Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Fact check: has global warming paused?

“The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ‘30 to 40 years…

Look at ocean temperatures if you want to know whether the earth is still warming. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

“The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ‘30 to 40 years at least’ to break the long-term global warming trend.” - The Australian, Feb 22 2013

Since the onset of the industrial age (from 1750 AD) Earth’s atmosphere, surface and ocean temperatures have warmed. This is mainly due to the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, halocarbons, stratospheric water vapour from CH4) by a total of +3.06 Watt/m2. Other drivers include black carbon (+0.1 Watt/m2) and solar irradiance – the latter during the first half of the 20th century (+0.12 Watt/m2).

Warming was in part mitigated by emitted sulphur aerosols (direct effects -0.5 Watt/m2; cloud albedo effects -0.7 Watt/m2) and by land clearing (-0.2 Watt/m2).

Cyclic, regional and transient climate effects are related to the ENSO cycle, water vapour (whose concentration depends on air temperature) and volcanic events. The fastest warming occurs in the polar regions: this is where there is the biggest albedo (or reflectiveness) contrast between ice and water, and where little or no water vapour exists in the atmosphere.

The consequent warming trend, as measured by NASA, NOAA and Hadley-Met and analysed by Berkeley (see Figure 1), indicates a rise in average land temperature by about +1.5°C over the past 250 years, and about +0.9°C in the past 50 years. A sharp rise in temperatures from about 1975-1976 was related to both an accelerated rise in CO2 and a decrease in emission of SO2 from coal and oil due to clean air policies (see Figure 2). Cleaner air decreases the reflectiveness of the atmosphere, thus driving further warming.

Figure 1: Mean continent-ocean global warming since 1750 http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

Following a sharp El Niño peak in 1998, since about 2000 a slowing down of the mean rate of global warming was related to a sharp increase in SO2 emission from coal mainly in China (see Figure 2), strong La Niña events and a low in the 11 years sun-spot cycle.

Figure 2: Anthropogenic sulphur dioxide emissions 1850-2005. www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011.pdf

As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20x1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4x1022 joules.

Figure 3: Build-up in Earth’s total heat content. www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

The rise in land and atmosphere temperatures since about 1996 reflects a combination of greenhouse radiative forcing from 360 to 395ppm CO2 at rates of up to 2.54ppm/year (unprecedented since 55 million years ago), the ENSO cycle and 11-years sunspot cycle. Peak temperatures at around 2006 exceed any measured in the instrumental record.

Figure 4: NASA Land-ocean temperatures http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.

At the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect, known since the 19th century and consistent with the basic laws of greenhouse gas radiative forcing and black body radiation.

Join the conversation

137 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Comment removed by moderator.

    1. In reply to Mike Hansen

      Comment removed by moderator.

    2. In reply to Mike Hansen

      Comment removed by moderator.

  2. Brian Keyte

    Potter

    Thanks for that Andrew, I was wondering about the latent heat content of all that water vapour and liquid and if in fact a very slight variation in the ratios of all three forms of water could in fact have a rather large effect on the air temperature. Both positive and negative. Can you point us to research on, and measuring methods for the ocean heat levels?

    report
    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Brian Keyte

      Temperature measurements, eg USA's ARGO programme (not Argo the movie).

      Note that it takes about 1000 times as many joules of energy to increase the average temperature of the oceans by 1 deg C as it does to increase the average temperature of the atmosphere by the same amount.

      Dr Glikson informs us that at present, ~90% of accumulating heat is being stored in the oceans. Now, if we assume 90% of heat accumulation over the last 150 years has been retained in the oceans, then ~10% of heat…

      Read more
    2. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Brian Keyte

      THE WATER VAPOR FACTOR

      It is the poles where the fastest climate change is occurring, near to 4- 5 degrees C since the onset of the industrial age, yet there is little or no water vapor in the atmosphere over the Arctic and the Antarctic.

      The rise in ocean tempratures is driving ice melt and the warming of the poles is affecting the cold air and ocean currents emanating from upper latitude regions, with consequences for lower latitude climates.

      report
    3. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to David Arthur

      Brian, The calculation does not apply - ocean warming is differential (see figure 3) and is affected by mixing, currents, winds, differential salinity and other factors, which is why, for example, deep levels of the southern ocean have warmed to a greater extent than expected.

      report
    4. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Thanks for that, Dr Glikson.

      The purpose of my excessively simplistic calculation was to suggest to Mr Keyte that instrumental measurements by themselves may not give reliable indication of ocean warming.

      report
    5. John Nicol

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Andrew,

      I note your comments about the warming of the poles, but this seems to me to be inconsistent with the increases recorded in the Antarctic Ice even though there has been recent reductions in the Arctic.

      However, with regard to the Arctic, you may have read of the shipping lanes in the North of Russia being more open in the 1920s than they are now.

      There was also the historic case of Frit Nansen, in the 1890s, kayaking towards the North Pole and the English athlete Pugh trying a…

      Read more
  3. Bruce Voll

    logged in via Twitter

    It would seem that someone is using out of date data.
    The question is, is it intentional, in an attempt to obfuscate reality?
    Or mere laziness.
    Conveniently using graphs that stop at 2000 instead of 2012 ?

    This one shows what is happening up to 2013. It is from the NOAA ARGO bouy system.
    http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/

    report
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Bruce Voll

      Which graph are you referring to? You did not specify. Are you lazy or an obfuscator?

      You link to the NOAA ARGO system so I can only assume that you are referring to ocean heat.

      But that graph does not stop at 2000!

      Its source is clearly labelled so you could have checked the details.

      It is from this paper
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389

      "Figure 1 shows the pentadal OHC data for the 0-700 meter layer [11] (the only data
      considered by DK12), the 700-2,000 meter layer [11], and LAI heating from 1961 to
      2008 [3]."

      So your claims that it ends in 2000 is wrong.

      The paper is discussed here
      http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Bruce Voll

      Bruce, every one of the charts used in this article go beyond 2000.

