March 2013 Open Thread

Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “it seems to have been getting colder in these parts for the last 10 years or so”

    Really? So what is the global average?

    Trending up.

    0.6C per decade trend measured over the last year.

  2. #2 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    BBD #96
    I must have read it somewhere

    The Marcott reconstruction has been joined to the Shakun reconstruction prior to that, and the HadCRUT4 global temperature data since, and the projected temperature change under the A1B scenario for the future, by Jos Hagelaars, in order to show us some perspective on climate change past, present and future.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/#more-6456

  3. #3 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    So what is the global average?

    Trending up.

    But we are told not to expect warming to be uniform..
    Locally, the trend seems to be down.

    Seems to be the same in Germany also who have had 5 very cold winters on the trot.

  4. #4 Rednose
    March 22, 2013

    Wow#1
    0.6C per decade trend measured over the last year

    Dear dear.
    You should find your trends over longer time periods.

    The trend fro the last 20 years using Hadcrut 4, the latest and best series apparently, the trend is 0.05C/decade. ie 0.5C in 100 years. Dont panic.

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

    Anyway, off to Tescos. Must get in some supplies before we are snowed in.
    Catch you later

  5. #5 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Rednose

    The UK is not the world. The CET is not the UK. It’s not even England.

    Here’s the world (10 year running means).

    Stop playing silly buggers.

  6. #6 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    # 2

    Yes, *I* understand that. The evident problem here is that *you* have not understood (or even read) M13. If you look back, you will see that I linked to Tamino’s post on this very thread… some time ago.

  7. #7 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    # 4

    Using the SkS trend calc, the trend for HadCRUT4 1993 – present is: 0.137 ±0.097 °C/decade (2σ), not 0.05C/decade.

    You are either incompetent or mendacious. Out of curiosity, which is it?

  8. #8 joni
    March 22, 2013

    But redDuff – there is no large snow dump forecast for Bath, so why get supplies in?

  9. #9 joni
    March 22, 2013
  10. #10 Sou
    March 22, 2013

    Rednose and Tony would get along. Tony keeps confusing local with global and none of his readers notice.

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/anthony-watts-tries-for-worlds-dumbest.html

  11. #11 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer:

    Dear dear.
    You should find your trends over longer time periods.

    So should you.

    Duffer:

    it seems to have been getting colder in these parts for the last 10 years or so

    Average over 10 years? You should find your trends over longer time periods.

  12. #12 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: Locally, the trend seems to be down.

    Yes, because locally is not globally.

    If they showed the same all the time, then there would be no need to call them different things.

    You DO know why different words are used, don’t you?

  13. #14 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    So, what’s the deal, Lapdog?

    Do you want someone tell you what the words mean? Or do you have no clue why you post links any more?

  14. #15 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    (PS)

    Duffer: Locally, the trend seems to be down.

    Dear dear.
    You should find your trends over longer time periods.

  15. #16 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    BBD#4
    You are correct concerning the 20 year trend 1993-2003 giving 0.14C/decade. My mistake. It is the 16 year trend 1997 end 2012 that gives 0.05C/decade.
    In this case I plead incompetence.

    #2 So Tamino, McIntyre and Marcott all agree that the uptic, the bit that seems to have caused the most fuss, is not robust.
    To me that suggeststs it will not stand up to detailed analysis. It might but probably wont. So why include it?
    What do you think?

    #5 Your graph shows no results post about 2000 which might hide points of interest and could be construed as cherrypicking
    So who is playing silly buggers?

  16. #17 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Joni#9
    And see – now snow here

    yes but I get frighted easily by the news coverage showing blizzards, 3 foot drifts and jackknifed lorries.
    Besides, its no good trying to get supplies in after its dumped a load of snow. Whats a man to drink?

  17. #18 Jeff Harvey
    March 22, 2013

    Try applying your insidious logic to the Arctic, Rednose… this region has experienced way above normal conditions for the past two decades. This winter is no exception. Its warmer now in much of the Northwest Territories than in areas far to the south and Europe. There’s already legitimate concern that the Arctic will be ice-free later this year.

