JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it.

The global “pause” has been running for nearly 19 years. But a whopping 30% of all the human emissions of fossil fuels, ever, has come out since the year 2000. Nearly 40% of all our emissions since 1990.

All that CO2, and nothing to show for it. Half of all human emissions of “carbon pollution” have occurred since 1987.

 

Global CO2 emissions, man-made, anthropogenic,

Here’s your handy reckoning table for human emissions from 1751 – 2014. (I know you’ve been waiting for it). Next time you need to know what percentage of the total human emissions of CO2 has been emitted since, say, Ash Wednesday, Cyclone Tracy, or Napoleon, or whatever, this is the table you need.  When we hear that it’s the warmest summer since 1939, this table tells us what the CO2 levels were in 1939.

 Year Law Dome* Cumulative % of Emissions^   Year Law Dome* Cumulative % of Emissions^   Year Law Dome* Cumulative % of Emissions^   Year Law Dome* Cumulative % of Emissions^
  ppm %   ppm % ppm % ppm %
1751 277 0.0 1818 284 0.1 1884 291 1.5 1950 311 15.4
1752 277 0.0 1819 284 0.1 1885 291 1.6 1951 312 15.9
1753 277 0.0 1820 283 0.1 1886 291 1.7 1952 312 16.3
1754 277 0.0 1821 283 0.1 1887 292 1.7 1953 312 16.8
1755 277 0.0 1822 283 0.1 1888 292 1.8 1954 313 17.2
1756 277 0.0 1823 283 0.1 1889 293 1.9 1955 314 17.7
1757 277 0.0 1824 283 0.1 1890 293 2.0 1956 314 18.3
1758 277 0.0 1825 283 0.1 1891 294 2.1 1957 315 18.8
1759 277 0.0 1826 283 0.1 1892 294 2.2 1958 315 19.4
1760 277 0.0 1827 283 0.1 1893 295 2.3 1959 316 20.0
1761 277 0.0 1828 284 0.1 1894 295 2.4 1960 316 20.6
1762 277 0.0 1829 284 0.1 1895 296 2.5 1961 317 21.3
1763 277 0.0 1830 284 0.1 1896 296 2.6 1962 317 21.9
1764 277 0.0 1831 284 0.2 1897 296 2.7 1963 318 22.6
1765 277 0.0 1832 284 0.2 1898 296 2.8 1964 318 23.4
1766 277 0.0 1833 284 0.2 1899 296 2.9 1965 319 24.2
1767 277 0.0 1834 284 0.2 1900 296 3.0 1966 320 25.0
1768 277 0.0 1835 284 0.2 1901 296 3.2 1967 321 25.8
1769 277 0.0 1836 284 0.2 1902 296 3.3 1968 322 26.7
1770 277 0.0 1837 284 0.2 1903 297 3.5 1969 323 27.6
1771 277 0.0 1838 284 0.2 1904 297 3.6 1970 324 28.6
1772 278 0.0 1839 284 0.2 1905 297 3.8 1971 325 29.7
1773 278 0.0 1840 284 0.2 1906 298 4.0 1972 326 30.8
1774 278 0.0 1841 284 0.2 1907 298 4.2 1973 327 31.9
1775 278 0.0 1842 285 0.2 1908 299 4.3 1974 329 33.0
1776 278 0.0 1843 285 0.2 1909 299 4.5 1975 330 34.2
1777 278 0.0 1844 286 0.3 1910 299 4.7 1976 331 35.4
1778 278 0.0 1845 286 0.3 1911 300 4.9 1977 332 36.6
1779 278 0.0 1846 286 0.3 1912 300 5.2 1978 333 37.9
1780 278 0.0 1847 287 0.3 1913 300 5.4 1979 335 39.2
1781 278 0.0 1848 287 0.3 1914 301 5.6 1980 336 40.5
1782 278 0.0 1849 287 0.3 1915 301 5.8 1981 337 41.8
1783 278 0.0 1850 287 0.3 1916 302 6.0 1982 339 43.1
1784 278 0.0 1851 287 0.3 1917 302 6.3 1983 340 44.3
1785 279 0.0 1852 287 0.4 1918 303 6.5 1984 342 45.6
1786 279 0.0 1853 287 0.4 1919 303 6.7 1985 343 47.0
1787 279 0.0 1854 287 0.4 1920 303 6.9 1986 345 48.4
1788 279 0.0 1855 286 0.4 1921 304 7.1 1987 346 49.8
1789 280 0.0 1856 286 0.4 1922 304 7.3 1988 348 51.3
1790 280 0.0 1857 286 0.4 1923 304 7.6 1989 349 52.8
1791 280 0.0 1858 286 0.5 1924 304 7.8 1990 351 54.3
1792 281 0.0 1859 286 0.5 1925 305 8.1 1991 352 55.8
1793 281 0.0 1860 286 0.5 1926 305 8.3 1992 354 57.4
1794 281 0.0 1861 286 0.5 1927 305 8.6 1993 355 58.9
1795 281 0.0 1862 286 0.5 1928 306 8.8 1994 356 60.4
1796 282 0.0 1863 286 0.6 1929 306 9.1 1995 358 62.0
1797 282 0.0 1864 286 0.6 1930 307 9.4 1996 360 63.7
1798 282 0.0 1865 286 0.6 1931 307 9.6 1997 361 65.3
1799 282 0.1 1866 287 0.7 1932 307 9.8 1998 363 66.9
1800 283 0.1 1867 287 0.7 1933 308 10.0 1999 365 68.6
1801 283 0.1 1868 287 0.7 1934 308 10.3 2000 367 70.2
1802 283 0.1 1869 288 0.8 1935 308 10.5 2001 369 72.0
1803 283 0.1 1870 288 0.8 1936 309 10.8 2002 371 73.7
1804 283 0.1 1871 288 0.8 1937 309 11.1 2003 373 75.5
1805 284 0.1 1872 289 0.9 1938 310 11.4 2004 375 77.4
1806 284 0.1 1873 289 0.9 1939 310 11.7 2005 377 79.4
1807 284 0.1 1874 289 1.0 1940 311 12.0 2006 379 81.5
1808 284 0.1 1875 290 1.0 1941 311 12.3 2007 381 83.6
1809 284 0.1 1876 290 1.1 1942 311 12.7 2008 383 85.8
1810 284 0.1 1877 290 1.1 1943 311 13.0 2009 384 88.0
1811 284 0.1 1878 290 1.2 1944 311 13.4 2010 387 90.3
1812 284 0.1 1879 290 1.2 1945 311 13.6 2011 389 92.6
1813 284 0.1 1880 290 1.3 1946 311 14.0 2012 391 95.0
1814 284 0.1 1881 290 1.3 1947 311 14.3 2013 394 97.5
1815 284 0.1 1882 290 1.4 1948 311 14.7 2014 396 100.0
1816 284 0.1 1883 290 1.5 1949 311 15.0
1817 284 0.1

* The CO2 level at Law Dome in ppm to 2004 (when the series ends), then the CO2 level at Mauna Loa (which begins in 1959) less 2.85 ppm (the average difference between Maunu Loa and Law Dome for 1995 – 2004, from 2005 on).

^ From the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), in the US Department of Energy (DOE), who give total estimated human emissions from fossil fuel consumption and cement production (does not include land clearing, which is likely less than 10% of the CDIAC emissions).

 

ERRATA Feb 2: The graph erroneously showed the beginning of the “50%” range as in the 1970′s when it should have been 1987. Corrected. – Jo

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (110 votes cast)
Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it., 8.7 out of 10 based on 110 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zy3kt77

365 comments to Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it.

  • #

    Actually there is something to show, which is increased agricultural productivity to help feed the world. When the next inevitable ice age arrives, mankind’s biggest challenge will be to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible to keep agriculture from crashing.

    603

    • #
      AndyG55

      There is also all the cities, bridges etc etc..

      The whole of modern society exists because of those CO2 emissions.

      383

    • #
      Robk

      We also have world wide transport and trade, electricity, concrete, farmlands, mining, fishing, greater population(the list goes on) thanks to an enhanced carbon based energy cycle.

      361

      • #
        Robk

        I might add:
        The carbon based energy system is something that carbon based life does particularly well. It’s a natural choice powered largely by the sun.

        220

      • #
        RogueElement451

        But apart from better agriculture . world wide transport and trade and electricity ,concrete,mining, bridges, not to forget , coca cola,,,, what has CO2 ever done for us?

        100

        • #
          Bill Burrows

          Good one Rogue. Did you borrow, with embellishment, that saying from Marx? sic “Why should I worry about the future generations — what have they done for me?”

          (PS Groucho not Karl!)

          60

          • #
            RogueElement451

            Quite clearly stolen from monty pythons life of Brian.

            My favourite quote for this week is :-
            Politicians and diapers need to be changed on a regular basis for exactly the same reasons………Mark Twain.

            90

            • #
              Bulldust

              “All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?”

              Just substitute “CO2 emissions” for “Romans” and you pretty much have it.