      Figure 1 goes up to the present; Figure 2 is clearly labelled as being 1850 - 2005; Figure 3 runs up to 2008; Figure 4 runs up to 2012.

      Before you start making ill-mannered accusations of laziness or, worse, rather libellous accusations of an attempt to 'obfuscate reality' (that would be pretty much a euphemism for 'lying', wouldn't it?) you might try learning to read even the most basic numbers and charts.

      Unless, of course, as Mike suggests, you are actually trying to obfuscate?

      report
    3. John Nicol

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Bruce Voll

      Bruce, You omitted to include the fact that from 2002 to 2013 the Argo system, which is surely the most accurate available for analysing the ocean heat content, shows that there was NO warming for this period. The earlier records of course are much more dubious. It beggars belief that if the upper 700 metres of the ocean did not change temperature, the deeper layers were miraculously warmed from heat entering the oceans from above.

      These must be very desperate times for those who wish not to recognise that the warming of the earth, for what ever as yet unexplained reason, has been on hold for the past 16 to 17 years. It may begin to warm again under the claimed influence of increased CO2. BUT, this does not mean that the IPCC models are able to claim the moral high ground - they have failed to do what they have been claiming to do - project the future temperature of the earth and to show that increases in CO2 have been responsible.

      report
    4. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to John Nicol

      "Argo system, which is surely the most accurate available for analysing the ocean heat content..."

      Not so.

      "The global Argo dataset is NOT YET LONG ENOUGH TO OBSERVE GLOBAL CHANGE SIGNALS. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 7-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses…

      Read more
  4. Ken Swanson

    Geologist

    The anecdotal evidence has become too compelling to ignore.
    The strident unequivocal predictions about temperature made in the nineties have not come to pass.
    The unequivocal correlation between CO2 and temperature rise so clearly shown in graphs in the nineties as irrefutable evidence of a direct correlation between temperature rise and CO2 are trending the wrong way. The rate of temperature increase is lower than expected and the doomsday scenarios are not happening.
    What we now have in the…

    Read more
    1. Matthew Thredgold

      Software Engineer/Secondary Teacher

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      See Figure 3 and that sentence above Figure 3 "The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4x10 to the 22 joules" and 95% of the heat is stored in the oceans. Now what's the point of this article, yes, saying that telling us global warming isn't happening ignore what is happening in the oceans.

      As a geologist what is the latest thinking of the causes of the Permian extinction? The Siberian Traps release CO2 and temps raise 5 degrees, then the methane clathrates melt and temps go up another 5 degrees. 90% of all species disappear from the Earth.

      Give it time Ken, we're just working on Phase 1.

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      Ken

      I hate to be pedantic (no I don't), but there is no such thing as 'anecdotal evidence'. There are anecdotes, and there is evidence. But then, as you claim to be a geologist and therefore must have a science degree, you would know that.

      report
    3. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      "The rate of temperature increase is lower than expected and the doomsday scenarios are not happening."

      ....yet.

      http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/small-rise-in-global-temperatures-could-thaw-permafrost/
      " Will natural causes still be affecting temperature in 50 years time and so the doomsday scenario of a 2-4 degree increase not actually happen at all?"

      Natural causes will always be effecting temps but this does not stop a climate shift. The planet's temp WILL rise as a result of…

      Read more
    4. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Matthew Thredgold

      Matthew, Ken believes he was promised atmospheric temperature rise and, instead, he's got sea temperature rise (for a while) so he's going to vote for an alternative reality because he doesn't like this one. There's not much point trying to reason - any competent geologist would be perfectly able to understand this article if they bothered to try.

      report
    5. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      "This whole area needs a rethink and we certainly should never have put in a carbon tax and ETS... LNP government and the repeal of this bogus legislation cannot come quickly enough"

      An LNP Govt still has a plan to reduce CO2 output by the same amount as the ETS. By what you have posted - YOU disagree with the central plank of the LNPs Carbon reduction strategy.

      The question you should be asking is 'what is the most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions". John Howard wanted to know this as well so commissioned a study - the Shergold Report. It concluded that an ETS is the way to go.

      report
    6. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      Well Ken, let's examine some more of your statements then:

      "....The unequivocal correlation between CO2 and temperature rise so clearly shown in graphs in the nineties as irrefutable evidence of a direct correlation between temperature rise and CO2 are trending the wrong way. The rate of temperature increase is lower than expected ..."

      I'm confused by this. Firstly, you state that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is trending the wrong way, which suggests to me that you are claiming…

      Read more
    7. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Andrew Vincent

      Thanks for this information Andrew.

      The terms of reference for Shergold were (Wikipedia) "Against this background the Task Group will be asked to advise on the nature and design of a workable global emissions trading system in which Australia would be able to participate. The Task Group will advise and report on additional steps that might be taken, in Australia, consistent with the goal of establishing such a system."

      Note that consideration of a steadily increasing fossil fuel consumption…

      Read more
    8. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      The evidence is in graphs 1 and 4 of the article. From graphical analysis alone, it is easy to recognize an eminent and obvious upward trend in the data surrounded by short term fluctuations. Evidence is found from observation of the whole chart of data covering 2.5 centuries of data, not in data covering a short period in time.
      If you are not convinced by evidence presented in the graphical analysis then you can collect and analyse the above data. If you can reject the assertion that the time…

      Read more
    9. Hugh McColl

      Geographer

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      When we are collecting the data we rely on competent climate scientists. Once they have presented the data any one can have a crack at interpreting it. Here's my attempt:
      NASA’s GISS temperature readings are completely public and are the basis for every person, scientist or not, finding out exactly how much temperature change is taking place. The temperature changes are thus:
      1880 - 2012, 132 years, temperature change over the period is +0.75°C. Average change per year = +0.00568°C
      1998 - 2012, 14 years, temperature change is +0.06°C. Average change per year = +0.00428°C
      So over the past 14 years, global temperature change has slowed from +568 to +428. It has not “stopped”, “plateaued” or entered a “17 year pause” (ie. “temporary stop”).

      report
    10. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      "the doomsday scenarios are not happening"

      Impatient for doomsday. What do you call people who are that?

      report
    11. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      "You guys just do not know for sure. At least have the decency to admit it."