    And your decade observation is bull****. Over much of Europe, winter and spring seasons reached record high temperatures as recently as two years ago. Same goes for autumns. Summers are becoming wetter. But, as any scientist worth his degree knows, one cannot make extrapolations on the basis of a 10 year period for large-scale systems that are decidedly deterministic.

    But, let me guess, Rednose, you aren’t a scientist are you? Let me guess. You have a basic diploma from high school. Or less. Am I correct?

    Where do jokers like you come from? It seems like we manage to lose some (Karen, Sunspot, Jonas, Betula) and their ranks are filled in by what appears to be an endless line of idiots. Olaus appears to stick around with his obsessive posts of comic-book level denier sites (e.g. Joanne Nova). He clearly hasn’t read the primary literature as his posts reveal. Seems like you haven’t, either.

  18. #19 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Wow#15
    Dear dear.
    You should find your trends over longer time periods.

    Ok. What about this one?
    A 354 year trend, local I admit, though quite a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere by all accounts,
    showing 0.26C/100 years.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

  19. #20 Jeff Harvey
    March 22, 2013

    http://www.examiner.com/article/climate-change-is-it-game-over-for-earth

    What’s happening in the Arctic is stunning in terms of scale… and terrifying.

  20. #21 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: It is the 16 year trend 1997 end 2012 that gives 0.05C/decade.

    Oh dear, you need to use a longer period, Duffer.

  21. #22 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Try applying your insidious logic to the Arctic.

    Yes this is something I have difficulty with. Perhaps you can help. Global warming is causing a loss of sea ice in the Arctic, which supposedly is the cause of this “weird weather” in the Northern Hemishere. This sounds plausible so far, that GCSE comes in usefull..
    At the same time the warming is causing a gain in sea ice in the Antarctic and this gain in sea ice must be causing the weird weather in the Southern Hemisphere. Its very difficult trying to explain this to the lads in the saloon bar without getting laughed at.

  22. #23 Olaus Petri
    March 22, 2013

    Little Napoleon, I’m here for you. No significant global warming in circus 15 years and significant lobal warming in 15 years. The heat!

  23. #24 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: though quite a good proxy for the Northern Hemisphere by all accounts,

    Really? According to what?

    And have you checked whether the “Conservatory Effect” has been accounted for.

    You know, where someone way back in the early days had their thermometers outside the kitchen and they don’t do that any more, hence the record now no longer being heated by the building nearby.

    You DID check to see that the sites were good siting, right?

  24. #25 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Jeff#20

    Why are there adverts for Marijuana, Hot Women and Revealing Photos on that page you linked to Jeff?
    Is that what you Google?

  25. #26 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer, why?

    Nothing else, just why?

  26. #27 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “No significant global warming in circus 15 years ”

    Yes there has. 0.6C per decade over the last year.

  27. #28 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Wow#24
    This record is probably more robust than Marcott’s uptick

  28. #29 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “At the same time the warming is causing a gain in sea ice in the Antarctic”

    Tip: the Antarctic ice is on the land. Land is higher than the sea (otherwise it would be underwater). Therefore when ice melts, gravity will pull it down. Down from the higher land takes you to the sea. When ice gets to the sea, it is called sea ice.

    Why do you ask such stupid questions, duffer? What precisely are you hoping to indicate? The stupidity of the denier mindset?

  29. #30 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “This record is probably more robust than Marcott’s uptick”

    No, it’s provably less robust.

  30. #31 Olaus Petri
    March 22, 2013

    Rednose, Wow’s uptick is even less robust. Totally lobal. Maybe the 15 year hiatus is causing it?

  31. #32 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Tip: the Antarctic ice is on the land. Land is higher than the sea (otherwise it would be underwater). Therefore when ice melts, gravity will pull it down. Down from the higher land takes you to the sea. When ice gets to the sea, it is called sea ice.

