Don’t Forget, Warming Really Isn’t About The Surface Temperature

Especially when the surface temperature isn’t cooperating with the Warmist computer models. Here’s super far left Ryan Cooper at super far left Washington Monthly

The news around climate sensitivity has driven our contrarian population to new heights of glib smugness, and that’s saying something. Up today is Walter Russell Mead, doing his level best to make me pop a cranial blood vessel.

Scientists are theorizing about why surface warming has slowed, and Mead concludes that climate science is all hokum. (Seriously, that’s only a slight exaggeration.)

Two points, before I move on:

1) Once again, global warming is not determined wholly by observed surface temperatures. In fact, it’s rather the opposite. Over 90 percent of the heat captured by increased CO2 concentration ends up in the oceans. This probably has something to do with the staircase behavior of surface temperature, as heat gets alternately sucked up and dumped out of the earth’s enormous mass of water.

That first point is part of the latest fable from The New Climate Deniers that really cropped up this year as a way to protect their cult. First it was “the heat is hiding in the deep oceans!!!!” Now they’ve added on “the surface temperature doesn’t really matter!!!!” Of course, when it’s hot out, then the surface temperature matters to them. This is not science, it’s politics and cult like behavior.

2) Complexity can be misleading. It’s true that the climate is extraordinarily complicated—weather patterns were one of the first examples of chaos theory. Climate scientists argue all the time about whether their models are correctly tuned in all the details (whether this monsoon will get stronger or weaker at a higher temperature, that kind of thing). But the logic of climate change depends on some fairly simple physics. The complexity of the system’s reaction to a very simple force is not some saving grace.

I though I’d throw that in, and not that the simple force is not the implied CO2, but the Sun, which has always been the prime driver of Earth’s climate. From there, you throw in land patterns (some of which are anthropogenic), solar rays from deep space, natural earth forces, and gravity (the Sun, moon, and even the other planets). Scientists don’t really know what causes El Nino and La Nina patterns. Meteorologists are thought to be awesome when they get the weather right about 30% of the time. Yet, we’re supposed to listen to Warmist scientists who tell us what will positively happen 50-100 years out, despite all their computer models failing.

Anyhow, just remember that all that heat is doing a Where’s Waldo in the deep oceans. Because the sea surface temperatures sure aren’t cooperating.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

17 Comments

Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-30 18:52:29

Gwaahh.. my head hurts with all the non-science crap that scientists are trying to inflict upon us.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 11:48:14

William Teach: First it was “the heat is hiding in the deep oceans!!!!”

Yet the heat content of the oceans is increasing.

William Teach: Now they’ve added on “the surface temperature doesn’t really matter!!!!”

Of course surface temperatures matter to humans, because that’s where they live.

William Teach: Scientists don’t really know what causes El Nino and La Nina patterns. Meteorologists are thought to be awesome when they get the weather right about 30% of the time. Yet, we’re supposed to listen to Warmist scientists who tell us what will positively happen 50-100 years out, despite all their computer models failing.

A system can be chaotic, but still have a trend. For instance, if the Sun were to suddenly halve its luminosity, the Earth would certainly cool, but predicting the exact trajectory of that cooling on the surface, much less the atmospheric and oceanic turbulence involved would be intractable.

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 13:21:39

and still more un-science crap…..

Yet the heat content of the oceans is increasing.

No it’s not.

Of course surface temperatures matter to humans, because that’s where they live.

You don’t read very well do you. The issue is where has all the missing heat gone that the cult of doom has had their models and chicken-bones predicting would be killing us by now. Their latest excuse for being wrong is that the missing heat is not showing up because only part of the total temperature is taken from land measurements. yet, it is the global index that we are all using.

A system can be chaotic, but still have a trend.

that is very very true. Why not share that bit of knowledge with your cult buddies. They all believe that climate was static till man came along. Our current trend since leaving the last ice age is, voila’, warming. It has happened before and it is happening now.

Will this current pause in warming signal a return to the downslope? Or will it just be a short pause in the continual trending of upward climb out of the last ice age? Or, will we see a continual pause? No one knows. Especially the cultists who say they study this sort of thing. Even weathermen can’t reliably predict the weather 3 days out.

but predicting the exact trajectory of that cooling … would be intractable.