      You mustn't have been paying attention when they did, i.e. climate sensitivity is 3.0(+1.5,-1.0) deg C/CO2 doubling. The uncertainty range means they don't know for sure. Try to pay more attention in future.

      report
    12. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Hugh McColl

      "So over the past 14 years, global temperature change has slowed from +568 to +428. It has not “stopped”, “plateaued” or entered a “17 year pause” (ie. “temporary stop”)."

      What the non-skeptics are doing is claiming that no "statistically significant" warming (meaning the bottom of the trend confidence interval is below zero) means the same thing as no warming. This is a shameless piece of intellectual dishonesty.

      report
    13. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Ken Swanson

      Ken
      For a time series analysis of global temperature confirming global warming trend, see also a short paper produced by the famous econometrics Professor Trevor Breusch and his colleague Dr Farshid Vahid at http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/ebs/pubs/wpapers/2011/wp4-11.pdf
      That will help understanding of what Andrew Glikson and Roger Jones' discussions through their graphs on The Conversation recently.
      For an explanation of the existence of a cyclic component in trend estimation of climate change, see footnotes 3 and 4 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation#Data_as_trend_plus_noise
      Good luck.

      report
    14. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Ferlix, Ken is right - we were promised atmospheric temp increases (refer to Michael Mann et al) and Hansen himself said that a pause in that rise of 15years would be of concern with regards to the quality or value of the models. That's why I asked if Pauchari has said that there hasnt been a rise for 17years - Some have said they think it was made up by Loyd but no-one has been definitive. Remember, we're only talking about surface temp here. I understand Ken's frustration as it does indeed 'appear' to be a case of shifting goalposts. Cheers.

      report
  5. Tim Traynor

    Rocket Surgeon

    To me, the issue is not so much "is global warming real" per se, it's "are the predictions real"?

    And, along with every other doomsday prediction since time immemorial, the answer will of course be no.

    report
    1. Steven Liaros

      Town planner at PolisPlan - town planning and eco-village consultants

      In reply to Tim Traynor

      Tim,
      Once you have accepted that global warming is real then you are entitled to make your own predictions about the future... the scientists are just presenting the facts.

      It seems though that the people who were previously unwilling to accept the facts are now simply unwilling to accept the logical conclusions to be drawn from those facts.

      One of those conclusions is that we have soiled our own nest.

      Do you think its a good thing to continue polluting our planet? Do you think its too difficult a problem to solve? Are you too lazy to contribute to a solution and prefer instead to be an obstacle? Do you think the rest of us should spend more time and energy dealing with obstinate obstacles rather than dealing with our common problem? Do you not care about the world you are leaving our children?

      If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Tim Traynor

      'every other doomsday prediction' might be relevant if we were talking about adoomsday prediction, which we're not. We're talking about warnings of dangerous negative consequences, backed by some of the most solid science in human history, not 'doomsday'.

      Of course, the other thing that's worth bearing in mind about 'doomsday predictions' (if you want to discuss such things, rather than the topic at hand) is that they're all going to be wrong until the one that's right and the there won't be anymore because we will all be gone. It's actually no more meaningful than the falling man proclaiming 'so far so good'.

      report
  6. Alex Heyworth

    Retired

    "At the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect"

    It's a pity that Dr Glikson trots out this furphy. Most of the people I know are sceptical not of the greenhouse effect per se, but of its capacity to inflict dangerous climate change on us when all feedbacks are taken into account. And when I say they are sceptical, I don't mean they deny that it could happen, just that it is less likely than a more modest outcome.

    And in that they are being joined by more than a few climate scientists. James Annan is the latest to say something on this question. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html

    report
    1. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Alex,

      I would like to suggest that 'most people you know' are not competent to judge whether or not the climate is changing and whether or not the feedbacks will cause dangerous climate change.

      You see, that's the real problem. You and they are not sceptics at all, and you base your opinion on ideology rather than facts. And there is no better proof of this than the fact that you linked to a blog as supposed proof of your view, rather than to a real science paper from a peer reviewed journal.

      How about you leave the science to the scientists, and start to accept that they actually know a little more about the subject than you and me.

      report
    2. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Two points, Mike. First, I'm happy to leave the science to the scientists. In fact, I linked to a recent blog post by a climate scientist whose area of specialization is climate sensitivity.

      Second, the point I made about what Dr Glikson said was not about the science at all. It was in relation to his claim that "the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect".( I presume by "the issue" he means the fact that some people are suggesting that the recent pause in global average atmospheric temperature rise implies we need to reassess the mainstream view of how much influence CO2 will have in the future.) I know this to be simply false. As I said, real "deniers", as in those who deny the greenhouse effect exists at all, are thin on the ground.

      Maybe you should read more carefully.
      .

      report
    3. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Alex,

      I actually read your post very carefully, and your clarification did not change anything I said.

      Your statement that 'you know this to be simply false' is not true at all - because you don't 'know' that what you claim is true. You have not done any detailed scientific analysis of your claim, so any claim that you 'know' it to be false is not based on evidence. It is simply your opinion. It 'may' be true, but on what basis do you claim it to be a fact?

      It may well be the case that people…

      Read more
    4. takver takvera

      Journalist and Editor at Indymedia

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Risk management says we should manage even the less likely outcomes. So if the Potsdam Institute (PIK) is saying that on present rate of carbon emissions with minimal mitigation a 4 to 6 degree increase in temperature is likely by 2100, that sea level rise of 1 metre to perhaps a max of 2 metres this century is possible, and NOAA is advising a 20% reduction in work capacity during summer heat by 2050: then we need to manage these risks through taking appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions.

      I don't class these as low probability predictions, but even if you did, ignoring low probability high risk events will come round and bite you on the bum sooner or later.

      report
    5. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      "It may well be the case that people who deny the greenhouse effect are 'thin on the ground', but so what?"

      So what is that it means Dr Glikson's assertion is wrong. Apparently you agree.