    Well thanks for that. Here’s me thinking sea ice in the Antarctic was produced by the sea freezing during the cold Antarctic Winter. Well you live and learn. Its so good to know that there are these bright people understanding this stuff.

  32. #33 chek
    March 22, 2013

    The 15/16/17 (depending on the random denier spouting it) year “hiatus” that has caused record summer melt in the arctic for the past five years, you mean?

    One day a denier will begin joining dots and wonder who’s been lying to them for a long, long time.

  33. #34 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “Well thanks for that.”

    Well, it was pretty obvious you didn’t know any of that.

  34. #35 JohnL
    March 22, 2013

    Tamino posted his analysis of The Tick today, his conclusion below

    “As for the very large uptick in Marcott et al.’s “standard 5×5″ reconstruction, I quite agree it’s not correct but even Marcott et al. expressed doubt about it. More to the point, it is not the point of the Marcott reconstruction. The point is to define the extent and rapidity of changes throughout the holocene, in full knowledge that the most recent part is the least accurate because it has the fewest remaining proxies. For that purpose, all the reconstructions (including by the diferencing method) agree.

    As for the entirety of the Marcott et al. reconstruction, two points cannot be overemphasized. First: the point is to reconstruct temperature change over the entire holocene, especially the past. This is hardly the final word on that subject, but it’s a good first step and a very strong indication that past changes didn’t happen as fast as what’s happening now. The exaggerated uptick in the “Standard 5×5″ reconstruction is its least interesting feature, but it’s the most annoying to those who have an ideological reason to deny man-made global warming.

    Second: we already know what happened in the 20th century.”

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/

  35. #36 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Olaus
    Shh. Dont mention the hiatus.

    The Central England Temperature Record has many more data points than Marcott’s uptic, and probably more than Lewandowsky and Cook’s crappo paper.

  36. #37 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Joining the dots would require someone give them a pencil.

    They don’t allow pointy objects in the funny farms, chek.

  37. #38 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: “Here’s me thinking sea ice in the Antarctic was produced by the sea freezing during the cold Antarctic Winter”

    So you’re thinking that winter is caused by global warming? Or are you saying that because winter still happens, that global warming can’t be true?

  38. #39 JohnL
    March 22, 2013

    But surely they’re allowed crayons.’

  39. #40 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    They eat crayons.

    But not the green ones.

  40. #41 Olaus Petri
    March 22, 2013

    Oh, the other genius showed up. Chek! :-) A hiatus it is. So you are saying that our children will not know what arctic sea ice will look like? ;-) Which year will it dissapear again? Sorry for asking, but you climate scientologists seems to redate (sic) all the time.

  41. #42 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Olaus
    My children (aged 13 and 15) do not know what global warming is. Its because of this hiatus Dohh

  42. #43 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    but you climate scientologists seems to redate (sic) all the time.

    Allegedley Marcott did that to his results to create the dodgy graph

  43. #44 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    # 16 Rednose

    #2 So Tamino, McIntyre and Marcott all agree that the uptic, the bit that seems to have caused the most fuss, is not robust./blockquote>

    This is irrelevant because the uptick is confirmed by the instrumental record. We do not need M13 for this. M13 is relevant because it provides 11.5ka of context into which we can place the instrumental record.

    #5 Your graph shows no results post about 2000 which might hide points of interest and could be construed as cherrypicking
    So who is playing silly buggers?

    My graph is clearly labelled 10 year means. Perhaps best to have a think about this?

    ;-)

  44. #45 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    No, I tell a lie. The graph was labelled ‘decadal means’.

  45. #46 Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    This is irrelevant because the uptick is confirmed by the instrumental record.

    Part of it maybe. The rest is guesswork.

    Would it not be possible to carry on producing 10 year means for the period 2000 to 2013. Or would you rather this not be shown?

  46. #47 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: Shh. Dont mention the hiatus.

    Because it’s made up by idiots, propounded by dumber idiots and lapped up by even bigger idiots.