And yet your cult of computer worshippers continually tell us that they can reliably predict the exact temperature 100-150 years from now within a few tenths of a degree C. They tell us how we will get there and when. They tell us that if we don’t pay 3x more for our energy usage, stop drinking large sodas, and start carpooling, then our earth will BOIL, while it drowns and dehydrates.

If they weren’t so serious and connected, it would be completely laughable.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 13:39:27

Corrupted_Gumballs: No it’s not.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

Corrupted_Gumballs: Their latest excuse for being wrong is that the missing heat is not showing up because only part of the total temperature is taken from land measurements. yet, it is the global index that we are all using.

There is also a global network to measure ocean temperatures.

Corrupted_Gumballs: They all believe that climate was static till man came along.

That would make paleoclimatology a very boring field of study.

Corrupted_Gumballs: And yet your cult of computer worshippers continually tell us that they can reliably predict the exact temperature 100-150 years from now within a few tenths of a degree C.

The consensus is 2-5°C warming per doubling of CO2, a somewhat wider range than you indicate. The actual amount of global warming will depend on human responses to the problem.

Corrupted_Gumballs: They tell us that if we don’t pay 3x more for our energy usage, stop drinking large sodas, and start carpooling, then our earth will BOIL, while it drowns and dehydrates.

The consensus is 2-5°C warming per doubling of CO2, which is somewhat short of boiling.

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 15:01:51

And… POOOOOF!!
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
Sure seems like a pause in warming to me.

That would make paleoclimatology a very boring field of study.

And your point is? Do you agree or not that past climate was static?

The actual amount of global warming will depend on human responses to the problem.

none of you cult believers have yet to show it is a problem. there is no evidence and your un-science is wholly unbelievable. Un-validated and un-corroborative models do not make for good science.

The consensus is 2-5°C warming per doubling of CO2, which is somewhat short of boiling.

Do you guys there listen to yourselves talk to each other? Or do your conversations always get in the way of logical discussions?
If you have a problem with their un-scientific pronouncements, then take it up with your cult leaders. Don’t attack us for our own questions when you obviously have your own as well.
And you do realize that science has proven that warming from CO2 is not linear, right? So, how can you get “2-5C” of warming for every doubling of CO2?

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 15:17:25

Corrupted_Gumballs: Sure seems like a pause in warming to me.

It’s warming somewhat 0-700m, but warming significantly 700-2000m.

Corrupted_Gumballs: And your point is?

You had said, “They all believe that climate was static till man came along.” There’s an active field in climate science having to do with past climate change, so your statement is false.

Corrupted_Gumballs: none of you cult believers have yet to show it is a problem.

Well, we should start with what we can show. First, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Corrupted_Gumballs: If you have a problem with their un-scientific pronouncements, then take it up with your cult leaders.

Only interested in what can be shown. No one of note is projecting boiling oceans. As we said, the consensus is 2-5°C warming per doubling of CO2, which is somewhat short of boiling.

Corrupted_Gumballs: And you do realize that science has proven that warming from CO2 is not linear, right? So, how can you get “2-5C” of warming for every doubling of CO2?

Um, per doubling is not a linear relationship.

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 17:19:27

Wow, talk about living in a bubble. You really have no idea what your side is professing. Let me suggest that you read up on this blog some more, go back to some archives and look at what these people are “projecting”.

Also, I’d like to refer you to some really good clearinghouse blogs that highlight how either there really isn’t any data, or the data is so corrupt and sporadic that it can’t be relied upon. Such as your 2000m temperature data profiles.

Even if the data were correct, care to explain how the sun’s rays can heat the deep ocean without heating the atmosphere, the top layer of the ocean, the upper layers of the ocean, and the middle layers of the ocean but yet heat up the deep ocean layer???

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 18:55:05

Corrupted_Gumballs: You really have no idea what your side is professing.

We’re not on a side. We saw mistakes in the original blog, and pointed them out. You said so-called cult leaders claim the oceans will boil, and we pointed out that this is mistaken too.

Corrupted_Gumballs: Such as your 2000m temperature data profiles.

There’s a global system in place for directly measuring temperatures in the abyssal regions of the oceans.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html

Corrupted_Gumballs: Even if the data were correct, care to explain how the sun’s rays can heat the deep ocean without heating the atmosphere, the top layer of the ocean, the upper layers of the ocean, and the middle layers of the ocean but yet heat up the deep ocean layer???