      I know this to be false by reading many posts on popular skeptical blogs - not something you do as a regular event, by the sound of it. From my extensive reading, posters and commenters who deny the greenhouse effect are rare and generally derided.

      I do read all of the occasional real paper, although generally I am happy to read the abstract only unless it's a subject of particular interest to me. And I do look at what actual climate scientists have to say in their blogs or in comments on others' blog entries.

      Perhaps you should look at Aldrin et al (2012) and Ring et al (2012). Both are analyses of observation based estimates of equilibrium climate sensivity. Both conclude that the most likely answer is 1.6 degrees. A bit less worrying than what we have been told until recently.

      report
    6. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to takver takvera

      Sorry, takver, I don't understand where you're coming from. I didn't write anything about the subject you allude to.

      report
    7. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      No Alex, I don't agree. And if you really think that you 'know' that 'people who deny the greenhouse effec are thin on the ground' from your reading of blogs, then you really have no idea what the word 'know' means.

      And let me correct you on a couple more of your errors. I read 'sceptical' blogs all the time, which is why I am very familiar with typical denier tactics like cherry picking. And on most of them it does not matter how deluded your views, you will be accepted as one of the clan. It…

      Read more
    8. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Sorry, Mike, haven't read that Wall Street Journal article. And I was aware there is a lot more to Aldrin et al than just their best estimate of 1.6 degrees.

      If you don't agree that people who deny the greenhouse effect are "thin on the ground", why did you not say so in the first place? It seems we must be reading different skeptical blogs, or reading them with different filters. Stay away from those dragon slayers, they really are mad.

      As for cherry picking, you should be aware by now that it is a popular tactic on both sides of the advocacy fence.

      My preference is to go with Demetris Koutsoyiannis and say climate is more unpredictable than even complete randomness. Of course, YMMV. If you're not familiar with his work, a good place to start is his plenary address to the IUGG General Assembly http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1135/1/documents/2011IUGG_HydrologyChange_transcript_2.pdf.

      report
    9. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Alex,

      I never said you read the Wall Street Journal. What I said was the claim about the 1.6C sensitivity came from a Wall Street Journal article. You may have read it anywhere. After all, the denier echo chamber picks up lies likes that and repeats them as if they were facts. Since you admit to getting your opinion from WUWT et al, it may well have come from one of those site. Which, of course, is more support for what I keep repeating to you about reading the actual science, and not relying…

      Read more
    10. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      1. I got the figure from Nic Lewis's critique on which the Ridley article you refer to was based. You may or may not agree with Nic (I'm pretty sure you don't) but I am pretty certain he presents a more substantive case than the article. James Annan criticises a couple of minor points in his analysis, but no more.

      2. I already had that paper up in my browser. I've skimmed it, but have yet to read it in depth.

      3. I have been led to it by ideology. As opposed to you, who as a scientist is completely immune to confirmation bias, groupthink or any of the other evils that bias our thinking. Pull the other one.

      4. What did you think of Koutsoyiannis? Or is it beneath you to read something recommended by a "denialist"?

      report
    11. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      PS, perhaps I misunderstood which paper you were referring to. Did you mean Aldrin et al or Koutsoyiannis?

      If the latter, please disregard my last remark and accept my apologies for its tone.

      report
    12. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      I have tried to open the Koutsoyiannis paper, but for some reason it is not opening. But don't worry, I will read it. I often read things which are recommended to me by 'deniers'. Otherwise, how can I critique what they say? And until I do read it, I will reserve judgement and I certainly will not try to make any claims about what it may it may not say.

      Which of course, leads me nicely into your point #2. If you haven't read the paper, why were you making claims as to what it said? Yes, I may well have confirmation biases etc (I have never denied it - only a fool would) but I try to read things before I form an opinion on what they supposedly say. I highly recommend it.

      That is also why I am concerned about your point #1. Apparently your view comes from a critique written on a blog, of a newspaper article that you haven't read, of a paper that you haven't read. I take it you are familiar with the concept of Chinese whispers?

      report
    13. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Fair enough. You need to recognise that a lot of papers get a bit technical once you get into the maths of things for us lay people. That is why we sometimes prefer to get our information filtered.But youdo have things slightly the wrong way round. Ridley based his WSJ article on Nic Lewis's critique, not the other way round. Nic's blog article was an analysis of what he considers a reasonable observation based sensitivity. As I said, James Annan had a couple of disagreements in his blog post responding…

      Read more
    14. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      The actual Aldrin paper is here

      http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/aldrin_env_2012.pdf

      What they find is
      "4.1. Main results
      Panel (a) of Figure 6 shows the posterior distribution of the climate sensitivity. The posterior mean is 2.0 C (see also Table 2), which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text."

      Their sensitivity increases to 1.2–4.8°C (mean 2.5°C…

      Read more
  7. Alex Cannara

    logged in via Facebook

    Let's restore a further comment from the Annual AAAS meeting in 2009 and see if it sticks this time...

    AAAS Annual Presidential Address by J. McCarthy (reprinted in AAAS Science, 18 Dec. 2009, pp1646-1655).

    The claim that "warming paused from 1997-2012" in fact is evidence for warming. Why?

    Because as the AAAS address explained, that a basic 4-parameter model fits all the data nicely (r = .87), even back to 1980. The parameters are volcanism, ocean thermal oscillations (ENSO...), solar…

    Read more
    1. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      "the weakened solar cycle and El Nino cycles in the period should have caused cooling., not relative stability". Precisely! With all the indicators except greenhouse gasses pointing in the cooling direction, why has global average temperature not reduced? Why has Arctic ice extent and volume been in a death spiral during that period? Hmmmm ... those pesky physicists and their dratted evidence: why can't they shut up and let us keep on dozing at the wheel?

      report
    2. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Alex Cannara

      Really top job Andrew - and in 800 words ... a Hussein Bolt of Heating.

      But as Alex Canara says, we are yet again dragged back into arguing of tis and tisn't with these retired geologists and miners who will NEVER accept any science that upsets their comforting vision - that the future will look like the past - just bigger and faster.

