WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[estesbob]

Ocean warming greatly underestimated:

skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

I suggest you read the whole article.

Seems they only have 9 years of data to examine
Prior to 2005, when the Argo global array of submersible floats became operational, ocean temperature was much more sparsely sampled, especially in the southern hemisphere, leading to larger uncertainty over the evolution of ocean warming through time.*

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Veracity of a claim does not rest with the data. Interpretation, evaluation, diagnosis and other acts of reasoning of the data is where veracity comes into play. The data are irrelevant to veracity. True data are data that are a faithful reproduction of the quantity measured and reproduced in engineering units of the transducer that produced it, subject to various errors.

Does this mean you do or do not think that looking at satellite images since 1980 is a valid way to see if the arctic ice caps are on a shrinking trend? And if not, what better available method would you recommend to answer that question?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Post 702 clarifies this question.

It doesn’t answer the question of whether the ice caps are shrinking. It just offers a possible reason why we may not need to care if they are shrinking or not. I don’t agree that that is a good explanation of what my eyes clearly tell me when I look at those satellite images.

 

[Theo520]

Ocean warming greatly underestimated:

skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

I suggest you read the whole article.

I suggest you work on your comprehension skills. The fact something was ‘underestimated’ by somebody does not prove the trend is increasing when they learn the truth. Just because I weigh more than you guessed does not mean I’ve been gaining weight.

It was fairly clear on several points:

• deep ocean temp is higher than modeled, but is not increasing. (We don’t have a historical record so prior estimates were just guessing)
• ocean temperature changes cannot explain the pause, since upper level changes are too minor to account for the missing heat.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I suggest you work on your comprehension skills. The fact something was ‘underestimated’ by somebody does not prove the trend is increasing when they learn the truth. Just because I weigh more than you guessed does not mean I’ve been gaining weight.

Actually the reference cited does say that the trend in ocean temperatures was underestimated rather than any absolute ocean temperature.

• ocean temperature changes cannot explain the pause, since upper level changes are too minor to account for the missing heat.

How much of the missing heat does it account for, then? I would like to know that so I can decide for myself if the fraction is low enough to be called “minor”. By the way, I think the original research report you are referring to just said that a specific revision in the estimate for upper-level warming was not sufficient by itself to account for all the missing heat in the atmosphere. That does not mean its contribution toward that end was insignificant.

 

[Theo520]

Ocean warming greatly underestimated:

skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Warming-has-been-Greatly-Underestimated.html

I suggest you read the whole article.

Actually the reference cited does say that the trend in ocean temperatures was underestimated rather than any absolute ocean temperature.

How much of the missing heat does it account for, then? I would like to know that so I can decide for myself if the fraction is low enough to be called “minor”. By the way, I think the original research report you are referring to just said that a specific revision in the estimate for upper-level warming was not sufficient by itself to account for all the missing heat in the atmosphere. That does not mean its contribution toward that end was insignificant.

Your prooftexting is quite exceptional.

The Argo data shows flat temperatures for the deep, so NO HEATSINK
The Argo data shows minor temp increases at upper layer, but not enough to explain the ‘pause’

Felix Landerer does claim climate models underestimated the size of the ocean heatsink, but as I already quoted, they don’t claim the revision and new data explains the ‘pause’. Study the research if you want to dispute him.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Felix Landerer does claim climate models underestimated the size of the ocean heatsink, but as I already quoted, they don’t claim the revision and new data explains the ‘pause’. Study the research if you want to dispute him.

What I dispute is your criticism of Has W’s comprehension in posting 713, when it appears his comprehension of the reference cited was better than yours.

As for studying the research to answer the question I asked you, it is really more appropriate to ask you, since you are the one who is putting forth this research as support for your view. I assume you wouldn’t attempt to do that unless you knew to what extent this research does or does not support your view. The authors of the research certainly don’t agree with your view, so it would be pointless to ask them.

 

[estesbob]

Actually the reference cited does say that the trend in ocean temperatures was underestimated rather than any absolute ocean temperature.

How much of the missing heat does it account for, then? I would like to know that so I can decide for myself if the fraction is low enough to be called “minor”. By the way, I think the original research report you are referring to just said that a specific revision in the estimate for upper-level warming was not sufficient by itself to account for all the missing heat in the atmosphere. That does not mean its contribution toward that end was insignificant.

You’re operating under the assumption there is missing heat. The data does not seem to support that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re operating under the assumption there is missing heat. The data does not seem to support that.

Really? Then where did the extra heat go that is being blocked from escaping the earth by green house gasses?

 

[estesbob]

Really? Then where did the extra heat go that is being blocked from escaping the earth by green house gasses?

That’s the point There is no extra heat.

 

[Hans_W]

I suggest you work on your comprehension skills. The fact something was ‘underestimated’ by somebody does not prove the trend is increasing when they learn the truth. Just because I weigh more than you guessed does not mean I’ve been gaining weight.

It was fairly clear on several points:

• deep ocean temp is higher than modeled, but is not increasing. (We don’t have a historical record so prior estimates were just guessing)
• ocean temperature changes cannot explain the pause, since upper level changes are too minor to account for the missing heat.

As another poster pointed out, it’s rather your comprehension skills which need some work.

You and some other posters seem to know a lot and are brilliant in uncovering all the weaknesses in the scientific literature. May I suggest you people write a proper scientific paper and present it at conferences. The least you can do is to participate on blogs were real scientists debate.

Uncovering the real “truth” would make you instantly famous and the 97% of “experts” who spread false information would be hiding in shame.