    Duffer: My children (aged 13 and 15) do not know what global warming is.

    Someone’s been shitting in the gene pool.

    The probably know more than you but humour the old git and don’t show off in front of you.

    But you’ll do your best to ensure that they are as uneducated as necessary so you can pretend you’re a god to someone.

  47. #48 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: Part of it maybe. The rest is guesswork.

    No, the rest of it is evidenced.

  48. #49 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Rednose

    Part of it maybe. The rest is guesswork.

    Which part is guesswork?

  49. #50 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: The Central England Temperature Record has many more data points than Marcott’s uptic,

    Yes. So?

    There are a lot more data points in the rest of the world. Use those.

    Oh, look globally, warming.

  50. #51 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “Which part is guesswork?”

    He guesses it could be guesswork. That’s his guess, anyway.

  51. #52 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Would it not be possible to carry on producing 10 year means for the period 2000 to 2013. Or would you rather this not be shown?

    I said *think* about it ;-)

  52. #53 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Duffer: Would it not be possible to carry on producing 10 year means for the period 2000 to 2013.

    Would it not be possible to carry on producing 30 year means for the period 1850-2013.

    You see, dear, you need to use a longer time period to get your trend from.

    Otherwise we have that AGW is back with a vengeance: 0.6C per decade warming trend for 2011-2012.

  53. #54 chek
    March 22, 2013

    Let’s play ‘spot the denier idiot who read a blog headline somewhere but doesn’t have a fucking clue otherwise’.

    So far I’m seeing all of them.

  54. #55 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Heh, like “Sixth Sense”?

    “I can see dumb people”

  55. #56 chek
    March 22, 2013

    I can see dumb people

    Indeed. The kind of dumb that celebrates dumbness and their own dumbed-down dumbnosity. The kind of mindlessly parroting dumbnitude that defies any intervention as we see here in our latest crop.

    The kind of dumb that fell, semi-formed, out of a tree yesterday and thinks everyone else did too and that they have similar zero ability to actually follow and understand … anything, really.

  56. #57 chek
    March 22, 2013

    The kind of mindlessly parroting dumbnitude that defies any intervention as we see here in our latest crop.

    Let’s have just one~ denier brainbox genius – and you morons have had months to put 2 and 2 together here – explain the record arctic melts of 2007 and 2012 during their famous “15/15/17 year hiatus”.

    And then they wonder why they’re despised as know-nothing idiot parrots.

  57. #58 chek
    March 22, 2013

    And then they wonder why they’re despised as know-nothing idiot parrots.

    It is conceivable that the penny may drop for some and that the concept of the planet as a total heat soaking entity may lead to an inkling that surface temperatures aren’t the be-all and end-all despite what they’ve been spoon-fed.

    But then again, bearing in mind that most are too stupid to spit straight without soaking their lapels, it’s a forlorn hope.,

  58. #59 Lionel A
    March 23, 2013

    DuffassRedNose:

    Tip: the Antarctic ice is on the land. Land is higher than the sea…

    Dat aint necessarily so.

    Try using this: GeoMapApp.

  59. #60 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Hell, duffer has never wanted an answer to any of his questions.

    Why do you ask them, then, duffer?

  60. #61 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    Lapdog: [Duffer], Wow’s uptick is even less robust.

    Prove it, lapper.

  61. #62 Jeff Harvey
    March 23, 2013

    Great TED lecture in which the speaker explains what the scientifically illiterate Dunning-Kruger educated deniers cannot seem to get through their heads: the importance of scale. Separating stochastic processes from deterministic processes. One of the first things I was taught as an ecologist is that processes governing the rules for the assembly and functioning of biomes are maintained at time scales encompassing many, many centuries, whereas rules governing the functioning of local communities can change over very short periods of time.

    The lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90

    The same point is made here…. that climate patters of course vary but over immensely long time scales when the entire system across the biosphere is studied. The more the spatial scale is reduced, the more that local processes come into play.