      This of course is precisely what these barnacles are about - spreading confusion - creating the appearance of doubt and uncertainty where in reality there…

      Read more
  8. Graham Gower

    ex engineer, evol biology student

    "This is mainly due to the rise in greenhouse gases ... by a total of +3.06 Watt/m2."

    I don't like this sentence. Gases aren't measured in Watts per unit area. I'm pretty sure you meant that the change in energy hitting the Earth's surface due to greenhouse gases is +3.06 Watt/m2.

    Is this a common way of expressing things in climate science?

    report
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Graham Gower

      Graham, if you're able to understand the meaning, what is the point of your pedantry?

      report
  9. John Phillip
    John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Grumpy Old Man

    So, Andrew, two questions. Firstly, did Pauchari actually mention a 17 yr pause or was it 'made up' by Loyd? (If he did, why have the interviews he's done with ABC journos even mentioned the matter?) Does the data show a 17 year levelling in temperature? I've asked these same questions on another TC blog but have failed, as yet, to receive a response.

    report
    1. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to John Phillip

      "Firstly, did Pauchari actually mention a 17 yr pause or was it 'made up' by Loyd?"

      From what we can tell - Lloyd made it up.

      "Does the data show a 17 year levelling in temperature?"

      No. Check for yourself - Run 1995-2012. any dataset.

      http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

      report
    2. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to John Phillip

      John,

      The answer to your question is easy. We don't know whether or not Pauchari mentions a 17 year pause, because he was not directly quoted in the article. His words were paraphrased by the journalist. And since it was a journalist for The Australian, and given that newspaper's demonstrated agenda of misinformation on this issue, we can be fairly confident that his words would have been paraphrased to suit that misinformation campaign.

      But what we can be absolutely confident about is what…

      Read more
    3. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to John Phillip

      It seems from my pursuit of the history of this purported quote that it arose in an interview Graham Lloyd conducted with Dr Pachauri. Until Dr Pachauri denies saying these words, I think it reasonable to conclude that he did say them.

      On the second point, it depends a lot on who you believe. If you take skepticalscience as gospel (shudder) you would say no. If you look at what the UK Met Office has had to say recently, you would say yes. If you look at what James Hansen has had to say recently, you might say yes and no.

      report
    4. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to John Phillip

      Nobody at any point has attempted to deny any published data. What is in dispute, as Michael Shand points out in nice simple terms below to Mr Coochey is that, while average atmospheric temperature has been pretty much flat for about 17 years (as it generally tends to in between leaps to higher points) the TOTAL temperature impact, when greatly increased ocean temperatures are taken into account, is significant and very much in line with what you'd expect from the inevitable increase in total energy caused by rising carbon dioxide levels.

      All of this was well covered in Roger Jones's post yeaterday.

      Your question is, ultimately, irrelevant.

      report
    5. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      Second sentence badly written - sorry - should be 'What is relevant...' rather than 'What is in dispute...' [got distracted mid post]

      report
    6. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Actually Alex, it is not reasonable to conclude that he said that at all. For example, here is the report in the Australian:
      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

      Note that the statement about the supposed 17 year pause was not a quote from Pauchari at all, but was a statement by the reporter about publicity in the UK. I can't find anything that Pauchari said to that effect at all. In fact, the claim about the 17 year pause is…

      Read more
    7. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Alex, Skepticalscience is a well-respected site! It only features articles of peer-reviewed science. Where do you get your information from ? Please give us some links.

      report
    8. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      Skepticalscience is well-respected by many, I agree. I don't agree that it features only articles of peer-reviewed science. I strongly disagree with its moderation policy and the implementation of that policy, which results in wholesale deletion of comments by people critical of its posts.

      I would certainly not rely on it to be without bias. All the contributors, while scientists (of a sort - John Cook doesn't really qualify) have long histories of advocacy of climate alarmism.

      As to where…

      Read more
    9. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Thanks Alex. You get your opinion from WUWT and JoNova. I think that says it all really.

      report
    10. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Alex, I think your criticism of SS is way off the mark; sure they tend to lose patience with people who repeatedly channel blatant denialism but I have not found them to actually censor commentators who have thoughtful argument. The site highlights the dishonest cherry-picking of data and attempt at mis-representation some indulge in. Whenever I see sites or individuals, like you, use the term "climate alarmism" or "warmist" I am suspicious they have and ideological axe to grind. I don't see that at SS.

      report
    11. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Henry Verberne

      We will have to agree to disagree. I happen to think that some of the people censored have valid points to make.

      BTW, I take it that use of the term "denialist" doesn't raise your hackles equally. What exactly do you think denialists deny?

      report
    12. Mike Swinbourne

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Sorry Alex, is there anywhere on any of my posts where I say that I read Skepticalscience?

      I get my opinions from reading science journals and papers. You should try it. It may just be me - but I tend to think they are slightly more reliable than WUWT. Anthony Watts is a well known for lying about climate science (the BEST project is a classic example) and for being hypocritical about things like the necessity for peer review.

      report
    13. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      True, you didn't. My mistake. Mea culpa.

      Yes, I know Anthony Watts has had a few unfortunate episodes in the past, although I think it is a bit strong to characterise it as lying. What I like about his site is its variety, the sometimes bizarre range of opinions and the fact that even the loonies get a hearing. I expect it does get a bit tedious to you. I find it richly entertaining, although I take it with big doses of salt much of the time.

      I'm sure you are right that papers and journals are better sources. Pretty much impossible to keep across it all though, I would have thought. And I'm afraid I would find all that pretty tedious myself. If I want actual facts, I go to sites such as climate4you.

      report
    14. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      "...In that case, why hasn't Pachauri denied it?"

      I heard the other day that he smokes unicorn droppings. He hasn't denied that either. Must be true.

      report
    15. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      "If you take skepticalscience as gospel (shudder) you would say no."

      So you're saying that skepticalscience would say that warming for the past 17 years is statistically significant. That's not the skepticalscience that I know. Try the past 17 years in http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php .

