Har Har Har Global warming crap

[mistermack]

No.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

And quoting the sceptical science blog is like quoting the chimps at London Zoo. It's not an official ANYTHING.
It's just rabid invention.

I see that you're happy with quoting the chimps at London Zoo then. How very balanced.

[Tero]

You can put those numbers into Excel, from 1970 to 2013. It will draw a trend line for you. Or you can take his word*

*Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

[Seth]

No showing graphs to Seth, guys. They are wrong cause the Gubmint paid for the studies.

No, they are deliberately falsified because the government paid for them on the condition that they be falsified.

[mistermack]

You can put those numbers into Excel, from 1970 to 2013. It will draw a trend line for you. Or you can take his word*

*Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

No, I wouldn't take his word for anything. He's a biased blogger.
Do you not trust the UK Meterological Office? I don't actually trust them to honestly put an unbiased context or interpretation to their figures, but I do trust their figures.
Hence they smuggled out the news of no warming for sixteen years, quietly with no fuss, hoping that nobody would notice.
But I do think that the figures are true.
In any case, the same fact has been arrived at by multiple agencies. It's not something denied by the big agencies.

In fact, there is a new piece of work out recently, that indicates that the oceans began warming 120 years ago, much earlier than was first thought. This coincides with the beginning of the current atmoshperic warming period.
Which means that seventy years of ocean and atmospheric warming happened before any significant rise in CO2 levels.

We know very little of the transfer of heat from the Earth's depths to the oceans. Nobody is measuring it, so we don't know how variable it is, or if it's cyclical. It could explain all of the warming we've measured, on it's own.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ought.html

[Tero]

There's no trend. It's a short segment. Kind of like weather. I have you the 40 year hraph, even that barely long enough.

Your new link does not give a link to Scripps, just the Daily Mail spin on the story.

[Tero]

Daily mail bullshit

A study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego traced ocean warming to the late 19th century, which implies, say researchers, that the Earth’s climate as a whole has been heating up since then.

The research, led by oceanographer Dean Roemmich, shows a .33C (.59F) average increase in the upper portions of the ocean to 700 metres (2,300 feet) depth.

Here is Scripps/Argo stuff

ARGo source data
The ARGO problem is a reminder that rigid
quality control is vital in such cases, says Keith
Alverson, director of ARGO’s parent agency, the
Global Ocean Observing System at the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization in Paris. The ideal is to be able to
compare a new analysis with an independent
data stream, he adds.
The flaw occurred in a batch of floats fabricated at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. It was detected when
the temperature profiles generated by ARGO
were compared with historical data from the
regions where the cooling seemed to be most
pronounced.
The authors of the original report, led by
John Lyman of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in Seattle, Washington, submitted a correction to Geophysical
Research Letters on 9 April; this had not been
published when Nature went to press. Apart
from the spurious ARGO data, they report a
newly discovered bias in temperature profiles
from expandable bathythermographs (XBTs)
that were also used for the analysis. Inexpensive XBTs have been a major data source for
many oceanographic studies. The two problems concealed each other, says Josh Willis, an
oceanographer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and a co-author
of the report: “When I first became aware of the
problem I was really horrified.”

Source
http://w3.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/Argo/Doc/Nature-2007.pdf
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
http://www.argo.net/

[mistermack]

So? That's all old stuff. The Mail article is 2012.
In any case, it's not confirmed stuff, it's extrapolated. Just like the climate models, it's full of guesswork.

It just illustrates how much is still unknown about the climate, and how stupid it is to claim that we are in a position to say what the future climate will be like.

In truth, there's more chance of a major glaciation, than there is of serious warming. At least we KNOW that that can and DID happen many times before.

[Tero]

The Rommich paper is here. It does not have much data for free
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1461.html

the ancient data is only 300 points , so it does not give an average for the planet. Only the areas measured.

[Tero]

There's not a whole lot of free data on oceans. Some below .The system is more complex than air as it's a liquid.

In fact, the ocean has absorbed so much heat—about 20 times as much as the atmosphere over the past half-century—that some models suggest that it is likely to warm the air another degree Fahrenheit (0.55° Celsius) worldwide over the coming decades.

Although ocean temperatures are more difficult to measure than land temperatures, scientists can use several methods to create an extensive ocean record.

cooling claims are now corrected

http://w3.jcommops.org/FTProot/Argo/Doc/heat_2006.pdf
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/hc_bias_jtech_v3.pdf

The last 50 years is what we have data for. The late 1800s are not with the same equipment.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

more ocean etc data summarized
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mparisons/


here you can see the problem of averaging temps and recording anomalies worldwide
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/ ... change.htm
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/G ... tion.shtml

As for "we can't predict climate", we can and we have. The air temps are going by the Hansen "B" predictions and are within the error bars of the prediction.

[Tero]

The Challenger expedition is here
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/1885/pub ... n-4751.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_expedition

It did travel around the world, but the authors of the modern paper imply it measured global ocean temperatures. It did not. It simply measured readings on its route.

[mistermack]

The balding Arctic
August 19, 2013
Arctic sea ice extent maintained a steady, near-average pace of retreat through the first half of August, making it highly unlikely that a new record low minimum will be reached this year. Nevertheless, there are extensive areas of low concentration ice, even in regions close to the North Pole, atmospheric pressure and temperature patterns this summer have differed markedly from those experienced in 2012; cooler than average conditions have prevailed over much of the Arctic Ocean. By contrast, Antarctic sea ice is near a record maximum extent for mid-August.

Funny how they have the nerve to use that title.
And they explain away the year-on-year increase in the ice putting it down to the ''cooler conditions in the Arctic this year''.
Amazing, Sherlock.
And note the near record quantities of sea-ice in the Antarctic. How the fuck did that happen in such a warm globe?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[Tero]

What part of "average" did you not understand? You can get a 10 or 20 year average for an area or for a body of water. Some years will be cooler than average. Nothing to do with a 100 year trend.

[Tero]

Here you can see annual means and 5 year means for US
there is less change in US than global graphs or hemispere maps

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

5 years is nothing, 10 years is almost nothing

[mistermack]

Let's face it. This so-called ''consensus'' was built up over a number of years, not by evidence, but by the existence of a plausible theory, the production of computer models that were made to match what had happened in the past, but MAINLY because the atmosphere continued to warm.
Year-on-year, the numbers went higher, and people were won over. They shouldn't have been. They were observing an effect, and just assigning a cause to it, without proper evidence. But that's how the consensus happened, because of the prolonged period of steady warming.

Now we've had an equally long period, of no significant warming, you might expect that the same logic tells you that CO2 is having a NEGLIGIBLE effect on the climate.
But no, the die is set now. MM global warming is now a religion, and must never be questioned.

[Tero]

Your equally long period is just two points in 100 years. A point is a 5 year average. If these concept are too hard for you, this site has impartial data, nothing cherrypicked:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
in there

Global temperatures are decreasing
As the skeptic's argument goes, global warming is not occurring because global temperatures have actually been decreasing. Often the decrease is described as being over the last ten years or so. For example: "Manmade global warming is a hoax created with a political agenda to reduce our use of fossil fuel. Even natural global warming (caused by sun activity) doesn’t exist, as evidenced by the seven to 10 years of cooling." link
Especially when the ten year time scale is given, this is most likely a reference to the fact that temperatures have in general been lower than they were in 1998. But this is not evidence of a global cooling trend. Instead, it is due to the fact that 1998 was an abnormally warm year, due to a strong El Nino. So, the "Global temperatures are decreasing" claim depends on a very select data cherry-picking.
For a more detailed discussion see Warming Stopped in 1998 on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.