It’s called the meridional overturning circulation.

See also Nuccitelli et al., Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts”, Physics Letters A 2012.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/23/1372014656659/Nuccitelli_OHC_450.jpg

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 20:25:13

HOLY COW!! Did this psychotic person actually quote nutty Nuccitelli? Now we know you are a troll.

And, by the way, it was the Argo dataset that I was referring to earlier. It did not have decent coverage until recently. And the deep ocean data is relatively new.

We’re not on a side.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 20:32:12

Corrupted_Gumballs: Did this psychotic person actually quote nutty Nuccitelli?

Ad hominem. We cited a scientific paper published in Physics Letters A. You made no substantive reply.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 20:35:10

Corrupted_Gumballs: It did not have decent coverage until recently. And the deep ocean data is relatively new.

That’s right, and during that period it shows increasing heat energy at depth.

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-31 21:41:37

I gave it as much as it deserved. Just because its “published” does not mean it is a true scientific paper, or vetted.

If I were to cite The Bible as a source for how the world and the universe was created, how would you guys respond? Only two of you this time, please.

Comment by Zachriel

Corrupted_Gumballs: It did not have decent coverage until recently. And the deep ocean data is relatively new.

That’s right, and during that period it shows increasing heat energy at depth.

Yet you believe the data that says it goes back to 1960s. And yet, Argo started in the 70′s, and did not really get going with wide-spread coverage until recently.

You want science papers? How about this:

Josh Willis, Knox and Douglass still can’t find that missing heat in this paper published in the International Journal of Geosciences

R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY

And, the oceans are not warming evenly. Some are cooling, some are warming. The “net” effect is … nada.

“Each of the Argo floats, … is representing a volume as large as 13 Lake Superiors … with one lonely Argo thermometer …”

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-01 08:20:42

Corrupted_Gumballs: I gave it as much as it deserved. Just because its “published” does not mean it is a true scientific paper, or vetted.

While publication doesn’t imply the paper is correct, it does mean it was peer reviewed and accepted for discussion by scientists.

Corrupted_Gumballs: If I were to cite The Bible as a source for how the world and the universe was created, how would you guys respond?

It depends on the context. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. In any case, we answered your question. Heat is distributed in the oceans by the meridional overturning circulation.

Corrupted_Gumballs: Josh Willis, Knox and Douglass still can’t find that missing heat in this paper published in the International Journal of Geosciences

Presumably you’re referring to Knox & Douglas, Recent energy balance of Earth, International Journal of Geosciences 2010. If you had read the paper, several studies are analyzed. The only one which includes 0-2000m, Schuckmann et al., shows warming. See,

Schuckmann et al., Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 2009.

Corrupted_Gumballs: And, the oceans are not warming evenly. Some are cooling, some are warming.

As your own citation noted, warming is occurring at lower depths. (Your graph is unattached to data or research papers, so can’t be evaluated.)

Corrupted_Gumballs: “Each of the Argo floats, … is representing a volume as large as 13 Lake Superiors … with one lonely Argo thermometer …”

Statistics.

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-01 10:26:53

While publication doesn’t imply the paper is correct, it does mean it was peer reviewed and accepted for discussion by scientists.

Do you actually realize what you-all wrote? “While the paper may be wrong, the fact that it was reviewed gives it more correctness over non-journaled articles.” ?!?! Is that really where you want to go?

You do realize that the peer-review process of climate-oriented papers and articles has become stained of late. Especially in the realm surrounding your cult leaders.

As your own citation noted, warming is occurring at lower depths.

Nope. “my” graph which was a newer version and shortened trend-line version of “yours” shows a distinct leveling off of temps in that profile. And I only showed you that for the recent trend in temperature, not the overall, which I have and you agreed did not really reflect reality since the Argo floats 1) did not exist when the graph started, 2) did not have any substantive distribution until recently.

There are moves now to even get rid of the earlier “bucket” data as there is no way to vett or verifty or adjust that data to current standards. It must be used on its own. It is another case of trying to join two distinct different datasets together that can’t be joined (tree-ring data & thermometer data).

Statistics.

Yes it is.

See, Schuckmann et al.