 

[JimG]

A little off topic, but I’m wondering if any of the AGW studies have factored in the possibility of unexpected events which could trigger a reversal of warming and bring on too much atmospheric cooling, such as a meteor strike or a nuclear exchange, either of which might create enough atmospheric dust to block sunlight and trigger significant global cooling. That would require entirely different counter measures.

 

[Theo520]

As another poster pointed out, it’s rather your comprehension skills which need some work.

You and some other posters seem to know a lot and are brilliant in uncovering all the weaknesses in the scientific literature. May I suggest you people write a proper scientific paper and present it at conferences. The least you can do is to participate on blogs were real scientists debate.

Uncovering the real “truth” would make you instantly famous and the 97% of “experts” who spread false information would be hiding in shame.

Hans, once again you’ve failed to back up your claims. Your comments were just another ad hominem.

I repeat, the NASA article was very specific that their ARGO data does not support the heat sink theory for the pause. Please counter with a valid source, or find a new hobby.

Now to your deflection, please explain how the IPCC models show a consensus on AGW?
You are aware of the implications between an ECS of 1 vs ECS of 6.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-20-l.png

 

[Hans_W]

A little off topic, but I’m wondering if any of the AGW studies have factored in the possibility of unexpected events which could trigger a reversal of warming and bring on too much atmospheric cooling, such as a meteor strike or a nuclear exchange, either of which might create enough atmospheric dust to block sunlight and trigger significant global cooling. That would require entirely different counter measures.

I don’t think that you can factor in exotic events like a massive meteor strike or a major nuclear war. Then anything goes. We need to assume “business as usual”.
The most likely event is a major volcanic eruption and we know that this would cool the earth for a few years.

 

[Hans_W]

Hans, once again you’ve failed to back up your claims. Your comments were just another ad hominem.

I repeat, the NASA article was very specific that their ARGO data does not support the heat sink theory for the pause. Please counter with a valid source, or find a new hobby.

I have to smile when you talk about ad hominem.

I am a scientist, but not trained in the relevant field of climate science, and therefore cannot refer to primary scientific literature. I have to rely on summaries and interpretations of others who have access to the primary literature.

Here is another related article on ocean warming, the particular topic we are discussing. Why don’t you enter the debate directly? - would save us both a lot of time. Constructive criticism is always welcome in science.

scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/10/07/what-is-the-role-of-the-deep-ocean-in-global-warming-climate-science-deniers-get-this-wrong/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s the point There is no extra heat.

Then you would have to deny that greenhouse gases are blocking IR radiation into space. Is that your claim?

 

[estesbob]

Then you would have to deny that greenhouse gases are blocking IR radiation into space. Is that your claim?

I pointing out we have seen no increase in temps for almost two decades despite significant increase in Co2.

 

[Theo520]

Hans, even scientists can foist strawmen and utilize ad hominem as a tactic. In fact, your link provided an excellent example of such, though I thought his summary on the level of certainty was spot on:

If we add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will warm up,** but because of the complexities cited above, it is hard to say how much or how long it will take**.scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/10/07/what-is-the-role-of-the-deep-ocean-in-global-warming-climate-science-deniers-get-this-wrong/

From further down, I found the below commentary and reasoning as disingenuous, hardly that of a mature person or scientist

But for some reason we see various individuals, including sadly at least one climate scientist (Judith Curry: “Evidence of deep ocean cooling?“), but mostly anti-science climate trolls, crowing that the “deep ocean” is cooling therefore we are not experiencing global warming.

The lack of heating (trend wise) in the deep ocean doesn’t disprove global warming, but it does shoot a big hole is several published excuses for the pause. Here is a link to what Judith actually said - I’ve put in her summary so all can observe she doesn’t claim it disproves AGW.

The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean.
judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/

Please respond to my posting the IPCC ECS probability curves, and explain how they prove a consensus of scientific opinion exists.
I believe anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the topic understands the implications and policy response to an ECS close to 1 is markedly different than if ECS ends up closer to 5-6.

 

[lynnvinc]

A little off topic, but I’m wondering if any of the AGW studies have factored in the possibility of unexpected events which could trigger a reversal of warming and bring on too much atmospheric cooling, such as a meteor strike or a nuclear exchange, either of which might create enough atmospheric dust to block sunlight and trigger significant global cooling. That would require entirely different counter measures.

What climate scientists (and other scientists) talk about is known knowns, known unknowns (like they know methane is being released from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, but they can’t put it into a formula for including in their models), and unknown unknowns – that would be what you’re talking about.

In fact that is a possibility, perhaps not very likely tho – some factor like a huge meteor strike causing cooling.

The way we should prepare for that is reduce our fossil fuel use immediately and as much as possible …bec we may really need to burn them during a harmful and very cold nuclear winter, and solar panels may not help us much if the dust is clouding up the sky.

 

[estesbob]

What climate scientists (and other scientists) talk about is known knowns, known unknowns (like they know methane is being released from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, but they can’t put it into a formula for including in their models), and unknown unknowns – that would be what you’re talking about.

In fact that is a possibility, perhaps not very likely tho – some factor like a huge meteor strike causing cooling.

The way we should prepare for that is reduce our fossil fuel use immediately and as much as possible …bec we may really need to burn them during a harmful and very cold nuclear winter, and solar panels may not help us much if the dust is clouding up the sky.

Problem is when their known knowns turn out to be wrong it pretty much destroys their credibility . Especially when they refuse to admit it when they’re wrong