    I wish one – JUST ONE – of the so-called skeptics writing in here had some scientific background in a field that required even a basic understanding of scale. Yet the same crap is rehashed here – it hasn’t warmed in 15-16-17 years (take your pick), as if these time scales for a system maintained at a stupendously large scale are significant. For deniers, who left science books behind in grade 8, this may be the case, but for trained scientists they are not. If I found notable, significant changes in the boundary of a biome, such as the eastern deciduous forests, in the eastern United States, occurring over 50-100 years at the very least, then I would say something very serious is happening (this of course based on non-anthropogenic changes). The boundaries of biomes are labile but not over decades; these kinds of changes would need many centuries or even millennia to be borne out. Here we are seeing changes in the dynamics of an immensely large climate maintenance system changing in the temporal equivalent of a single heartbeat. The trouble is, that deniers seem to think that, for the global climate system, 10 years is sufficient time for trends to be significant and 20 plus years is an eternity. Have these idiots never read an elementary science text?

    I wait for responses from the usual suspects. They won’t try to discuss the question of scale, but expect links to denier sites to be splashed up left, right and center.

  62. #63 BBD
    March 23, 2013

    Jeff Harvey

    You are correct. And the blindness to scale can be… scaled up!

    Contrarians struggle with Big Climate too. That 50Ma of *overall* cooling from the Eocene Optimum to the Holocene needs a physical explanation, and one exists. Solar forcing increased during the Cenozoic by about 1 W/m^2. CO2 forcing decreased by about 10W/m^2. The result looks like this (top panel).

    When you ask for an alternative physical explanation for the *overall* cooling trend 50Ma – present, you don’t get satisfactory answers.

    ***

    Hansen & Sato (2012)

  63. #64 Rednose
    UK
    March 23, 2013

    Bootiful speech Jeff, apart from some of those long words what you use.
    What can I say, if its on U Tube it must be true.
    Couldnt agree more about your general thrust.. Important to get some understanding of the time scale of things.
    Here we are with the Central England temperature Index, backed up by what they done in Copenhagen, showing a nice steady rise in temperature for 100s years after the last mini ice age.
    A 20 year variation on this from 1980-2000, should be placed in context of this centuries long warming period with natural variation around this steady rise.
    But based on this 20 year short instant, the eco loons are calling for great changes to be enforced on society, a reduction of the population by 2/3s, for the survivors to live in sustainable mud huts, get by on a diet of lentils and have a much shorter more grueling life. If lucky they might be allowed to watch Eastenders once a fortnight on a communal TV placed convenietly in the Mayor’s centrally heated mansion, but only if the wind is blowing steadily between 10 and 30 mph.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

    http://s1.postimg.org/9luuxrqm7/TAMINO_FINAL_FINAL_FINAL_FINAL.gif

    There: A discussion of 20 years of observations against 400

  64. #65 Wow
    March 23, 2013

    “Here we are with the Central England temperature Index”

    In the case of proving or disproving global climate, why are you bothering with only england?

  65. #66 Wow
    March 23, 2013
  66. #67 chek
    March 23, 2013

    In the case of proving or disproving global climate, why are you bothering with only england?

    Largely because dimwit, arsefuckingly stupid deniers can only make the semblance of a case by ignoring the majority of the data in favour of a cherry-pick. Just like the latest moron conscript is doing for the zillionth time..

  67. #68 BBD
    March 24, 2013

    Rednose

    The Central England Temperature record isn’t even England. The clue is in the name! I’m sure I mentioned this earlier ;-)

    Anyway, what we should be looking at is the rate of energy accumulation in the entire climate system, which effectively means the global ocean.

    Compare solar forcing (yellow line at the bottom) with that from well-mixed greenhouse gasses (W-M GHG; green; mainly CO2) and the remarkable increase in ocean heat content (OHC, red).

  68. #69 JohnL
    March 24, 2013

    Speaking of the global ocean, Trenberth has found his “missing heat”.