      Skepticalscience quite willingly point out that the warming trend for the past 17 years has a confidence interval that is NOT FULLY ABOVE zero.

      So I don't know what your problem with skepticalscience is.

      report
    16. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      "why hasn't Pachauri denied it?"

      You think Pachauri wastes his time reading The Australian?

      report
    17. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      Chris, the amount of comments demeaning the Australian as an important (ie holding 70% of the msm market) arm of climate denial would indicate that Pauchari damn well better read it and correct any falsehoods made in that paper. If you were interviewed about this topic, wouldnt you read the report based on that interview? You can't, on the one hand, claim the paper is biased and having a detrimental effect on the AGW message and then, on the other, claim it's irrelevant.

      report
    18. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Felix MacNeill

      It might be irrelevant except for the simple logic that increased co2 equals increased temp. If the atmospheric temp doesnt increase because the oceans are taking that thermal load, it begs the question why has this happened in the last 17 years and not before, remembering of course Hansen's acknowledgement that a 12-15 period of flattened trend would represent a weakness or failure in the climate models. What has caused the oceans, seemingly all of a sudden, to start increasing temp while the rate of atmospheric temp rise has levelled? Isnt that the point of this article?

      report
  10. David Clerke

    Teacher

    So let us get this straight, Glikson admits that Puchauri has admitted that temperatures have not increased for seventeen years? Right or wrong?

    report
    1. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to David Clerke

      Temperatures have risen, you need to take into account all levels of atmosphere and ocean, etc.

      report
    2. David Clerke

      Teacher

      In reply to Andrew Vincent

      So the head of the IPCC has got it wrong? Bit like No Rain Flannery and the IPCC predicting drought in Queensland now we have floods. Have they ever got one thing right? If so what was it?

      report
    3. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to David Clerke

      ??! What are you talking about now??!

      The head of the IPCC did not say anything about 17 years. Graeme Lloyd MADE IT UP. That was your question. I answered it.

      report
    4. Ngoc Luan Ho Trieu

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Clerke

      Wrong, inference made from observations over seventeen years means very little in climate change phenomenon. See also my reply to Ken Mason's comment.
      Even population cycle has periodicity longer than 17 years due to the fact that average human life span is 70 years, and human beings and their activities are the "culprit" of climate change.

      report
    5. David Clerke

      Teacher

      In reply to Andrew Vincent

      I note the opening quote in Glikson's article I suggest you read it. At no stage does he say that Puchauri was misquoted so the article stands.

      report
    6. Andrew Vincent

      Marketing . Communications . Multimedia

      In reply to David Clerke

      Yes....That was written by Graeme Lloyd. You are missing the point. There are many direct quotes from Pachauri. NONE of them mention 17 years. NONE.

      I suggest you read it. Carefully.... and "sceptically".

      report
    7. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Andrew Vincent

      Despite the ongoing litany of errors, it's remarkable how some folk adhere to what's written in "The Australian".

      report
  11. Ben Heard

    Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

    Succinct, well written and covered relevant areas so well, thanks Andrew.

    report
  12. Michael Ashley

    Professor of Astrophysics at UNSW Australia

    Andrew, a very nice article, thank you. Your other articles for The Conversation have been excellent reads too. Keep writing!

    report
  13. Anthony Muscio

    Systems Analysist and Designer

    So is this summary correct ?

    Fact check: has global warming paused?
    Answer NO !

    Given the climate system consists both of the thin blue line (atmosphere) and the substantially more massive deep blue (oceans) the additional energy trapped by the climate system due to the enhance greenhouse effect will mostly be held in the oceans. Looking at a single parameter eg; temperatures of the atmosphere, over any specific (limited) period is prone to confuse the picture, because it is too small a…

    Read more
  14. Doug Hutcheson

    Poet

    Andrew, thanks for this concise summary of the science.

    You conclude "At the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect". I think there are many who do not deny the veracity of the greenhouse effect, but dispute the magnitude of the warming that will result. It seems those people believe in a much lower climate sensitivity than the mainstream, but I have yet to see them answer the question of how tiny changes brought by the Milankovitch cycles can have caused such large changes in global average temperature.

    report
    1. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Doug Hutcheson

      That's a tricky question for all scientists, not just those who think climate sensitivity is lower than the mainstream.

      At least part of the answer lies in the critical role of summer insolation levels at about 65 degrees north of the equator. But I don't think anyone knows the full answer.

      report
  15. Bernie Masters

    environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates

    Andrew, you state: "Since the onset of the industrial age (from 1750 AD) Earth’s atmosphere, surface and ocean temperatures have warmed. This is mainly due to the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, halocarbons, stratospheric water vapour from CH4) by a total of +3.06 Watt/m2. Other drivers include black carbon (+0.1 Watt/m2) and solar irradiance – the latter during the first half of the 20th century (+0.12 Watt/m2)."

    However, new research just published in Science states (and this quote…

    Read more
    1. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Bernie Masters

      Bernie, you said "[cutting soot emissions] is far more achievable and cost effective than focusing only on reducing CO2 emissions". Certainly it is an admirable goal, but is the same thing not achieved by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels? CO2 is having negative impacts on the biosphere, in addition to its greenhouse effect.

      For example, increased CO2 absorption by the oceans is resulting in the pH of the oceans reducing (becoming more acidic), which is already having a negative impact on the aquatic food chain. To my way of thinking, reducing the consumption of fossil fuels will not only combat global warming, but also reduce other pressures on the biosphere.

      Just cutting emissions of black carbon will not have such a wide impact.

      report
    2. Bernie Masters

      environmental consultant at FIA Technology Pty Ltd, B K Masters and Associates

      In reply to Doug Hutcheson

      Doug, politics is the art of the achievable. Right now, the world has failed miserably to make any real cuts in CO2 emissions, partly because of the cost, partly because of the technical difficulty and partly because of the lack of public support. But look at the smog problems affecting 100s of millions of people in China. It is a much more practical and achievable (and possibly cost-effective) goal to improve air quality by removing soot from the atmosphere, with likely concomitant reductions in CO2 emissions and improvements in energy efficiency and certain improvements in human health. I see this as a very important first step and, who knows, maybe 10 years from now we will have swung public opinion over to the cause of reducing CO2 emissions thanks to a global soot reduction program that worked.

      report
  16. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    From Skeptical Science 25-2-2013

    "As we have discussed many times at Skeptical Science, although the warming of global surface air temperatures has slowed over the past decade due to a preponderance of La Niña events, the rate of heat accumulation on Earth has not slowed at all. In fact over the past 15 years, the planet has accumulated more heat than during the previous 15 years (Figure 1). That's global warming.

    Unfortunately many people (often even including climate scientists) mistakenly…

    Read more
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Thanks Andrew, it's that journalistic weaseling around the difference between 'global temperature rises' [really meaning surface/air temperatures] and 'global warming' [total plantary warming, inclusing oceans] - that blurring is how the trick is being pulled and, even worse, making it possible to imply that Pachauri and others are effectively contradicting themselves/eachother when they are not at all.

      report
  17. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    MISSING THE POINT

    It would appear a majority of comments on this blog are concerned with "WHO SAID WHAT AND WHY"

    The scientific approach is to look at the physical evidence itself and what it is telling us.

    Andrew
    26-2-2013

    report
    1. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Fair point, Andrew.

      What are the latest papers on observation based estimates of climate sensitivity telling us?

      report
    2. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Alex Heyworth

      Look at
      [PDF] Using multiple observationally-based constraints to ... - jamstec
      www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf

      Climate sensitivity has been subjectively estimated to be likely to lie in the range of 1.5-4.5C, and this uncertainty contributes a substantial part of the total uncertainty in climate change projections over the coming century. Objective observationally-based estimates have so far failed to improve on this upper bound, with many estimates even suggesting…

      Read more
    3. Christopher Seymour

      Business owner at Location

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Andrew,
      The charts referenced by Bruce Voll (http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/) and the underlying data (http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Data/OHCA_700.txt) appear to show a rapi warming of the 0 to 700 meter oceans from 1997 to 2003, followed by a fall, with the anomaly not returning to its 2003 level until 2007. And yet your graph shows continued rapid warming over the whole period. What's happening here? Surely NOAA is reputable source.

      report
    4. Alex Heyworth

      Retired

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Fair enough as far as it goes. I was familiar with Annan and Hargreaves. I was thinking of more recent papers such as Aldrin et al (2012) and Ring et al (2012).

      report
    5. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      @Christopher Seymour

      Second time that implication has been made on this thread and the second time it has been answered.
      The graph comes from this paper.
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389

      The data comes from here. Amazingly NOAA!
      [11] NOAA/NODC, Data at ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/data_analysis_heat_content/data/basin, 2012.

      It is the same data as used by Douglas and Knox 2012, a paper that the climate cranks heavily promoted because it claimed…

      Read more
    6. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      One does not look just at datasets, which could have been taken at different regions at different times and even using different methods, but read the full reports/papers in order to appreciate whether there are variations in the measured data or in models, and if so try and investigate the origin of potential discrepancies.

      report
    7. Christopher Seymour

      Business owner at Location

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      I am not in league with anyone and I am mystified by your comments, and I don't think labeling people as climate cranks is at all helpful. The papers you quote and the ARGO data all seem to indicate ocean cooling in the period 2003-2007. In the period 2008 to 2012 there is heating, but at a much lower rate than 1993-2003. Douglass and Knox (are they "climate cranks?) suggest step changes and warn against extrapolating trends across change points. My question is simply why does Andrew show a graph with consistently rising ocean heat when the data appears to show a much more "jerky" situation?

      report
    8. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Christopher Seymour

      And the question has been answered.

      I showed that the data used in the graph is the same as that used by Douglas and Knox.

      I am mystified by your comments. I have linked to both papers which clearly show this? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you unable to read the actual papers?

      report
  18. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    "Since the onset of the industrial age (from 1750 AD) Earth’s atmosphere, surface and ocean temperatures have warmed. This is mainly due to the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, halocarbons, stratospheric water vapour from CH4) by a total of +3.06 Watt/m2. Other drivers include black carbon (+0.1 Watt/m2) and solar irradiance – the latter during the first half of the 20th century (+0.12 Watt/m2).

    Warming was in part mitigated by emitted sulphur aerosols (direct effects -0.5 Watt/m2; cloud albedo effects -0.7 Watt/m2) and by land clearing (-0.2 Watt/m2)."

    It's a great model - it worked brilliantly on the training set. What a pity that it keeps falling down on the testing set.
    Still, that in no way undermines the sheer virtuosity of the model. If anyone is at fault here it is Reality for failing to fully appreciate the subtlety and brilliance of the model climate scientists have developed for it.

    Warm, damn you, warm!

    report
  19. Tim Ryan

    Self employed

    Andrew, thanks for the article.

    I have a question. Does the latent heat of fusion affect the figures and graphs? Although not a scientist, I am thinking that this may be a reason for the slowing / pause.
    Sorry if this is a dumb question.

    report
    1. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Tim Ryan

      Tim

      The melting of ice will cool adjacent ocean regions, as happened on a large scale c. 12.9 - 11.7 kyr ago (the Younger dryas) and 8.2 kyr ago (overflow of lake Agassiz fed by the Laurentiqn ice sheet), is on the cards.

      I am not clear of the extent to which current melting of the Greenland ice sheet is cooling the adjacent oceans as this will be compensated by the North Atlantic Thermohaline Current at different stages.

      report
    2. Tim Ryan

      Self employed

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Thanks for the explanation. It seems that oscillation in temperatures can be pretty drastic when ice melts en masse and ocean or air currents change as a result. Being a chronic polluter myself, it would be shameful to help bring about such destruction as would result in a wild cold snap.

      report
    3. Anthony Muscio

      Systems Analysist and Designer

      In reply to Tim Ryan

      Recent analysis of the US and Canada cold snaps showed how warming had disturbed the circumpolar winds and split it into two cells there by causing the cold to move into north America. For some, this simple observation, that warming can cause localised cooling, is just too complex. I think if I wanted separate the the grain from the chaff I would use climate contrarians as a proxy for ill informed and dumb. Saying I don't know is fine, but asserting a counter position and unable to grasp simple concepts is enough.

      report
    4. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Anthony Muscio

      Increased rates of evaporation over opened/melting regions of the Arctic create masses of cold moist air which flows into the North Atlantic, North America and Europe, causing snow storms, as well as "blocking" disturbances in the stratosphere

      report
  20. Ben Carew

    logged in via Facebook

    Question Andrew:
    Can any of this ocean heat come and do damage on land - ie. exit the ocean at certain points? I am chiefly referring to the recent heatwaves that were underwater down the WA coast and saw some pretty extreme above average temperatures, as well as damage to coral systems etc.

    If this heat can come out of the ocean and hurt us on land, in your opinion, what kind of scenario would be most likely say upto 1 month following such a localised heat 'exit'?

    Thanks!

    report
    1. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Ben Carew

      Peter

      The heat does not "come from the oceans" but from the atmosphere which stores and radiates solar energy/heat back to the surface of both the continents and the oceans

      report
  21. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    REGRDING THE GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE ROLE OF CO2
    A comparative analysis of post-1750 climate change rates of change and warming events during the Cainozoic (65 Ma to the present) underpin the unprecedented nature of the current shift in state of the climate. Post-1750 temperature rise rates, ~0.0034oC/year and ~0.008 where temperature is not masked by sulphur aerosols, exceed those of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Event (PETM) rates (~0.0008 - 0.0015oC/year) by an order of magnitude. The rise…

    Read more
  22. John McLean

    logged in via email @connexus.net.au

    These people move the goal posts so often that they should be classified as labourers. Since 1985 the emphasis has been on average global temperature but now, because that doesn't support the warmists' arguments they shift the goal posts to ocean heat content. There's a lot of problems with deep ocean heat, but as always we don't hear about them.
    1 - what's the accuracy of the measurements? Is it really to 0.01 degrees?
    2 - the Argo buoys can't be calibrated or checked after release so there's no way of knowing whether they lose accuracy over time
    3 - there is no known physical process by which atmospheric heat could penetrate to 700m, let alone below that point. Warmer water is less dense and simply must rise.

    Also, Glikson refuses to accept (denies?) that we are currently on a temperature plateau and have been for 16 or 17 years. It's to be expected that over that time warm years, driven by ENSO, will be among the warmest in our 165 years of records.

    report
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to John McLean

      "there is no known physical process"

      I'm sure there's a lot of things you don't know John.

      report
  23. Chris O'Neill

    Retired Way Before 70

    "has global warming paused?"

    Global warming has always paused for the last 12 years. Try 1987 to 1999 (an obvious cherrypick) in http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php :

    Hadcrut4: 0.20±0.22 deg C/decade

    GISTEMP: 0.17±0.24 deg C/decade

    Global warming "paused". Just another strawman.

    report
  24. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    ON EVIDENCE AND OPINION

    It is interesting to see the length some will go in order to refute multiple bona-fide measurements conducted by several climate research organization.

    1. The data are being questioned without an understanding ot the methods.
    2. The motives of thousands of scientists are questioned.
    3. Anecdotal "evidence" is repeatedly cited.

    One fully expects the next thing some would do is question the basic laws of the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and the fundamental tenets of climate science.

    And all that trouble for one end only:

    TO "JUSTIFY" OPEN ENDED EMISSION OF CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE.

    Can any of these critics indicate what in their view would be the uppermost limit of CO2 in the atmosphere before humanity needs to stop emitting CO2?

    report
    1. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      There are no limits Andrew... large numbers of these loons believe that CO2 is a "plant food" and that the more we have the better life will be. Greenhouse world! We should be making as much CO2 as possible. True.

      If you want to get really annoyed have a read of anything at all by the Idso family - a fully funded franchise from Heartland and Peabody Coal. They produce a little journal called CO2 Science I think it is ... they are agronomists... and absolute hoot if it wasn't so sinister. Big with the fundamentalist christian Right both in the US and here.

      report
    2. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      So far as "CO2 is plant food" is concerned, they confuse greenhouse glass house conditions - where water/mosture can be maintained - with exposed supertropical conditions on a greenhouse Earth.

      Presumably they would love it on Venus with an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2

      report
    3. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      There was one particularly cutting-edge piece of work that saw Idso senior extrapolating the results of C02 enrichment on his tomatoes in his home greenhouse - sorry The Idso Experimental Research Facility - to global food production. Just outstanding.

      Like Shaun Micallef in a lab coat.

      But it is wonderfully re-assuring. Which of course it was this denialism business is all about ... running scared.

      report
  25. Arno Arrak

    logged in via Facebook

    Question: has global warming paused? Answer: no, it never got started. Anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately it cannot cause warming because it is a bankrupt, pseudoscientific theory, all of whose predictions are wrong. There has not been any warming for 16 years according to the Met Office. And satellites tell us that the only warming within the last 33 years was a step warming initiated by the super El Nino of 1998. Global…

    Read more
    1. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Arno Arrak

      Mmmmm ... welcome to the Conversation "Arno"...

      Now you only joined 13 minutes ago so I will be gentle...

      Let's see where this stuff is coming from...lets do a CSI job on the fingerprints.

      Ooooh Judith Curry, Jennifer Marohassey, a few sentences from some strange little blog site called Forbes... a smattering of Tony Watts...No Jo Nova which demonstrates a refreshing sense of taste and refinement. Yep ... a string of rehashed "analysis" all drawn from the usual sources... bubble and squeak we used to call it.

      Look Arno we do our own work here ... our own words. If we borrow from others we give them a credit - called a citation or a reference... we don't just cut and paste other folks words and dress them up as our own.

      The penalties for plagiarism are swift and brutal. Please try harder. In your own words - or at least put the sources for your work. Not everyone is as nice as I am. Some folks just think plagiarism is fraud.

      report