JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure.

In answer to the excuse du jour: “The Ocean ate my Global Warming”.

Now that the plateau in air temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near large enough to explain the missing energy.

They predicted the surface air temperature would increase, but it didn’t. (The 1990 IPCC predictions about temperatures were so wrong the trends have come in below their lowest possible estimate.) They predicted the oceans would warm more than twice as much as they actually have (as best as we can tell). They did not predict the air temperature would level out for 15 years, and the oceans would suddenly start producing “natural cooling”.

The oceans are a bit of a mystery black box

There are 1.4 billion cubic kilometers of ocean out there — it’s so big it hid a 650 km volcano until two weeks ago. Only two people have been to the bottom ever (correction, three men), and they stayed just 20 minutes (and all they saw was silt). Despite this the IPCC wants us to believe we can measure the entire Earth’s ocean temperature in one hundreth’s of a degree, not just now, but allegedly also 50 or 60 years ago. There is no 95% certainty about ocean measurements in 1962 or even in 2002. Strangely, the best models in the world did not predict this in 2007.  The IPCC are handwaving at the ocean heat so they can still say “the world is warming” but in reality the numbers are devastating, and the data (as scratchy as it is) supports the skeptics. If the standstill in temperatures is bad news for the IPCC, so are the ocean heat figures.

The excuse that the missing heat went into the ocean is a deceptive reframing — where a failure in ocean measurements is used to save them from their  failure to predict what happened above the water. It is as simplistic as saying the warming line points up, and “up” is success.

Who switched on natural variability in 1998?

Ocean Heat Content does not help the IPCC

1.If the oceans affected global temperatures after 1998, what were they doing before that?

If the oceans caused natural cooling over the last 15 years, how do we know they didn’t cause natural warming over the 20 years before that?  The answer is, if La Nina’s can cool the surface, El Nino’s can warm it. If oceans can draw heat out of the sky, then in times when they are not doing that, they can also increase the trends.

Caught again, the IPCC hides this banal symmetry. Their self-serving lop-sided rule is: if it cools, it’s natural; if it warms, it’s artificial. The killer contradiction goes unspoken. If the warming from 1979 -1999 was significantly caused by natural changes in currents, clouds or wind which allowed heat to build up in the air, it means they underestimated the natural effect of the oceans and overestimated the effect of CO2 during the warming.  When CO2 levels reached their “highest” levels in human history after 1998, the oceans overrode whatever effect CO2 had. The IPCC knows so little about the ocean, that they didn’t even allow for this possibility in their past predictions.  Why should we let them get away with the banal post hoc hand-waving excuse?

This is a point so simple any science journalist ought to spot it immediately. Have any of them asked?

2. The oceans are supposedly 0.06 C warmer than 50 years ago (but we can’t really measure the global ocean temperature to a hundreth of a degree).

The first point of deception is that temperature is measured in degrees, but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean temperatures in Joules. This hides the obvious problem — we just can’t measure the global ocean temperature that accurately.

Before 2003 there is only sparse irregular measurements with everything from buckets off boats to thermometers fired into the water and usually without pressure sensors (we estimated how deep they were from how long they’d been falling…not much room for precision there). Much of the ocean wasn’t covered, and there were almost no readings below 700m (the average depth of oceans is 4km).

We’ve only had decent measurements of the ocean since mid-2003 when the ARGO system started. But even these measurements are considerably less certain than often claimed, and they didn’t find the missing energy anyway (see point 4).

3. The utterly banal again: All forms of warming cause ocean heat to rise.

Ocean warming (like most other indicators) doesn’t prove anything about the cause. If the warming since 1700 was due to solar magnetic effects, or lunar effects, cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover, the oceans would warm. The only point that matters is whether the models have verifiable predictive skill of any kind. They don’t: Ergo the theory is wrong.

4. The missing energy is just not enough. The numbers Jim, look at the numbers!

ARGO data started in 2003, but the observed ocean warming does not fit the model predictions. (See this post for details.) The rate of increase is too small to demonstrate a large radiative imbalance.

But this also applies to the pre-ARGO data (as bad as it is).  When we get down to hard numbers even professional experts in the Climate Change Industry find the “radiative imbalance” is only one third to one half of what the models and the theory of man-made global warming predict. They don’t necessarily say that in so many words, but the numbers do.

Since sufficient ARGO data started in 2003, observed ocean warming does not fit the model predictions. See this post for details.  | Updated, Sept 2013.

The climate models estimate a CO2 additional forcing of 3.7 W/m2  with a doubling of CO2. (And since CO2 hasn’t doubled, then  we’re looking for whatever part of 3.7W/m2 applies for the proportional increase in CO2 during the period in question. Hence that’s about 1W/m2 in the last 50 years, and less because 30% of the Earth is covered with land, not ocean).

David Stockwell has looked into the recent Levitis 2012 paper, which analyzed ocean heat from 1955-2010 and concluded that it supports the skeptics. Essentially, the models predicted 0.69W/m2, but Levitis found 0.3W/m2. Less than half. Once again, the data shows the models exaggerate by a factor of at least two.

To compare these figures, say the continuous top-of-atmosphere forcing is 1Wm-2, a figure given by Meehl and Hansen and consistent with the IPCC estimates. The forcing of the ocean from a TOA forcing of 1Wm-2 is a lower 0.6m-2 due to losses, estimated by Hansen.The best, recent measurements of the forcing 0f 0.3Wm-2 are half these IPCC estimates. The anthropogenic component of the forcing is even less, as a large part of the 0.3Wm-2 in the last 60 years is due to increased solar insolation during the Grand Solar Maximum.

This mild forcing is right in the ballpark that skeptic scientists such as Lindzen, Spencer, Loehle and Idso (and myself) have been consistently saying is all that is justified by the evidence. It appears that Levitus et al. confirms the skeptics, and the IPCC has been falsified.

This hunt for ocean heat has been going on a long time. [See David Whitehouse GWPF for some history and also Lubos and Lucia for some recent discussion.]

So the ocean heat content figures agree well with skeptics who estimate feedbacks are net negative and additional warming due to CO2 doubling will amount to about half a degree, not 3 degrees.

We need to expose the myth that any warming at all means CO2 is pollution and we need to spend $42Trillion to stop it. The argument lives or dies on the numbers.

——————————————————————————————————

In related work, Bob Tisdale has released “Climate Models Fail”

Independent work like his, cross checking models with observations could potentially save millions of dollars for the citizens of the free world, yet none of this kind of auditing is actively supported by governments. Tisdale goes through all the oceans, looks for polar amplification, regional predictions, global predictions, precipitation and more.

(Click the book to find out more).

“Climate Models Fail exposes the disturbing fact that climate models being used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report have very little practical value because they cannot simulate critical variables of interest to the public and policymakers. Using easy-to-read graphs, this book compares data (surface temperature, precipitation, and sea ice area) with the computer model simulations. It is very easy to see that the model outputs bear little relationship to the data. In other words, climate models create imaginary climates in virtual worlds that exhibit no similarities to the climate of the world in which we live.

Climate Models Fail clearly shows that climate models have little value for the public and policymakers because their number-crunched virtual worlds do not come close to simulating the real world we inhabit.

Visit his site to find out more. Price $9.95 in Kindle and PDF”

 

————————————————————————————————

Tutorial for Science Journalists:

A few questions serious journalists might want to ask instead of just cut and pasting press releases from activists.

1 Did the oceans contribute to warming?

  1. If the oceans recently cooled the air, couldn’t they have warmed it earlier (pre the pause)?
  2. If so, how have the IPCC models been changed to reflect this increased effect of natural variability?
  3. Surely the effect of CO2 is made smaller by this admission?

2 How accurate are those measurements?

  1. How many degrees has the ocean actually warmed?
  2. Is our equipment accurate enough to measure that? (Don’t get fooled by unrealistic statistical assumptions, such as that all of the ocean simultaneously warms by the same amount –that amount being “the global warming”.)
  3. How did we measure global ocean temperature 50 years ago?
  4. What kind of data is was available for water below 700m in the 1960s?