So, now we have conflicting studies. But yet, you want to throw the “skeptical” version away and proclaim the other as truth. Yet, doesn’t the fact that other scientists can get different results give you pause? That maybe there is still more to learn, that not everything is known, that maybe we still are not accurately measuring the object of concern, or that we really just don’t have enough information to make a POLICY and TAX law on?

Half the scientist say A, the other half say B. And yet the side that believes A disregards B and wants to move legislatures NOW based on “proposed and projected” assumptions based on A. Meanwhile, those who found B want to conduct more science and research to gather more than just a few decades of real and reliable data.

Your cult leaders want to act NOW before science is finished, before science understands what it is measuring, before science realizes that it doesn’t know, and before people have a chance to fully understand their world around them.

you do realize that we still don’t know how to model clouds? You do realize that we still don’t know the lifestyle of many large aquatic species? you do realize that we are still finding new species every year? you do realize that the precious assumptive models that political-scientists are using have no clue how to model the atmosphere and have been wrong consistently, and are even inconsistent from one computer to another?

It’s all sort of like this…. scientists spend 20 years collecting data. They then call that 20 year span the baseline and judge all subsequent years according to that baseline. That is ludicrous and insane.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-01 10:37:25

Corrupted_Gumballs: Do you actually realize what you-all wrote? “While the paper may be wrong, the fact that it was reviewed gives it more correctness over non-journaled articles.” ?!?

That’s not what we wrote. Not sure why you would make stuff up like that.

Corrupted_Gumballs: You do realize that the peer-review process of climate-oriented papers and articles has become stained of late.

The paper wasn’t published in a journal of climate science.

Corrupted_Gumballs: “my” graph which was a newer version and shortened trend-line version of “yours” shows a distinct leveling off of temps in that profile.

Perhaps, but there is no way to determine that from the chart itself. It makes no reference to specific studies, nor is it an authoritative source.

Zachriel: Statistics.

Corrupted_Gumballs: Yes it is.

You suggested that taking millions of measurements of ocean temperature at thousands of locations can’t reliable provide information about ocean temperature. That suggests you don’t understand statistical sampling theory.

Corrupted_Gumballs: So, now we have conflicting studies.

Well, no. It was your citation. We just read it to you.

Corrupted_Gumballs: Half the scientist say A, the other half say B.

The vast majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic warming is occurring.

 
Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-01 13:21:28

Ok, one last time and I’m giving up on you all. You are liars and ignoramuses. While you wanted to argue science, I was happy to parlay with you. But when you ignore your own posts, lie about what you write (this is second topic you did this on), and even lie about what others have said, I will no longer tolerate you.

Comment by Corrupted_Gumballs
2013-08-01 10:26:53

Zachriel wrote above at 2013-08-01 08:20:42
While publication doesn’t imply the paper is correct, it does mean it was peer reviewed and accepted for discussion by scientists.

Do you actually realize what you-all wrote? “While the paper may be wrong, the fact that it was reviewed gives it more correctness over non-journaled articles.” ?!?! Is that really where you want to go?

I quoted you correctly and then summarized it for you.
I’m done with your histrionics.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-01 13:58:00

Corrupted_Gumballs: Did this psychotic person actually quote nutty Nuccitelli?

Attacking the author is a fallacy of diversion. It substitutes for addressing the science.

Corrupted_Gumballs: I gave it as much {consideration} as it deserved.

As the paper was accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, that is some evidence that scientists consider it worth consideration.

Corrupted_Gumballs: Just because its “published” does not mean it is a true scientific paper, or vetted.

You further claimed that just because it was published doesn’t mean it was vetted. In fact, the paper was peer reviewed.

Zachriel: While publication doesn’t imply the paper is correct, it does mean it was peer reviewed and accepted for discussion by scientists.

Corrupted_Gumballs: Do you actually realize what you-all wrote? “While the paper may be wrong, the fact that it was reviewed gives it more correctness over non-journaled articles.” ?!?! Is that really where you want to go?

That is an incorrect paraphrase of our position. Our paraphrase of our statement:

Z: 1) Publication doesn’t mean a paper is correct. It may or may not be correct: That depends on the data and the arguments made in the paper. 2) The paper was considered worth consideration by the reviewers and editor of the journal. We said nothing about non-journal articles, which may or may not be correct, and which may or may not be worth consideration.

Here’s your paraphrase:

G: Reviewed articles are more correct than non-journal articles.

We never said that.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9399 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE