is evidence if the balloon is clear. But if the balloon is opaque and black color, the expansion might be influenced by the dark color. Or if the balloon is opaque but white color, it might not expand much at all.
Perhaps you might want to read about just how difficult it is to prove CO2 warms when exposed to IR light. its surprisingly difficult http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
It’s not evidence when the mechanism being exhibited is different than the mechanism that occurs in the atmosphere with CO2.
Your position on AGW is fun to reflect on. Why do you believe what you believe and how do you change your mind?
NONE OF US “knows” diddly about climate and how it changes. So how do any of us form opinions and how do they change?
Science has a 100% batting average. Whatever they get wrong, eventually they get right. -or- if you prefer=science is asymptotic to truth. What we might never know, or its all a dream, doesn’t change that.
Along the same lines==nice review on how we think:
http://newscientist.com/article/mg21729101.800-stupidity-what-makes-people-do-dumb-things.html?page=2
I got the IQ test question WRONG in the short article. Made me laugh at myself when I found the right answer in the comments.
I recommend the link. Might make you smile too.
>Science has a 100% batting average. Whatever they get wrong, eventually they get right.
Only if people don’t fall for the line of ‘Trust us, we’re scientists.’ Nullius En Verba
>Science has a 100% batting average. Whatever they get wrong, eventually they get right. //// Thanks for not quibbling. Shows you got potential. Wasted so far…. but still there??? Ha, ha. The import was how it was conditioned. But you saw that. Thanks nonetheless.
Only if people don’t fall for the line of ‘Trust us, we’re scientists.’ Nullius En Verba /// No scientists has ever said that. If you don’t accept their best theory–come up with a better one. And no one has. Yea, I suppose “trusting” the oil companies makes more sense???
……so….. what does all the co2 pumped into the atmosphere eventually do in your alternate universe? Its irrelevant you say in a balloon. Same for Mother Earth?
Silly Hoomans.
“Nullius En Verba /// No scientists has ever said that.”
Um, the Royal Society did.
According to Wikipedia “Nullius in verba (Latin for “on the word of no one” or “Take nobody’s word for it”) is the motto of the Royal Society. John Evelyn and other Royal Society fellows chose the motto soon after the founding of the Society.[1] The current Royal Society website explains the motto thus: It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
The Royal Society was one of the key players in ClimateGate. They forced UEA’s Briffa to reveal the data behind a paper he published in one of their journals. Looking into this caused Steve McIntyre to discover some lousy math, including a single tree being responsible for most of the modern warming in this hockey stick. The kerfluffle around Yamal is what pushed the ClimateGate release, at least that’s what UEA’s Phil Jones suspected. The release itself suggests the reason is UEA’s failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, while the third release suggests it was the Copenhagen meeting.
We don’t know who released the emails but I still think Climategate was an inside job. Someday in the future that person will step forward, and on that day I hope they receive the UKs highest civilian honor, the George Cross perhaps. I hope I live long enough to see it.
The real question on AGW is “Who cares?” I haven’t seen one “solution” from a believer that’s moral and ethical.
If we could start from a foundation that promoting the “sustainable urban core” is a crime against humanity, we would could begin a discussion. Anything else is simply blowing CO2.
The energy content of the ocean is about 5*10^24 Joules per degree C. So this chart is really measured in units of 10^22J/5*10^24 J/deg C or .002C. So they are claiming to have detected a change from 2C to 2.04C.
If thats what they measured, what do you want them to say?
One’s own ignorance is not an argument.
I can’t even believe you posted that.====oh look, you did!
My bad.
Measurement error mean anything to you? One’s own ignorance is not an argument.
In college:
We measure the water in the tank at 185 degrees, and it is coming out of the shower at 184 degrees.
Dorm Leader: We’ll try and get better insulation.
What’s strange is that I don’t think this paper has anything to do with Kevin Trenberth’s famous ClimateGate missing heat e-mail. That was a reference to gaps in charts like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_showing_the_Earth%27s_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_%28NASA%29.png
Fun chart to gaze at. I think I get the incoming values, but not the outgoing/retained (in red) values. That said, the missing heat shouldn’t show on those charts. Its a detail within the numbers shown? ie==given the numbers shown, the temp measurements taken in the air and on the ground and in the first 700 meters of the ocean don’t add up to the calculations/numbers shown on the chart==ie==there is heat missing.
Some of the recent ocean sea level flattening was caused by a shift it the rain patterns–it falling on land and being absorbed there rather than going directly back into the ocean. That seems suspect to me…. but what do I know?
In the end, and all along the way, the zig zags show a steady progression. Why idiots can’t accept that zig zags by definition show down periods is rather humorous. Like barking seals wearing party hats.
Ha. ha.
Guyver causing any rational person to slap their forehead in disbelief says:
4/3/2013 at 6:30 am
I can guess, but what is your point?????
You do understand what a point is …… right?
Based on climate “science” of today, we now know that man-made CO2 caused global warming back during the Roman Times. Duh! /// Gosh McGuyver–If you argue all the climate change TODAY is caused by natural causes/variation…how come that isn’t your answer for back then when co2 wasn’t pumped into the air to any degree at all like today??? You got no attention span at all. Flip flopping back and forth from the talking points almost like you dropped the flash cards on the floor and got them all mixed up. …….. So, you point was you wanted to make no sense at all huh? Weird.
Variables in the Past, Variables Now, Variables in the Future. You add them all up—-and what do you get????
A crippling inability to make accurate predictions… but we make some pretty slick simulations based off of assumptions being true. /// So–charting a very stable increase in temps, ocean levels, ocean acidification and what not is crippling inaccurate because the models don’t predict whether or not it will rain in your neighborhood next Wednesday? Silly.
all that intensity, and you go Anti-Science. Why is that?
Strange how you call someone who insists on empirical evidence and the scientific method as being anti-science. But who am I kidding, you think Agnosticism is a form a Christianity. 🙂 /// A predictive model does not provide empirical evidence. If I point a gun at your head, there is no empirical evidence that if I pull the trigger you will die. Yet, that is what you demand for AGW. Stupid just doesn’t catch the depravity of your ignorance.
Supreme Ultrahuman, perhaps tripping on his own sarcasm says:
4/2/2013 at 8:23 pm
The real question on AGW is “Who cares?” I haven’t seen one “solution” from a believer that’s moral and ethical. /// The future will be green renewable non polluting energy at rates cheaper than carbon burning today without even accounting for the pollution. We could probably have comparable pricing without the pollution RIGHT NOW, if all the hidden costs and subsidies were fully accounted for. What immoral about green?==>warts?
If we could start from a foundation that promoting the “sustainable urban core” is a crime against humanity, we would could begin a discussion. /// Just the opposite. 95% of what is worthwhile takes place in the Urban Core. Thats where the people/machines/science/ideas/culture/printing pressess are. The country is for those who need a break from progress.
Anything else is simply blowing CO2. /// Not if you are green.
“The future will be green renewable non polluting energy at rates cheaper than carbon burning today without even accounting for the pollution. ”
Yes of course green will be non-polluting and cheaper than fossil fuels, in the future. The future is along time. Given enough time eventually everything happens, no matter how unlikely.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=11449
“The climate has been warming since the industrial revolution, but how warm is climate now compared with the rest of the Holocene? Marcott et al. (p. 1198) constructed a record of global mean surface temperature for more than the last 11,000 years, using a variety of land- and marine-based proxy data from all around the world. The pattern of temperatures shows a rise as the world emerged from the last deglaciation, warm conditions until the middle of the Holocene, and a cooling trend over the next 5000 years that culminated around 200 years ago in the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have risen steadily since then, leaving us now with a global temperature higher than those during 90% of the entire Holocene.” ///// Excellent do-ill. I’ll put you down (sic!) as a Man of Science!
“In case you missed it, I repeat:…’the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes….’
“What that means is that this paper actually has nothing to do with a ‘hockey stick’ as it does not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures in a manner that is ‘statistically robust.’ The new ‘hockey stick’ is no such thing, as Marcott et al. has no blade….
“So what the paper actually shows is the following, after I have removed from the graph the 20th century period that is ‘not statistically robust.'”
Pielke’s amended graph shows a long, steady decline in average global temperatures over the past few thousand years, and…that’s it. That’s all it shows.
But Pielke notes that the 20th-century data, the dramatic blade of the hockey stick, was the centerpiece of the official press releases put out by the study’s sponsors, and of the media’s coverage. And the study’s authors chose to put that data on a graph and publish it. This, by the way, is standard operating procedure for global warming alarmists: publish a paper which is cautious and circumspect about the facts—then pair it with a sensational press release making exaggerated claims and an eye-catching, jerry-rigged graph to give the journalists a juicy picture to publish.
http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/the_end_of_an_illusion_117795.html
As the decades roll on, the scientific evidence increases to shoot down the Global Warming fanatics.
“A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realized.”
The hard proof that shows global warming forecasts were WRONG all along
http://goo.gl/lF1mY
The end of an illusion – the political movement of global warming
http://goo.gl/v97P5
Whats your point? Chart linked is still going up, just not at as steady a rate as some idiot might want???
Science==not providing the certitude religious nut cakes require.
Tell me it ain’t so?
Well yea, that’s the point. If there is no serious problem with global warming, as would be the case if temperatures just leveled off at the current level, as they have done for the past 15 years, then there is no reason to do what the scientist politicians declare must be done to save the planet. Even a low rate of warming suggests that action is not required, as the costs are too high.