3 How does this tell us the cause of the warming?

  1. Wouldn’t any cause of warming cause the oceans to warm — how do we know it was CO2 rather than something else?
  2. (following on) So are those the same models that failed to correctly forecast global surface temperatures,  tropospheric temperature and humidity, antarctic sea ice, tropical storms, and regional rainfall?
  3. (following on) Yes skeptics agree that CO2 warms the planet, they question the amount of amplification by feedbacks in the models. What empirical evidence is there that the model’s assumptions about clouds and water vapor feedbacks are correct? Which piece of equipment was that measured on? (No, a computer is not an instrument that measures the atmosphere).

4 The numbers don’t match

  1. How many Watts per meter2 (in radiative imbalance) do these extra Joules of energy imply?
  2. Don’t these ocean heat figures actually support the skeptics claim that effect of the CO2 is minor and the models are overestimating warming by a factor of at least two?

 REFERENCES

Levitus, S., et al. (2012), World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000), 1955-2010, Geophys. Res. Lett.,doi:10.1029/2012GL051106, in press

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (117 votes cast)
IPCC in denial. "Just-so" excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure., 8.7 out of 10 based on 117 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/oawpw4p

192 comments to IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure.

  • #
    Sunray

    As a policewoman said to my son outside of a courthouse, after he had won some justice – Does that woman ever tell the truth? Short answer that also applies to the IPCC – NO!!


    Report this

    213

  • #
    MadJak

    I think the Ocean has eaten the IPCCs brains.

    I fail to understand how any self respecting person can pin their entire rationale on some theoretical heat they can’t find but must exist for the sake of little more than their egos.

    It’s absurd and it’s insulting.

    Here’s a tip IPCC – find the heat – in it’s entirety or just ‘effing rack off. Go pump gas for a living or something and stop wasting everybodys’ time.


    Report this

    501

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Pachauri’s Demon is really strange. It causes hotter than average water molecules at the ocean surface to travel over 700 m deep.

      However, it only appears to work when the atmosphere is cooling.

      Funny thing that……:0)


      Report this

      320

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        No professional; scientist who actually reads the root references of Climate Alchemy can accept the IPCC ‘consensus’ as valid. All they have to do is to read Para 4 of 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf which claims that if you were to remove ghgs from the atmosphere, the mean surface temperature would fall to -18 deg. C, the temperature for radiative equilibrium to Space at 238.5 W/m^2 SW energy absorbed in the atmosphere.

        However, if you were to remove the ghgs, there would be no ice or clouds so the new equilibrium would be for 341 W/m^2, 43% increase. That would mean 4 – 5 deg. C mean surface temperature, a ghe of ~11 K. The ratio 33/11 = 3 is the imaginary positive feedback. This mistake passed ‘Science’ magazine’s peer review and invalidates all the modelling.


        Report this

        210

    • #
      Backslider

      I think the Ocean has eaten the IPCCs brains.

      That’s because of the acidification….. eats brains for sure.


      Report this

      131

    • #
      Konrad

      “I think the Ocean has eaten the IPCCs brains.” Indeed.

      The IPCC fools have truly backed themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. There is no heat hiding in the oceans. Down welling LWIR slowing the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool is a physical impossibility.

      Back in 2011 Willis at WUWT claimed that based on IR emissivity of liquid water it should absorb IR at the same frequency and this could slow its cooling rate. However, I showed by empirical experiment that incident IR does not penetrate the skin evaporation layer of liquid water and has no significant effect on the cooling rate of water below this. If a film of LDPE plastic is floated on the surface of the test samples, allowing radiative and conductive exchange while blocking evaporation, then incident IR does slow the cooling rate. The original 2011 experiment can be seen here -

      http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg

      A cleaner version for other readers to build and run themselves can be seen here -

      http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg

      Basically the claims of climate pseudo scientists that the oceans would “freeze over” without downwelling LWIR are pure BS. Their further claims that missing heat has entered the oceans via LWIR are simply more of the same, only fresher and still steaming.

      This is but one of the critical mistakes in both the GHE and AGW hypotheses. The mistake that invalidates both hypotheses is that in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” the pseudo scientists failed to increase the speed of tropospheric convective circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases. This circulation governs the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface. This critical error is recorded for all time on the Internet. It cannot be erased. A doubling of CO2 will not create 1.2C of warming. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

      AGW is a physical impossibility, but there is a real carbon catastrophe coming. The reputations of every pseudo scientist, activist, journalist or politician that sought to promote or profit by this inane hoax are about to be reduced to ashes. The same is true for the UN and the EUSSR parliament.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    warcroft

    .
    I have to post this link here:

    How Much Global Warming Will Happen In Our Lifetimes?

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/09/how-much-global-warming-will-happen-before-you-kick-the-bucket/

    I use to be a regular at Gizmodo and LifeHacker, but more and more they are posting climate change articles, always pushing the scares.
    Ive contacted the editors about running the occasional article from the skeptics side but was told they only run stories from “reputable scientists”.
    Garbage articles like the one in the link is sucker bait for the warmists. They love that crap, regardless of how crap it is.

    Sorry Jo, but when I see articles like this your web site and the many contributors and commentators is the first thing I think of.
    Ill read your article now and feed my brain with some substantial fact based science.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    warcroft

    Maybe the IPCC can enlist James Cameron to take his deep sea submarine to new depths to find the hidden warming.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    The IPCC must of never seen a Lava Lamp. Why because heat raises even in a liquid. The hotter more colorful liquid raises cools then falls in a Lava Lamp. Its thermodynamics hotter water is less dense than cold water in temperate conditions so it raises, and the cooler sinks. It doesn’t sinks to the bottom of the Ocean. It floats. Only when it gets closer to the freezing point of water dose the cooler water float over the slightly warmer water. Which doesn’t seem to be what the IPCC are going on about or dose it. Their report is implying that is just whats happening to all that missing heat. Just one problem the Ocean isn’t cold enough for that to work that way over the majority of it. At the poles yes but not everywhere else.


    Report this

    141

    • #
      Robert JM

      Density is also driven by salinity differences. cold fresh water can be less dense than salty warm water.
      That being said any energy lost into to oceans cannot be amplified by the atmospheric positive feedback (which also doesn’t exist)


      Report this

      20

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    Trenberth’s missing heat!

    ‘Warming is going on the human fingerprint is clear in the data, but there are other things that are also in the game, the top figure there which has the global temperature the one below is the El Nino influence. If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific, the atmosphere can’t heat it up very easily. If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily and so whether the heat is going mostly into the atmosphere or the ocean for the short term is influenced by El Nino and La Nina and in the last decade most of the heat has been going into the ocean and less into the atmosphere. This is something that wobbles…ultimately the ocean and the atmosphere have to be coupled and it is simply how must warming is already been realised in the atmosphere…the long term picture yes heat is still accumulating in the earth’s system with high confidence, no there hasn’t been a stop in global warming…where did it go and there is finally the ability to make statements about heat going into the deep ocean, the Argo floats and other advances have come just in time…I think this is fair to say that this is just enough to see what is going on…a lot of heat has got into the ocean and it’s gotten pretty far down…that’s really deep!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbQkFXYGmos

    (Since you didn’t address Jo’s blog post itself,you must be ok with it) CTS


    Report this

    449

    • #
      MemoryVault

      If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific, the atmosphere can’t heat it up very easily. If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily and so whether the heat is going mostly into the atmosphere or the ocean

      There can be no NET transfer of heat (energy) FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – not to mention observable fact.

      The NET transfer of heat (energy) is FROM the sun, TO the oceans, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere, FROM the atmosphere, radiated back out into space. Evaporation, clouds and precipitation are the natural, observable, measurable result of this endless ONE-WAY cycle.

      Not to mention the fact that if it were not so, the oceans would have boiled away eons ago.

      It’s called The Water Cycle, Dribble Bladder, and it’s Primary School Science.
      Here are some pretty pictures in case you missed that day in class.


      Report this

      550

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That will not do, MV.

        Those images have not been authorised by the Inspectorate of Propaganda Creation and Clarification, as being supportive of the current groupthink. They are far too complex for somebody with level 2 cognition, like BA4, to understand. You are also using them without official permission.

        You will report immediately to the office of the Comptroller of the United Nations Facility for Cognitive Climatic Correction for reprogramming.


        Report this

        260

        • #
          Backslider

          Comptroller of the United Nations Facility for Cognitive Climatic Correction for reprogramming.

          Isn’t that what the Taco Boy was talking about here?


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes indeed. One or our their more successful reprogramming subjects.

            You have heard our their new slogan, I trust? “We take the “smart” out of “smartass”.


            Report this

            120

            • #
              Backslider

              their new slogan, I trust? “We take the “smart” out of “smartass”.

              In that particular case, I don’t think they need to concentrate too much on that aspect…


              Report this

              50

              • #
                Ross

                Bishop Hill has the full report on his site.
                But the first comment on the thread from Donna Laframboise is the KEY point:

                This remains a “draft” report. Please note this statement:

                This document lists the changes necessary to ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policymakers…

                They intend, as has occurred in the past, to alter the text of the main report written by scientists so that the main report is consistent with the negotiated-behind-closed-doors-by-politicians-&-bureaucrats Summary for Policymakers.

                Science is not – and has never been – in the driver’s seat at the IPCC.

                Sep 30, 2013 at 4:58 PM | Donna Laframboise


                Report this

                190

        • #
          MemoryVault

          You will report immediately to the office of the Comptroller of the United Nations Facility for . . .

          Yeah, right.

          I’m the guy who, over two and a half decades ago, formed the Australians’ Right to Bear Arms Association (ARBA), with 170,000 paid-up members, the first time an Australian government tried to disarm the civilian population. Most of us were ex military, and a lot of us are still alive, and more pissed off than ever.

          .
          You want me, come and get me.
          My door is always open . . .


          Report this

          161

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Well, that attempt at humour all fell as flat as a cow pat.

            I was making a play on the initials IPCC and UNFCCC, by placing them in a 1984 context.

            Ho Hum, it is hard being a wit, but twice as hard being half of one.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              It’s okay Rereke, I got the humorous context, even if I missed the play on the initials.

              Obviously my own attempt at “Dirty Harry” tough guy humour was even less successful.


              Report this

              20

      • #
        PeterFitzroy

        if you could show how heat transfer is not possible from the air to the water, you would be in line for a physics prize. Your postualte that heat is transferred directly to the ocean is absurd.


        Report this

        019

        • #
          MemoryVault

          if you could show how heat transfer is not possible from the air to the water, you would be in line for a physics prize.

          I certainly would!!

          Peter, I’ve mentioned this before in the past, but you have obviously missed it. I run a free remedial correspondence course in basic (primary school level) English Comprehension, for unfortunates such as yourself with serious deficiencies in basic reading and comprehension skills.

          I would be happy to pencil you in for a place next semester, if you like.

          .
          In the meantime, you could try squinting real hard (I’m told it helps in dyslexic cases), then attempt re-reading what I wrote, and what you wrote, and see if you can’t spot the difference this time. Consider it your first homework assignment.


          Report this

          140

      • #
        Bob Campbell

        MV you gave me a good chuckle. Chuckle – hell, I laughed out loud. Ta.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        @MemoryVault

        September 30, 2013 at 10:01 pm

        ‘There can be no NET transfer of heat (energy) FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – not to mention observable fact’ So are you say heat can’t flow from a warm body to a cold body? ‘FROM the atmosphere, radiated back out into space’ but the heat vent into space is being blocked by the co2! Anyhow as I understand it heat will be radiated in all directions, not just up!

        WV and co2 as heat vent blockers into space.

        [snip]


        Report this

        26

        • #
          Heywood

          Awwwwww. YouTube clip snipped. What a shame.

          “So are you say heat can’t flow from a warm body to a cold body?”

          Where did MV say that? Perhaps you need to re-read his comment.


          Report this

          30

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          What is it with you cultists and simple English Comprehension?

          So are you say heat can’t flow from a warm body to a cold body?

          No, what I very clearly said was that there could be no NET heat energy transfer FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans. Your cretinous, quasi-religious cult beliefs currently require that there is some human-induced ATMOSPHERIC heat that has gone “missing” from the atmosphere, and claims that this “missing” ATMOSPHERIC heat somehow got into the ocean. This claim is in direct contravention of both the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and observed, measurable fact.

          but the heat vent into space is being blocked by the co2!

          Totally irrelevant to how alleged man-made ATMOSPHERIC heat energy somehow “finds” its way into the oceans. Even if the statement was true – which it’s not – it would lead to a warmer atmosphere, NOT “missing” heat. The statement is false as it is actually CO2 and the other GHG’s which ultimately facilitate the “venting” of heat energy to space (in the form of LWIR), rather blocking it.

          Anyhow as I understand it heat will be radiated in all directions, not just up!

          Again, totally irrelevant with regards to “missing” heat “finding” its way into the oceans.

          WV and co2 as heat vent blockers into space.

          AGAIN, totally irrelevant as an explanation as to how the “missing” heat “finds” its way into the oceans. AGAIN, if true, the effect would be a warmer atmosphere.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            blackadderthe4th

            @MemoryVault
            October 1, 2013 at 9:26 pm

            This claim is in direct contravention of both the Second Law of Thermodynamics’ but from a source you’ll find hard to debunk!

            ‘Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics’

            http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

            ‘Totally irrelevant to how alleged man-made ATMOSPHERIC heat energy somehow “finds” its way into the oceans’, like this!

            ‘Warming is going on the human fingerprint is clear in the data, but there are other things that are also in the game, the top figure there which has the global temperature the one below is the El Nino influence. If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific, the atmosphere can’t heat it up very easily. If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily and so whether the heat is going mostly into the atmosphere or the ocean for the short term is influenced by El Nino and La Nina and in the last decade much of the heat has been going into the ocean and less into the atmosphere. This is something that wobbles…ultimately the ocean and the atmosphere have to be coupled and it is simply how must warming is already been realised in the atmosphere…the long term picture yes heat is still accumulating in the earth’s system with high confidence, no there hasn’t been a stop in global warming…where did it go and there is finally the ability to make statements about heat going into the deep ocean, the Argo floats and other advances have come just in time…I think this is fair to say that this is just enough to see what is going on…a lot of heat has got into the ocean and it’s gotten pretty far down…that’s really deep!’ R Alley.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbQkFXYGmos

            ‘WV and co2 as heat vent blockers into space.

            [snip]’

            ‘it is actually CO2 and the other GHG’s which ultimately facilitate the “venting” of heat energy to space’ totally wrong, as you could have seen, but the link has been snipped!

            ‘Again, totally irrelevant with regards to “missing” heat “finding” its way into the oceans.’, well not really, seen as the atmosphere is heating up and ‘eventually’ they will be coupled, but at present the heat is transferring from the atmosphere to the sea and vice versa!

            ‘AGAIN, if true, the effect would be a warmer atmosphere.’ er, and that is happening, as the records proves!

            ——————————–
            REPLY: BA. The numbers man. The numbers – pay attention. Just because some warming may have gone into the oceans, does not mean CO2 caused it, and what is worse (for you) is that the amount of warming in the oceans suggests the skeptics are right, the models are wrong, and climate sensitivity is lower. – Jo


            Report this

            11

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Yeah, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Moderation,
          I shall fear no discrimination.

          For apparently I am to be the most moderated old bugger on the whole damn thread.

          .
          EVERY time.


          Report this

          20

          • #

            Perhaps you should check the lock on the MemoryVault–seems some knowledge of acceptable and unacceptable comments may be escaping. Or the mods just love you and you should feel special……


            Report this

            10

    • #
      handjive

      A link to a video of the settled science of the 2007 UN-IPCC report where all above is stated would be very convincing.
      Also, who is “you” as in, “If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific …?”
      Unless some human (or Gaia) put that hot water there, it has to be all natural.
      Carbon(sic)? Human fingerprint? It appears not.
      And, as the atmosphere warms the water as you say, how does the missing heat re-warm the atmosphere?

      As gavin@realclimate says,” The average temperature changes are not the same (because of the different thickness of the layers), but the changes in heat content are – what the upper layer loses in heat, the lower gains.
      The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.”

      Oh dear. How does that missing heat come back? “The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.”
      .
      Your mission, BA4, should you choose to accept it …
      Otherwise, this Un-IPCC report self destructs before your very eyes.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        FAO handjive
        September 30, 2013 at 11:00 pm

        ‘who is “you”’, now you’re just playing semantics! He does not mean ‘YOU’ as in somebody who is real!

        ‘it has to be all natural’, yip, that will be the El Nino, Al Nina oscillation!

        ‘how does the missing heat re-warm the atmosphere?’ because as he says, it is only for a short term. As the Pacific waters warm up, due to the oscillation of the ocean’s currents!


        Report this

        06

    • #
      diogenese2

      If you google “thermohaline circulation” you can see how the missing heat is transferred to the stygian abyss. Warm water currents travel from the tropics to the poles where they absorb negative heat from the atmosphere, become dense, and sink. I’m surprised that you did not think of this.
      In addressing this post you seem to have taken the advice of your namesake.

      Lt. George: ” What do we do sir when we tread on a mine?”

      Cpt. Blackadder: ” well George the usual procedure is to jump 200 ft in the air and scatter yourself over a large area.”


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Backslider

      This is something that wobbles…

      Yes, its very wobbly….. in fact I think the wheels have fallen off entirely.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      I’m glad they still let this fool post here.. Gives me a good laugh in the morning.

      And laughing is good for you.

      So thanks BA4, your posts help me realise that there are people far stupider than those low IQ 15 year olds I used to try to teach. They weren’t so bad after all !


      Report this

      133

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Drop in for a quick link to promote your youtube channel, then bug out again.

      This is just a marketing exercise to you isnt it. (<— this is not a question)


      Report this

      50

  • #
    AndyG55

    The latest post over at WUWT makes a total mess of using short term trends..

    Y’see, that’s exactly what Hansen et al relied upon when they first made the catastrophic warming predictions, a very short term trend. !

    “At the time of the first IPCC report in 1991 (FAR), the warming trend was barely 11 years old.”


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Winston

      But, but, but…..

      Dr Brian says you can’t rely on short term trends of 15 years. How can that be?


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Good point Winston, well spotted.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        And of course, an chaotic oscillating system, if you choose just the upward part of the oscillation, the trend is upwards.

        Then you reach the top and flatten out (you know, like the last 17 or so years).. then the trend starts becomes negative. (like the last 10 years)

        The ONLY trend it is even worth looking at is the “now” trend, because it tells you where you might be in the cycle.


        Report this

        80

  • #
  • #
    Rick Bradford

    I expect the supporters of the Deep Ocean Heating theory will soon describe this as a ‘plausible mechanism’.

    It’s one of those irregular verbs, much favoured by the Green/Left.

    I have a plausible mechanism
    You are speculating
    He is making a wild guess


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Richard

    That’s a good point about the ‘cause’. Doesn’t the ice-core data show an 800 year time-lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes and isn’t the answer likely due to something scientists call ‘Deep Ocean Thermal Inertia’? So, could the warming oceans be due to the MWP 800 years ago? Mmm.

    The idea that the heat from CO2 is going into the deep oceans explaining why there has been no statistically significant warming for 12-17 years doesn’t make sense to me. The atmosphere has warmed hardly. Shouldn’t the atmosphere have warmed too? I mean, how can CO2 be increasing ocean temperatures without increasing the temperature of the atmosphere?

    And, why does the GISS data, which by my understanding, is only land-based and excludes ocean-measurements, imply that there has been no statistically significant warming for 12 years? Is CO2 somehow discriminating between the land and ocean?

    Also, at the same time, CAGW-advocates are saying that the heat in the deep oceans will eventually ‘rise up’ and increase the temperature of the surface ocean in the future. But the deep ocean is *always* colder than the surface ocean, so how is that possible? How can cold water heat up warmer water? I have no idea myself. It all seems so crazy.


    Report this

    150

  • #

    A great piece Jo. Loved the tutorial for the “science” journalists.

    “In political terms, AR5 was actually the incoherent and rambling suicide note of the IPCC.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/in-the-aftermath-of-ar5/

    Pointman


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    And at the same time some AGW believers claim that oceans turn less alkaline. This would mean a cooling of oceans, since warmer oceans are emitting C02


    Report this

    100

  • #
    handjive

    Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, one of the founding organisations of the IPCC, said, “Temperatures between 2001-2010 were the highest on record, a decade that saw more records than ever broken.
    It would have been even higher were it not for the role of the deep oceans in absorbing heat,” he added.

    One of the questions raised since the previous report in 2007 was the so-called “hiatus” in global warming that was not predicted by models.

    IPCC Working Group I, co-chair Dr Thomas Stocker explained it was an emerging scientific question that had been looked at very carefully.

    He said that while too few measurements were available in the deep ocean, a large amount of the recent “pause” in global warming was due to natural variability, including: a series of recent volcanic eruptions, natural Pacific cooling cycle, and absorption of heat in the deep oceans. (my bold)
    .
    How convenient. The unpredicted warming is hiding where “too few measurements were available.”
    Global warming ‘unequivocal’ and ‘unprecedented’ – IPCC


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    Josh’s brilliant Monckton sketch is always apposite at times like these.
    The Missing Heat


    Report this

    90

  • #

    What mechanism did the missing heat use to determine that it must under all circumstances fall only on the oceans and avoid land at all cost?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    The missing heat might be a form of ‘Dark’ Energy, conjectured for the sole purpose of making the Models ‘work’.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Typo, biblical. “Leviticus” remove, “Levitis” insert.

    —-
    Ta! Fixed. -J


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Andrew

    Only need one question:

    If the ocean is warming, and the ocean has 1E6 times the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb heat, doesn’t that mean the net feedbacks are -99.9999%? By definition the ocean constitutes a negative feedback loop for atmospheric heat doesn’t it?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Greebo

    It may be hyperbole, but I’ve read that we know more of the surface of Mars than we do about the oceans of Earth. Now the IPCC want us to believe that they understand them enough to use them to explain a huge hole in their supposedly settled climate models?

    Hide it indeed.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Tim

    We’re talking about theoretical predictions

    made by a biased political organisation

    using inaccurate computer models

    speculating about an ocean warming that cannot be measured.

    - Now that sounds like a plan.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      AndyG55

      Some of the scientists know there is cooling heading our way, and are seeking to cover their butts.

      But the political forces behind the IPCC won’t let them.

      Would be quite comical if it weren’t for the economic waste and societal degradation that will continue to occur.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening all.

    There are two schools of thought here, the IPCC and the Real World.

    IPCC – Global climate is driven by man-made influences, as witnessed in the warming since the 1970′s. Except, of course, when temperatures stabilised, in which case it was due to industrial aerosols, volcanic dust, La Nina, or, as of now, unknown heat sinks deep in the ocean depths, far from the reach of pesky instrumentation. Any excuse will do, just make it sound plausible.

    The Real World – Global climate varies. Always has, always will.

    Occam’s Razor would suggest that the IPCC theory is “fragile”.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Joe V.

    The Missing Hotspot, The Wasted Billions and now The Missing Heat. Scientists enjoy a reputation (whether earned or not) for being absent minded, but really how could the IPCC be so careless ?


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Dave

    Tim Flannery could start a new company:

    The new renewable energy company, Deep Sea Geothermal Extraction.