    Geophysical Research Letters
    Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

  69. #70 Lotharsson
    March 24, 2013

    I have a vague memory that one of our regular “skeptics” may have touted a recent paper by Tung and Zhou arguing that a fair bit of observed warming was due to non-anthropogenic regional factors.

    SkS have an article pointing out some reasons to think they are mistaken.

  70. #71 bill
    March 24, 2013

    Re John L; well, I can only read the abstract, but it the article follows the precis I think we can expect more angry ants swarming from the denier nests. Marcott and now Balmaseda within weeks; as the science firms up they can really only melt down.

  71. #72 chameleon
    March 24, 2013

    Bill @ 71 and JohnL @ 69.
    Bill got the abstract (apparently) that wiley link won’t open for me at all.
    Can you link it again?

  72. #73 Sou
    March 24, 2013

    The thing about deniers is they see a cooling trend where there is none at all. Just looking at the CE temperatures, which they look at and say is ‘cooling’, the chart shows otherwise.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    Even their own dodgy charts show the warming trend.

    Weird behaviour.

  73. #74 Jeff Harvey
    March 24, 2013

    Shows you how dense Rednose is; I talk about scale, emphasize it, scream about it from the rooftops, and what does he do? Reduce the spatial scale to virtually nothing.

    Listen guys: the facts are these. Most of the deniers do not have a clue about the importance of scale, or how to separate stochastic ‘noise’ from long term stable dynamics. As David Roberts said, the past 10,000 years has seen, at the global level, hardly any fluctuation of temperature outside of + or – 1 C. As we reduce the scales of space and/or time, then of course there may have been regional perturbations; this is what the MWP or LIA may have included. But at the planetary scale, its been pretty consistent. Until about 30 years ago. Then something started to push the planet-wide system out of its 10,000 year equilibrium. To do this required some external forcing agent that is significant, and the ONLY major factor that fits with this is through changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases placed there by man. In this there is almost universal agreement amongst the scientific community with a very, very small set of outliers. The next step is to determine how severe the problem is likely to be.

    As Roberts correctly said, for such a stupendously large system, there are going to be temporal lags between cause and effect. Thus the temperature shift that has occurred since the 1980s is the result of fossil fuels combusted 50-100 years ago; the more recent upsurge in fossil fuel burning has yet to be manifested and won’t be borne out for another 50-100 years.

    But the deniers who inundate blogs with their scientifically illiterate views cannot grasp this. They think that greenhouse gases emitted today should, by definition, exert and almost instantaneous effect on global temperatures. They constantly confuse weather and climate, citing short-term regional cold snaps as evidence that AGW is a myth.

    They also cannot grasp the fact that a 2 C rise in ecological terms borders of disaster in the time scales involved. They aren’t trained to think in terms of non-linear dynamics. Like other deniers, Rednose thinks he is witty and clever and informed whereas in reality, he’s making himself look more like a jackass with every posting.

  74. #75 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    The other odd thing about deniers is not so much that they don’t understand scale, but that they do if it affects them personally. Well, sometimes.

    Ie. 2C warming “It’s nothing! The daytime variation is more than that!”. They can’t see the scale of it because they don’t think. £2 increase in electric bills to subsidise renewable roll-out? “That’s horrific! Old people will be dying in their thousands from being unable to heat their homes!!!”. They understand scale can be more than the local effect here.

    Then again, they don’t notice the scale of a £66 increase in energy bills from the increase in price of fossil fuels for the fossil fuel generators, so their blinkers are on again.

  75. #76 JohnL
    March 24, 2013

    Bill,
    I should have linked to David Appell at Quark Soup who has posted on this paper. He quotes from the conclusions

    “The deep ocean has continued to warm, while the upper 300 m OHC appears to have stabilized. The differences in recent trends among the different ocean layers are profound. The small warming in the upper 300 m is belied by the continuing warming for the ocean as a whole, with considerable warming occurring below 700 m. However, this raises the question of whether this result is simply because of the new Argo observing system? The results shown here suggest otherwise, although Argo clearly is vitally important quantitatively. Instead changes in surface winds play a major role, and although the exact nature of the wind influence still needs to be understood, the changes are consistent with the intensification of the trades in subtropical gyres. Another supporting factor is the uniqueness of the radiative forcing associated with global warming.