Now if you are correct that the future is green energy cheaper than fossil fuel energy, then even a high rate of warming would show no reason to do anything, as the problem will take care of itself.
Mike–your representation of the challenge faced by the human race regarding our energy requirements and the co2 pollution effects to secure that energy is …… a break with reality.
My memory is that you have posted in the past much more intelligently… so I assume you are goofing right now but that is not your common approach.
Sadly, while you “might be” joking, too many of our policies are right in line with the know nothing anti science non reality fantasy you announce.
What in the world would cause the heating of our atmosphere/water/earth to level off and stop?
Magical non-think of the worst kind.
You state that the future is one of cheap green energy. In that case, the level of CO2 would level off and presumably go lower, assuming that man is responsible for the increase.
Oh, and the heating of the planet has stopped for the last ten years according to the atmospheric temperatures, and temperatures of the ocean up to 700 meters.
MikeN says:
4/5/2013 at 12:02 pm
You state that the future is one of cheap green energy. /// Either that or the co2 will continue to pollute ending in catastrophic wipe out in any number of waves that once cascading can be impossible to stop. Massive methane release from warming was a great extinction event in the past. It doesn’t take much to break “society.” Humans will still be around…. not really the same thing.
In that case, the level of CO2 would level off and presumably go lower, assuming that man is responsible for the increase. /// Ha, ha. Yes….assuming.
MikeN says:
4/5/2013 at 12:38 pm
Oh, and the heating of the planet has stopped for the last ten years according to the atmospheric temperatures, and temperatures of the ocean up to 700 meters. /// Is this idea new to you? Hint: re read the OP.
Obama and Al Gore are the real “Climate Deniers”
The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.
Scientists are stumped by lack of climate change.
http://goo.gl/LJGYi
Did you even glance over the OP?
Read the executive summary of the IPCC report?
Find an alternative theory for what happens to co2 that is pumped into the air==>ocean?
Notice the change in weather over the past few years?
Yep…. as long as nothing is happening to YOU, RIGHT NOW….. then nothing is happening.
What a dolt.
The real dolts are the fools who believed all the Climategate crap that was submitted as scientific consensus and proof of global warming .
“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity.”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY
I’ve been meaning to read Crichton’s critique. You and he, atleast from Heston’s speech, confuse/conflate the mere survival of life on earth ((which NO ONE ELSE DOES)) with the collapse of human civilization.
You argue that the collapse of human civilization doesn’t matter/isn’t real/is of no concern because life will survive even if only deep in the ocean or soil?
You can’t be more stupid than this. Why don’t you kill yourself in some auto-erotic way? You know—other people will continue on. What difference will it make?
Brain Dead Hooman.
The laughs are on you boobbo.
On Friday, the Energy Information Administration reported that carbon dioxide emissions fell once again in 2012, bringing the United States’ emissions levels down to a two-decade low. The primary reason? The increasing availability and use of natural gas made possible by fracking, of course.
It’s another example that environmental quality and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive, even on a large scale. The innovations, efficiencies, and technological developments that come with an advanced economy can be good for both humanity and the planet.
Just as CO2 is correlated to higher temperatures, we now have proof that not signing global warming treaties reduces carbon emissions for major industrial nations.
Ok ok you two, stop calling each other names. When you call each other names like that, it means you’re frustrated because your arguments are being ignored by the opposing side.
This is a good blog, normally when the skeptics show up the host will ban them immediately. Its a good blog when the host allows both sides to battle it out. But when the name calling starts, often the host will start a-bannin’.
klem,
Welcome to the forum. You must be new here.
jbenson2 not understanding the clearest of simple concepts says:
4/6/2013 at 3:06 pm
The laughs are on you boobbo.
On Friday, the Energy Information Administration reported that carbon dioxide emissions fell once again in 2012, /// No link, but blindfolded I know this was a decrease in the RATE of increase, not a reduction in the absolute total. We are being poinsoned from the absolute total==not the rate. Imagine being in a locked room that is being flooded with water from a large pipe. Are you going to rejoice when the water flow is reduced slightly????…….. and yet you do.
Silly Hooman.
bringing the United States’ emissions levels down to a two-decade low. /// Killing us then, and killing us now. Your point is that it is slightly slower? Sad. Society will not survive until the absolute level is reduced.
The primary reason? The increasing availability and use of natural gas made possible by fracking, of course. /// “Good” only if the alternative is some other higher carbon polluting source. Bad–as it maintains our dependence on carbon. We gotta go green.
It’s another example that environmental quality and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive, /// and yet this example exactly reveals that zero sum game.
even on a large scale. The innovations, efficiencies, and technological developments that come with an advanced economy can be good for both humanity and the planet. /// Ha, ha. I’ll bet you buy off on “clean coal?”
Are idiots born, or do you just choose to be this stupid?
I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.
http://globalwarmingweb.com/