    Simply send pipes to the DEEP HEAT section, pipe it up and drive turbines to provide power.
    Windmills of the Oceans Deep Heat. Maybe even list it on the ASX with Ross Garnaut.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      scaper...

      Thumbs up, you beat me to it.

      Maybe claim the missing heat as carbon credits???


      Report this

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Only trouble with that idea is that, like the hot-spot.. they don’t know where it is !!

      “Down there” doesn’t really cut it for production purposes.

      Maybe Flannery could ask Greg Hunt for some exploration funding ?

      That worked well last time. !


      Report this

      70

  • #
    graphicconception

    Trenberth only found his missing heat by using models as part of the analysis:

    ORAS4 has been produced by combining, every 10 days, the output of an ocean model forced by atmospheric reanalysis fluxes and quality controlled ocean observations.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Lucia put a degrees C y-axis scale on the Ocean Heat Content anomaly graph…

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/alternate-units-average-temperature-change-over-layer/

    less than 200 hundredths of a degree C warming per decade……
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/HeatContentEQ_C-500×322.png

    (if you can believe you can actually measure that)

    the Met office converted the ‘scary big joules scale’ into deg C….(report 1, pg22)
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

    “There are much fewer observations below 700m, and the ocean below 2,000m has remained largely un-monitored. However, there is evidence of warming below 700m, and even below 2,000m. Careful processing of the available deep ocean records shows that the heat content of the upper 2,000m increased by 24 x 1022J over the 1955–2010 period (Levitus, 2012), equivalent to 0.09°C warming of this layer.”

    So a new measure of global warming, global air surface temperature anomaly is yesterday’s measure

    A global ocean heat anomaly 0.09C in 55 years!

    Shame that the IPCC did not put a degree C scale on their Ocean Heat anomaly graphic in IPCC SPM AR5

    less than 10 years of ARGO data, with 1 ARGO buoy per how many tens of thousands of CUBIC kilometres?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    krov Menuhin

    Your arguments are excellent but you let yourself down by your lack of knowledge. If you are going to use the lack of deep ocean exploration as an argument, an excellent one, then bring yourself up to date. Three men have been to the bottom, not two, they were Don Walsh, Jacques Piccard in 1960 and James Cameron in 2012.

    The Chinese will most likely be the next.

    keep up the good work!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Backslider

    What empirical evidence is there that the model’s assumptions about clouds and water vapor feedbacks are correct?

    This is a significant question and relates directly to the “missing heat”. Recent studies show that both clouds and water vapor are in decline, thus falsifying the required “positive feedback” required for warmist GHG – CO2 theory.

    I will spend some time this week digging up more on this.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    The Met Office graph at the top of the page contains an element of truth. “Era of Artificial Warming” indicates that somewhere in the Met there is a scientist with a conscience.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Perhaps I ought to label it better? The data is from the met office. But I’m the one who annotated it, set the slightly satirical bounds etc.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …set the slightly satirical bounds etc.

        Good call, Jo. Satire is about all it’s worth.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        And there was me, thinking that a ray of light had penetrated the Darkness. Possibly a line stating graph by… as annotated by… would not have raised false hopes.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Barry Woods

        Hi Jo

        That’s why lucia’s graph is useful.

        It is an ‘official’ graph from an impeccable climate consensus dource. SHE merely adds deg C scale onto the y-axis..

        Nobody can dispute the graph then.

        Then more onn the fence observers might think why did the IPCC/climate science show me that graph in joules? Are they trying to mislead me? Etc

        Thr climate concerned will simply say Jo Nova made your graph. She is a ssceptic, ignore it. (Despite the data coming from an impecable like source)


        Report this

        30

        • #

          Barry, yes, I can see the point of showing just how meaningless their 10^22 numbers are. Kevin is talking about the Hadley graph at the top, which I did merely to make a point for skeptics that they don’t even need to look at the numbers to ask the question about why the IPCC thinks the ocean might matter now, but not before 1997.

          David has been compiling those OHC v models graphs for a couple of years. Lucia’s is very nice, but there will not be an official graph that has the model predictions line on it and we all know why.


          Report this

          60

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The missing heat indeed? Why must there be (or is it, why is there any) missing heat in the first place? Seems mighty presumptuous to me. And it pretty much always has. The missing heat is stuck into the equation to make their desired result work out. But the world isn’t cooperating with them. If they can’t find it then it isn’t there. The gang at CRU was complaining about what a shame it was that they couldn’t account for the assumed heat (emphasis on assumed) way back in the climategate 1 emails. They’re still at it.

    The dragon lives on. Where is Bilbo Baggins when you need him?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Backslider

      The question should really be: Where is the missing positive feedback for increased CO2? The extra clouds and water vapor are not there and are in fact in decline.

      This is what supposedly generates the heat that is missing……. that was supposed to go into the tropospheric hot spot, but when that proved false some bright spark thought of “the deep oceans” where of course you can hide anything because nobody can measure it.

      Essentially, it does not exist. Warmist GHG – CO2 theory is bunk.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Quick show of hands here: Who is gullible enough to buy into Trenberth’s nonsense?

    Let’s see – we have Phil Shehan, Michael the Defeatist, Blackrubber, Margot, Vince Twirlwind, …

    Anybody else? Come on, don’t be shy


    Report this

    71

  • #
    G.Watkins

    Am I missing something or just dumb – very possible.
    AGW hypothesis is based on so called back IR radiation from CO2 molecules thus trapping or delaying heat loss from the atmosphere. But infra-red radiation is not energetic enough to penetrate more than a few mms. of water, which in turn causes evaporation with no net warming warming of the surface layer. Only short wave radiation penetrates to any depth and this radiation can only come from the sun, yet we are told by ‘top scientists’ that changes in solar insolation are too small too explain the remarkably warming earth -assuming 0.8 C rise in a hundred plus years is remarkable
    So, a good question for the IPCC would be to ask by which mechanism does the deep ocean warm and how is this mechanism related to CO2 or the undemonstrated positive feedback from water vapour.
    If no sensible answer is forthcoming then the concept of the CO2 control knob is surely dead.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      In a more conservative world, it would indeed be dead.

      Mass madness or something; I’m not sure what happened to common sense, or simple back of envelope logic checks .


      Report this

      10

  • #
    heat lurker

    well, I recall “someone” saying there’s an extra 4 “Hiroshoma Bombs” per second heating up the Earth due to CO2. But if you plot total outgoing longwave radiation – OLR – (from KNMI Climate Explorer) you will see an increase in global satellite-measured OLR of 1.8 W/m2 since 2002. That’s, er, equivalent to 14 “Hiroshima Bombs” per second, lost forever to the vacuum of space.
    Also sits nicely with the cessation of surface warming.
    Earth warms, Earth cools. Der…


    Report this

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      That’s about 126 million bombs in a year !.

      Gees, they must be pretty feeble bombs, because that aren’t having any affect what-so-ever !!


      Report this

      61

    • #
      Brett

      But there is a ~15 year pause, so those “Hiroshima Bombs” are being stockpiled “somewhere” deep in the ocean. Then one day they’re all going to go off at once and we’ll all fry. It must be time to panic. There must be at least 2 billion Bombs down there somewhere. They could make a sequel to armageddon with this: Armageddon AR5.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      Up in the north here, the media often cite ‘lurkers’. Usually crocodiles looking for extra heat in our shallow bays and creeks. They would just love that extra warmth at the seabed, except they can’t dive deep enough to find it.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Manfred

    Argo research measures temperature / salinity to a depth of 2000m, at the lower boundary of the Ocean thermocline. As you all know this is referred to as the surface layer of the Ocean.

    90% of Ocean volume resides below the surface layer in the Deep Ocean with an ambient temperature of 0 – 3C. It mixes poorly.

    But we all know this, we do…and the MSM certainly do, the IPCC definitely, which of course makes them even more culpable.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This is a part of the AGW argument that I find very bizzare.
    Coming from the thinking of a layman I am basically told that heat will not rise, even if that heat is warmer than the ambient temperature around it?
    I have tried to think of theories of how this can occur,
    - There has been some dramatic molecular change on earth.
    - A high frequency electrical charge traps heat deep in the oceans (re plasma effect).
    - Salt water composition alters dramatically at a certain depth or pressure.
    - Godzilla is using the heat during hibernation.
    The IPCC hasn’t just shot themselves in the foot on this one, they’ve blown it off with a Howitzer.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bruce

    Superb post, well done.

    It incorporates all you want to know about the status of the CAGW scare, and it demonstrates the total corruption of science by the IPCC and its fellow travelers.

    Will it have any effect on the warmistas?

    Noooh.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ross

    So in the last report we had issues about the Himalayas , receding glaciers etc etc. Relatively minor issues but enough to caste doubt on the report.

    This time we have a very fundamental issue at the very core of the latest “explanation” from the
    IPCC being easily upturned.

    Jo , I hope you send a copy to the editors of the Australian in hope that will ask permission to reprint it or ask for an article based on it.

    In fact I’d go further –send a copy to the editor of the Washington Post and the Daily Telegrph in the UK ( I’m sure James Dele. will help with the later). Other suggestions — Der Speigel and the Wall Street Journal.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Simon

    Basically, the IPCC and the international ‘fraud of scientists’ want us to spend hundreds of billions of monies to do what the oceans are doing for free. Yes, that’s right, for ZERO MONEY. They don’t even need to be asked, or have an election, or need a consensus of the oceans, they just do it spontaneously (in their timescales, not man’s).


    Report this

    80

  • #
    handjive

    Just like Dinah Moe Humm who has a hot spot, but you ain’t been to it, so is the man made global warming in the deep, deep cold oceans.

    Dinah Moe Humm- Frank Zappa: (just a general warning as for any Frank Zappa song)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    But they still carry on and it is a bloody carry on.

    I live on the north-western tip of Old North Wales and the sea is no stormier, colder, or warmer than it was when I was a chubby little boy forty years ago. As your German readers may say ‘Vee heff ze systems of ze compuders’. I would take that with a pinch of salt.

    Seriously, the tide table for the year 1976 shows a max tide at 10.6 metres above chart datum.
    The tide table for the year 2013 shows a max tide of, sfs*, 10.6 metres above chart datum.

    This is for Liverpool bay and Irish Sea.

    *sfs = surprise surprise.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    The wavefront of the “missing heat” for the last 16 years, is I suspect, well on its way past Tau Ceti and Sirius after leaving the top of Earth’s atmosphere.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Topic and I hope not too tasteless, but this ones for Julia.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmKJ66X0QvM


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Rajendra Pachauri looks more “serious” and “dignified” with his new hairpiece.

    This makes AR5 something to be taken “seriously” I believe, because Pachauri’s hairpiece doesn’t look as “fake” as his previous (or Tom Karl’s).


    Report this

    101

  • #
    A C

    I see three major problems with the AR5 report and this is one of them.

    The problem is that when they start to fiddle with the models to account for the heat they assert is being sucked into the oceans – it will destroy their hind-casting. This means its back to the drawing board for every parameter that they are 95% confident about. It also means that their future projections aren’t worth tuppence rather than 95% confidence.

    The other two points that I see are

    The disappearance of the “hockey stick” without comment and the reinstatement of the Medieval Warm period and Roman Warm periods – if these are natural events of the same magnitude as the current warming event – but they have no explanation for them – then 95% certinty of CO2 causing this event is fanciful to say the least

    And they now attribute only 50% heating to CO2 rest to natural cycles effectively. But blind Freddy can see that the heating trend goes way back to the early 1800s before atmospheric CO2 spiked so even 50% attribution to CO2 is fanciful let alone 95% confidence


    I always liked this glacial retreat map which shows Alaskan glaciers were in retreat from around the time of Captain Cook’s visit!


    Report this

    80

    • #
      ianl8888

      The southern Antarctic whalers made very careful maps of the glacial bays … both their livelihood and lives depended on these maps. One can view them with a simple Google

      The glaciers they mapped have been in retreat at least since the late 18oo’s, primarily because the accumulation of land ice over the Antarctic continent slowed as it became drier (little snow, but -60C winters)


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        Antarctic Continental snow accumulated in the centre pushes ice off the edges like snow on the roof of a house.

        Curious paucity of the usual apologists on this thread


        Report this

        30

    • #
      RoHa

      “I always liked this glacial retreat map which shows Alaskan glaciers were in retreat from around the time of Captain Cook’s visit!”

      Captain Cook caused Global Warming?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bob

    “The Ocean ate my Global Warming.”

    Now, that’s as great a bumper sticker slogan as you would ever find!


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    The problem is, here in Holyhead we have what are locally known as “bathyometric devices” but in the scientific parlance are called “sticks” (I am sorry to baffle you with science).

    These so-called sticks reveal that the sea-level was going to be higher than Olympus Mons on Mars and if we didn’t do something about it there would be hell to pay.

    Meanwhile the followers of the bathyometric devices continue to catch mackerel in the normal way.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Bob

    ” IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, ”

    Oh, that abysmal heat!

    Sorry, the cheap wine is starting to taste good.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      You Aussie thinkers seem to have something of a taste for the old vino.
      Bring on the champagne I say. Global Warming has been averted (probably no thanks to the IPCC). Celebrate that feeling while it lasts, and before the harsh reality of a potential Global Cooling has to be faced.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Joe V.

    The latest IPCC report has been released into a World amidst an almost carnival atmosphere.
    The Warming has gone missing ( & the Australuan political reality – which sometimes lags objective reality by 3 to 5 years) has caught up with it.
    Why isn’t the IPCC rejoicing ?
    Global Warming has gone AWOL.
    Instead of facing up to a potentially impending cooling that could kill millions, the IPCC is still looking under every rock for its fabled warming. What a useless bunch.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Well its because they need impending doom to survive.

      Tim Flannery when questioned on the topic of how rainfall levels had basically been 180° to his predictions noted that “its unfortunate when the observational evidence doesn’t meet the model predictions”.

      He could have said “I happy to be wrong if it means farmers have some water for a change” (remembering this was all at the end of his predictions of endless drought), but no. Tim could only see the cloud over his religion obscuring the silver lining for Australian families.

      AGW disciples dont care about any perceived upside, its all about the money. Fear = a budget, thats all there is.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Leo G

    “We’ve only had decent measurements of the ocean since mid-2003 when the ARGO system started. But even these measurements are considerably less certain than often claimed, and they didn’t find the missing energy anyway.” – Jo

    The 0.1 degree Celsius accuracy often cited for the ARGO buoys temperature at depth profiles is more wishful thinking than fact.
    A problem with the ARGO buoys is the inaccuracy and time-varying sensitivity and offsets in depth measurement. That’s what determined the 30m depth interval. Combined with the temperature lapse rate it means the temperature at depth profiles are unreliable indicators of warming (but OK for salinity).
    Normally the pressure sensor sensitivity changes in the direction of overestimating depth, which together with the temperature lapse rate means it gives temperature readings at a particular depth that have a false warming over time component.
    Unfortunately, a large proportion of the buoys develop leaks that push the sensitivity change and drift in the other direction. When the vertical offset error increases to the point where the buoy at the surface gives its position as significantly above sea level, then the fault is detected and offsetting adjustments (which themselves are an error source) are applied to the data.
    The certainty of any warming referred to in Levitus for ocean depths between 700m and 2000m is surely belied by the warming bias that would be expected during the period when the average deployment period of ARGO buoys is increasing.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Manfred

      Lee G #48

      When the vertical offset error increases to the point where the buoy at the surface gives its position as significantly above sea level, then the fault is detected and offsetting adjustments (which themselves are an error source) are applied to the data.

      Do you know what relationship exists between measurement error and recorded depth/temp/salinity? Is this the same for all buoys?


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Leo G

        The spec had an allowance (90% confidence) for drift over the expected deployment period (4 years) of ±1.3 dbar (±13 metre) The corresponding temperature error depends on the temperature lapse rate at the particular location and measurement depth, but a reasonable figure IMHO would be in the range 0.06°C to 0.12°C. Note that allowance does not cover the much greater error associated with the common fault to which I referred.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Leo G

        Do you know what relationship exists between measurement error and recorded depth/temp/salinity? Is this the same for all buoys?

        Correction: My previous post should have read in part -50m and 50m above sea level respectively and not -500m.
        By 2009, bout 30% of buoys from the major supplier were developing the leakage problem. The error involves both an offset and an error proportional to depth. The slope error and offset error don’t have a strict linear relationship- initially the micro-leak drift appears as a pure offset at all pressures. The apparent negative drift rate is -0.5 to -1 dbar per year, accelerating over time. The drift can eventually be very large- up to -50 dbar (-50m ie 50m above sea level for the surface buoy). According to the 2010 notice by the manufacturer the total error from the microleak fault can amount to -65 metre at 200m depth:

        “The pressure error is essentially pure offset for error magnitudes in the range of 0 to -5 dbars. As the error approaches -10 dbars a linear slope component begins to develop causing errors at high pressure to be increasingly negative. At high errors the slope term contributes 20% of the error (e.g. -55 dbar error at atmospheric and -65 dbar at 2000 dbars).”


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Leo G

          Sorry, another typo:

          “According to the 2010 notice by the manufacturer the total error from the microleak fault can amount to -65 metre at 2000m depth


          Report this

          20

          • #

            So let’s get this straight – they DON’T have a sample collection of ARGO buoys in a pressure chamber in the lab where they can calibrate them at will?


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Leo G

              The floats are, of course, properly calibrated before deployment and can be recovered and replaced when the microleak fault is great enough to be detected. The practice however, has been to apply a correction to the data from known faulty floats and to allow them to remain in service. Apparently, a warranty replacement program for the ARGO Types 41 and 41cp CTDs is planned to commence in 2014.


              Report this

              10

  • #
    Albert

    How does the ”hot” deep ocean preserve sunken vessels for a century and beyond ?
    Why does beer dropped into the ocean on a long rope remain chilled in the hot ocean
    I am confused !!


    Report this

    70

  • #

    I know it’s only TV, and they use ‘rabbitburrow’ or someone else with an authoritative voice to read the script, but I remember watching those documentaries, you know, the usual, ABC Sunday nights after the News.

    They would have a remote camera in the deepest depths of the World’s oceans and they would occasionally show vents or the like with gases and heat bubbling out of them, always rising to the surface, you know, naturally, because, well, heat rises.

    Now, all of a sudden this heat mysteriously sinks into those deepest of the World’s oceans, and hey, I know it’s borne there by the currents, but do those currents have some ‘heat escape prevention shield’ around them so that heat cannot do what it is supposed to do ….. rise, and anyway, this heat is only incrementally tiny amounts.

    Then to top it all off it seems that those continually moving currents just, umm, drop the heat off at the very depth of the ocean, you know, the current keeps doing what it is doing, moving, but the heat just stays in the ocean’s depths.

    It looks to me (and hey, what would I know about Science) like the IPCC, who just KNOW that there MUST be a hotspot somewhere are looking for a place to tell us where that heat is, you know, somewhere that can’t be checked. (yet)

    First it was in the Upper Troposphere, but when they actually did measurements, it wasn’t there, so now they have to find a hiding place where it mysteriously lurks and those voices from the other side of the closed debate cannot prove that it’s NOT there.

    So now we spend more enormous amounts of money finding ways to measure the temperature of the deep oceans with thermometers calibrated to thousandths of a degree.

    I can just see the next IPCC report after those measurements prove that the missing heat is not in those ocean depths.

    Headline IPCC Report.

    Voyager One finds missing hot spot!

    Tony.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      ianl8888

      Actually, improved Argo buoys capable of depth-diving to >2000m are almost ready to deploy

      The empirical data from this new Argo fleet will be fascinating (if we can get our hands on the actual unadjusted data) …


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Mark D.

        Yes and more than 15 years worth of unadjusted data…..

        Do you know how old I’ll be then?

        And by then either AGW will be flushed out as farce or we’ll be in deep do do.

        Oh and lastly, I predict they’ll be finding cold, Lots of cold. Except if they hover around vents……


        Report this

        20

        • #
          ianl8888


          Do you know how old I’ll be then?

          Nope :)

          But the new Argo fleet will start data collection and reporting within 12 months. A few years, perhaps five, should be sufficient. Irrespective of the political impact, I’d really like to know –

          But then geologists are always accused of forever wanting more data :)


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Leo G

          Yes and more than 15 years worth of unadjusted data

          A significant part of the ARGO buoy temperature data is adjusted, to ‘correct’ for drift in depth measurements.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    For a whole generation global warmongers have ridiculed us realists – and called us “deniers” – for disagreeing with their ridiculous fantasies.

    And now they are denying reality.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    The point is it is and never was about a search for truth. If it was or were or is the scientists would definitely have worked it out by now.

    I wander often across the endless wastes that constitute the academic literature and I have learned that almost all are moderated


    Report this

    20

  • #
    TRE

    What if it’s not hiding, but rather has disguised itself to resemble the surrounding water temp, or being the clever rascal we all know heat to be, is STILL in the atmosphere and just pretending to be 1C cooler than it really is.
    Now where the “F” is my Noble and grant money!!??


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Roger McEvilly

    I just saw a program on the BBC which showed how the lowest annual land temperature in the northern hemisphere is reached on ~January 19 every year (on average) due to a time lag as the land keeps cooling for about a month after the lowest output in solar radiation is reached on Dec 21.

    Then they showed how maximum sea ice extent in Greenland isn’t reached until mid March-even longer than the lowest temperature on land above-because the oceans are even slower than the land in the time it takes to stop cooling down-the water keeps cooling for around 4 months after the lowest solar minimum.

    The same researchers then showed arctic sea ice and how it has reduced over the last 30 years or so, and then despite the fact the solar output had increased in the 20th century, and despite all the previous discussion, said this was because of human greenhouse gases, with no mention of the sun at all.

    They just showed 5 minutes earlier how solar effects have significant time lag, but couldn’t realise that this could also be applied to decadal scales concerning the arctic sea ice extent. The evidence was staring them in the face but they couldn’t see it.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    pat

    so many writers for this piece, which contradicts itself para after para. they attempt to show CAGW is mainstream now, yet admit the public aren’t buying it:

    30 Sept: Reuters: Paul Taylor: ANALYSIS-Success, compromise, ageing erode Europe’s Greens
    (Writing by Paul Taylor; additional reporting by Hans-Edzard Busemann in Berlin, Jussi Rosendahl in Helsinki and Georgina Prodhan in Vienna; editing by Ron Askew.)
    Germany’s Greens, trailblazers of political ecology, lost ground in a September 22 general election, finishing fourth on 8.4 percent behind the radical Left party, and failing to secure the coalition they wanted with the center-left Social Democrats. The party’s senior leaders resigned.
    The Greens are now agonizing over whether to enter a coalition with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, while their French cousins are feuding over whether to stay in government with President Francois Hollande’s Socialists…
    One of the French party’s former presidential candidates, Noel Mamere, walked out in disgust last week, saying the Greens had sold their souls for power, stopped producing innovative ideas and become a “trade union of elected officials”…
    To a degree, the Greens have become victims of their own success. We are all green now.
    Many of the issues they forced onto Europe’s policy agenda – from renewable energy to sustainable development or gay rights – have been embraced by the mainstream parties, at least in part.
    Fighting climate change, reducing carbon emissions and recycling waste are standard policies for European governments nowadays, albeit pursued with less zeal than the Greens demand…
    Merkel’s center-right government robbed the ecologists of probably their most potent issue when she decided to phase out nuclear power plants in Germany after the Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan in 2011…
    Likewise, Finland’s Greens have been damaged by staying in a coalition that decided to build new nuclear power stations…
    Generation change has also caught up with the Greens.
    The activists in jeans and T-shirts whose playful insolence blew a gust of fresh air into parliaments and local assemblies across Europe in the 80s and 90s have become pillars of the establishment in many countries…
    The Greens’ failure to capitalize on the global financial crisis or the euro zone’s debt woes suggests they are seen as a “fair weather” party, advocating policies that seem a luxury in tough economic times.
    Despite scientific reports on the devastating march of man-made global warming, the public appetite for carbon taxes, wind turbines and recycling biomass has diminished.
    In the see-saw between industrial efficiency and environmental sustainability, the balance has swung for now towards short-term economic interests.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-eu-greens-analysis-idUSBRE98T04Z20130930


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Yeah I love that meme….

      Skeptics are a tiny minority of whackos on the one hand, but we are also drowning out the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe in AGW on the other.

      In any other debate, you’d say you cant have it both ways… in this one… its business as usual for a complete contradiction to be the norm.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Other_Andy

    In the meantime, the NZ Herald has published more than 11 (!!) articles (One full page on page 3) how global warming is now worse than we thought and that they are certain that we are causing it.
    In the same week…
    Auckland under threat from volcanic eruptions (Complete with a scary artist impression).
    The South Island under threat from Tsunamis (10 articles in one week!).

    ‘Journalists’ (Of the post-modern sort) here are really into the Climate- and Natural disaster porn.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ianl8888

    IPCC AR5 report on the various climate models for projections, scenarios (never predictions now)

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf

    See Boxes 9.1 and 9.2

    Judith Curry’s comments on the incomplete, circular “logic” in Box 9.2:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/#more-13176

    Steve McIntyre’s comments on Box 9.2 and Marotzke’s dishonest spin:

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/marotzkes-broken-promise/

    So far, the only contras to these analyses are just more tedious, monotonous ad homs


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Ross

      Ian

      I think articles by Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre is very significant.
      It clearly shows these guys are running around in circles, completely dishonest and are trying so hard to cover up the facts they forget the lies they tell from one interview to the next.
      Once again it will be the Internet to the rescue.Some of these “scientists” are not only wedded to the religion but they also have big egos, so will not be able to resist the MSM attention. They will continue to trip over themselves.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Excellent article,Jo.


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #

    Over at Bishop Hill, they’ve identified another campus of national embarassment: Reading University.

    What should scientists tell the public?
    In particular, what should they tell the public about what is not understood? Richard Allan, of Reading University, clearly feels that the answer is “as little as possible”. So in this video, about ocean heat content and the pause, we are given to believe that a network of ocean-going bouys has been measuring a vast warming, the insinuation being that this explains the pause. Hands are (metaphorically) waved furiously and “natural cycles” frantically invoked. There is a great deal of spin, and very little light.

    There’s a video with the good Professor waving metaphors and graphics including CGI oceans under which the heat is “evidently” hiding.

    My first comment there:

    Are there studies in A Sense of Proportion available at Reading?

    The 10²²J order of magnitude of alleged change in ocean heat content amounts to what temperature change in the oceans, Dr Meteorologist?

    I emphacise change because that important word is missing (perhaps slipped into the ocean’s depths) from the “premium” IPCC publications and astonishingly, peer-reviewed literature. A back of the envelope calculation indicates that the heat content of the liquid oceans is about 1000 times larger than that published “change”. (I invite others to calculate it independently. I used the volumes of ocean water, their respective temperatures above the freezing point and the specific heat of liquid water. I wimped out and treated it as 2 layers; above and below the thermocline. There is only so much space on the back of an envelope.)

    How plausible is that to be reliably detectable and with what measurement error?

    There are some who will argue that if one measures the same thing a million times, that the resulting “measurement” (actually a statistic), will be more accurate than the single measurement. That doesn’t apply in the case of Argo because every measurement by those robots is a unique and independent event.

    We don’t go around the world measuring the total height of the world’s population, divide that by the number of measurements to be able to declare the height of people, accurate to the nearest ųm. Not without harvesting laughter/ridicule.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ianl8888

    And finally, Figure 1.4 AR5 Chapter 1 has been censored by the IPCC in the final report

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/#more-18425

    Exactly as I predicted about 10 days ago … hard to disabuse me of “cynical negativity” when this type of propaganda occurs repeatedly and predictably

    [This is also the reason I was earlier hunting a complete copy of the report, with all Figures included. The old "pea and thimble" trick, 99]


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Leo G

    The IPCC report that climatologists can discern, with certainty, the global temperature rise signal from the increase of anthropogenic forcing (1.6 watt/metre²) over the industrial era, particularly in the last 50 years or so.
    That variation (over 50 years) would be similar in magnitude to the effect at the surface of the 11-year variation of solar irradiance associated with the solar cycle.
    Why can’t climate scientists see that repeating signal in the global average temperature trend?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Why can’t climate scientists see that repeating signal in the global average temperature trend?”

      Mainly because Hansen et.al wiped out most of the repeating signal. :-)


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Leo G

        More likely is that the signal is so attenuated by negative feedback in the earth’s climate processes that it can’t be seen in the noise. If that’s the explanation, what does it imply about the way those processes would be expected to respond to anthropogenic forcing?


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
    Angry

    The communist anti human ipcc wants us all to believe that HOT WATER stays on the bottom of the ocean….
    DUH!
    Heat rises.
    They should study high school science.
    BLOODY IMBECILES @#$!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Expatrius

    Jo – you are much too kind when you say:
    “The only point that matters is whether the models have verifiable predictive skill of any kind. They don’t: Ergo the theory is wrong.”

    As Wolfgang Pauli would have said – “it’s not even wrong”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Harpo

    I’m showing my age….. this whole issue with the models reminds me of Bullwinkle the Moose doing magic…. [Bullwinkle] “Hey Rocky… Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”…. [Rocky] “Again!… That trick never works!”…. [Bullwinkle] “This time for sure!”…. pulls an angry lion out the hat….[Bullwinkle] “I don’t know my own strength”……


    Report this

    10

  • #
    ianl8888

    For the sausage-machine input from the politicians into the AR5 SPM, see:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/negotiating-the-ipcc-spm/#more-13189

    It is worth noting Australia’s (ie. Hunt) contributions to this


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    Thanks, Jo.

    I’ve finally had a chance of looking at this. It’s great. Just what we need, and especially the questions at the end.

    “it’s so big it hid a 650 km volcano until two weeks ago.”

    The volcano kept dodging behind the seaweed.

    “Only two people have been to the bottom ever (correction, three men), and they stayed just 20 minutes (and all they saw was silt). ”

    I’ve been to the bottom often. Saw mostly sand, but the bit of the bottom I’ve seen most of is in St. Vincent’s gulf, just off Grange beach. That was 50 – 60 years ago. They might have changed it since.

    “3.How did we measure global ocean temperature 50 years ago?”

    I used to stick my toe in.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    gai

    The Dog Ate my Homework

    The Goat Ate the Data

    So this must be
    The Kraken* Ate my Global Warming

    * Mythical many tentacled Sea Monster


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] some help. The IPCC are saying “The ocean ate my global warming” and most environment reporters just cut-n-paste this excuse — they fall for the breathtaking joules-to-the-22nd-figures  — not realizing they convert to a [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] warming ‘Pause’ was vaguely mentioned in the latest IPCC report, albeit claiming the “Missing heat” is hiding in the deep oceans, where quite conveniently we have no accurate measuring [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Fossil Fuel Mandates: Even when their Catastrophic Climate Change theory shows no relationship with reality the environmental extremists persist in their mission to decarbonize human civilization [...]


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Lars P.

    Hi Jo, there is a typo in the text Levitus not Levitis


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] näkemys asiasta on Joanne Novalla (Linkki). Kritiikitön näkemys löytyy RealClimate-sivustolta [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] interested in the nitty gritty of the ocean heat debate are invited to consult Joanne Nova here, Bob Tisdale writing at WattsUpWithThat here, Lucia Liljegren here, Judith Curry here, and Roger [...]


    Report this

    00