    The magnitude of the warming trend is consistent with observational estimates, being equivalent to an average 0.47 ± 0.03 W m-2 for the period 1975–2009. There is large decadal variability in the heat uptake, the latest decade being significantly higher (1.19 ± 0.11 W m-2) than the preceding record. Globally this corresponds to 0.84 W m-2, consistent with earlier estimates [Trenberth et al., 2009]. In an observing system experiment where Argo is withdrawn, the ocean heating for the last decade is reduced (0.82 ± 0.10 W m-2), but is still significantly higher than in previous decades. The estimation shows depths below 700 m becoming much more strongly involved in the heat uptake after 1998, and subsequently accounting for about 30% of the ocean warming.

    Link to David Appell
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/03/missing-energy-claimed-to-be-found.html

  76. #77 Russell Seitz
    March 24, 2013

    The time has come to eject The Institute of Public Affairs from the list of interesting think tanks, and add it to the sorry constellation of those that have gone mental.

  77. #78 Rednose
    UK
    March 24, 2013

    Interesting article posted over at WUWT on March 23
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/trend-to-colder-winters-continues-in-uk/#more-82658

    Remember you read it first here on Deltoid :-)
    Rednose
    UK
    March 22, 2013

    Rednose conflate weather and climate and think that every year must be warmer than the last…

    Problem is Jeff, using a 10 year running mean, it seems to have been getting colder in these parts for the last 10 years or so

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet

  78. #79 Lionel A
    March 24, 2013

    DuffassRednose

    UK
    March 24, 2013

    Interesting article posted over at WUWT on March 23
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/trend-to-colder-winters-continues-in-uk/#more-82658

    Remember you read it first here on Deltoid :-)
    Rednose

    You just don’t get it do you twerp, or you do and you persist in being mendacious:

    Have a look at this post: March 23, 2013 at 2:05 pm by prokaryotes

    and this one: from Jeff Masters.

  79. #80 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    March 24, 2013

    Wow speaks: “You see, dear, you need to use a longer time period to get your trend from.”

    Yes, sir, very good, sir, do my best, sir:

    “average winter temperature for 1911-2013 stands at 3.52C”

    “In the last five years, only 2011/12 has been above the 1981-2010 average. The average over these five years has been 3.03C.”

    But it’s true, this global warming does make you sweat, my God, it’s pouring off me, although the missus reckons it’s my thermals, ski trousers, multiple sweaters, anoraks and the fact that I spend all day crouched over the fire! Don’t tell anyone, but I reckon she’s a ‘denier’.

  80. #81 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: Remember you read it first here on Deltoid

    Read what? As usual, duffer, you use words like a two-year-old uses crayons.

  81. #82 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: “average winter temperature for 1911-2013 stands at 3.52C”

    So it’s been colder before.

    I.e. it’s warmer now than it has been before.

    That’s called “Warming” duffer

  82. #83 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Really, duffer. You claim that it’s warming because we’re coming out of an ice age, then you claim it’s cooling because we’re coming out of the MWP, then you claim it’s cooling because it’s cooler in the UK, then you claim it’s cooling because it’s cold today in bristol.

    Then you claim that it’s been warming because that’s what happens when you come out of an ice age.

    You really have no continuous thought, do you

  83. #84 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Oh, and when it’s warmer than normal in the UK, you claim that this isn’t proof of warming.

  84. #85 Rednose
    UK
    March 24, 2013

    Dear. Dear
    Wow seems a bit confused.
    Still it wouldn’t be the first time I expect.
    Doesn’t seem to know who he is talking to.

    The link shows some lovely pictures of global warming.
    But watch out for that snowman
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298246/UKs-coldest-spring-1963-claims-5-000-lives-Pensioners-worst-affected–experts-say-final-toll-horrendous.html

  85. #86 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer, you sad foolish little boy.

  86. #87 Jeff Harvey
    March 24, 2013

    Duffnose’s last two posts simply confirm everything I said in my last few posts on this thread. Inability to understand the importance of scale. Inability to separate linear and non-linear processes. Mixing up weather and climate.

    Essentially, this merely also confirms what I was suggesting before: its either/or willful ignorance or just basic stupidity. Take your pick. What is most embarrassing is that people like this apparently feel quite content to expound this ignorance on the internet. In Duff’s case, he even waives his anonymity (unless he is sock-puppeting through Rednose).

  87. #88 Wow
    March 24, 2013
  88. #89 Rednose
    UK
    March 24, 2013

    Apologies
    The snowman pic seems to have been pulled. Too frightening perhaps

  89. #90 Wow
    March 24, 2013
  90. #91 Rednose
    UK
    March 24, 2013

    LionalA #78

    Appreciate the links provided

    Consider this one
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052412/abstract

    The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

    But now seem to be falling
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/17/meteorologist-dominik-jung-turns-skeptical-after-germany-sets-record-5-consecutive-colder-than-normal-winters/

  91. #92 Rednose
    UK
    March 24, 2013
  92. #93 Rednose
    UK
    March 24, 2013

    Wow #89

    Dont be impatient.
    Covered that awhile back but you probably wern’t paying attention.
    CAGW theory states a decrease in Arctic ice will cause weird weather in the Northern Hemisphere, while an increase in Antarctic ice will cause weird weather in the Southern Hemisphere. Difficult to believe I know but I expect you will swallow it.

  93. #94 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño.

    So freeze years are caused by sunspots HOW?

    Magic pixies?

    Correlation is not causation, so what is your causation?

    (PS given the solar cycle is 11 years, “close to” being within three years means that your statistic is not statistically significant)

  94. #95 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: “And when did those cold winters start kicking in?”

    They’ve been a feature of the world since about 3 billion years ago.

  95. #96 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: Covered that awhile back but you probably wern’t paying attention.

    So weird weather we’re having in the UK is caused by the arctic ice anomaly caused by AGW is what you’re saying.

    And the weird weather the Kiwis are having are due to the antarctic ice anomaly caused by AGW as well.

  96. #97 Wow
    March 24, 2013

    Duffer: But now seem to be falling

    Seem being the operative word.

    Except it would ALSO seem that the warming trend is up again.

    2001-date: Up.
    2004-date: Up.
    2011-date: Up.

  97. #98 BBD
    March 24, 2013

    David Duff

    How do we explain this?

    Compare TSI (yellow line at the bottom) with forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gasses (W-M GHG; green; mainly CO2) and the remarkable increase in ocean heat content (OHC, red).

    TSI and OHC *diverge* from about 1980 onwards. TSI *declines* and OHC increases.

    ?

  98. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    March 24, 2013

    Loos like the Strategic Policy Institute is on the UN-world-domination conspiracy:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-25/climate-change-a-threat-multiplier-for-defence/4591676

    A new report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) says the military is not doing enough planning to cope with the problem of climate change.
    The Government’s 2009 Defence white paper dismissed climate change as an issue that did not need to be addressed until after 2030, but this ASPI report argues that is no longer the case, and the new white paper to be delivered this year needs to embrace a new approach.

  99. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    March 24, 2013

    Jeff Harvey
    March 24, 2013

    Duffnose’s last two posts simply confirm everything I said in my last few posts on this thread. Inability to understand the importance of scale. Inability to separate linear and non-linear processes. Mixing up weather and climate.

    It’s deliberate. Nobody is actually that stupid AND so proud of the fact that they will come and boast about it here.
    He’s trolling.
    Like this guy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

    Either a paid liar or just one of their useful idiots.

1 3 4 5 6 7 9