              50

    • #

      Actually there is something to show,

      Just think what would happen if a large oil field suddenly caved in and it all came belching up. What about all the traped gas down there in some of those places coming up suddenly. By extracing hydrocarbon carefully and converting it to a life giving gas from those lethal toxic forms, mankind has cleaned up much pollution(Giarrhea).
      “When Marco Polo in 1264 visited the Azerbaijani city of Baku, on the shores of the Caspian Sea, he saw oil being collected from seeps. He wrote that “on the confines toward Geirgine there is a fountain from which oil springs in great abundance, in as much as a hundred shiploads might be taken from it at one time.”
      Wiki
      How many EXXON Valdez spills would that equate to Peter Garret?

      120

    • #
      Peter C

      . When the next inevitable ice age arrives, mankind’s biggest challenge will be to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible to keep agriculture from crashing.

      Good point.

      Most of our stored CO2 is in the form of limestone. Is it possible to reverse the reaction and liberate CO2 from limestone?

      70

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” Is it possible to reverse the reaction and liberate CO2 from limestone?”

        Its called cement. :-)

        Double environmental benefit, because both the limestone and the coal used to heat it, emit lots of CO2 :-)

        121

    • #
      Graham Richards

      Three years ago I passed thru Alice Springs on a Ghan holiday. Tour operators there were pretty “miffed” that the Red Centre of Australia was decidedly green.

      They said that foreign tourists were expecting to see the true centre RED CENTRE by all they had was wall to wall green grasses & shrubs.

      I wonder if this is a result of the additional Co2

      30

      • #
        Bill Burrows

        Prof Graham Farquhar (ANU) claims the increase in agricultural crop production due to enhanced CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is about 15%. In the absence of other data you could apply this to native vegetation too – assuming the prime limiting factor for plant growth is a CO2 deficiency. In the Red Centre phosphorus & nitrogen deficiencies would be close behind. But always in Arid Zones such as Alice Springs it is moisture deficits that are the major limitation in the first instance. Your visit coincided with the end of the super La Nina that began in 2010/11.

        I witnessed a similar phenomenon when visiting Alice Springs in 1974. (I think the Todd River flowed for most of that year)…But the most telling statement about the weather came from a gnarled old “ringer” chewing a bit of bark on a Station Homestead verandah. What did he think of the season we asked? And in the best Australian vernacular he replied “Bloody marvellous. And you know what – this is the first ‘normal’ season we have experienced out here since 1921!” {Another La Nina year].

        Nevertheless there are subtle changes occurring in Australia’s rangeland and arid zone vegetation too. It is a gradual increase in woody plant (tree and shrub) cover in “intact” (uncleared) woodlands and shrublands, along with some notable invasions of grasslands. Darryl Lewis depicts this in sequential photo pairs in his insightful book “Slower than the eye can see” based on observations from the top half of the NT. Many ground based and aerial photo interpretation monitoring studies carried out in Qld support these changes also. And now we have techniques that detect these changes based on passive microwave observations from sensors placed on satellite platforms. [Check out(Google): Liu et al.(2015)Nature Climate Change : 470-474].

        20

      • #
        AndyG55

        The plants out there have adapted to the mostly very dry/sometimes very wet climate.

        A small amount of rain and everything grows like crazy! :-)

        I’m sure the extra CO2 is a bonus for them, too.

        31

  • #
    Simon

    There never was any statistical evidence for a pause.
    CO2 is a forcing, it takes many decades to reach equilibrium.

    878

    • #
      James Murphy

      Only 4 questions, which should be simple for you to answer…

      1) In your own words, a “forcing” is… what?
      2) Where is your reference, or where are your references to justify the claim that “…it takes many decades to reach equilibrium…”
      3) What exactly will be in equilibrium? Temperature? CO2? Number of polar bears? The size of the average mango?
      4) If CO2 is a “forcing”, and it forces whatever it is in question 3 into a state of equilibrium, is it still a “forcing”, or does it become a “relaxing”?

      624

      • #
        James Murphy

        Obviously I meant CO2, not CO in question 4

        [fixed]ED

        70

      • #
        Robert R

        “forcing” is one of those politically correct terms that presumably means something to them but means nothing to the rest of the population.

        392

        • #
          tom0mason

          ‘Forcing’ is all that is left when laxatives fail.

          352

        • #
          sophocles

          “forcing” is one of those politically correct terms that presumably means something to them but means nothing to the rest of the population.

          … just like sustainability. Everybody thinks they know what it means but nobody who uses it defines it …
          Must be Magic.

          40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      So how many decades then?, Earth’s population has been given so many doomsday predictions ranging from 1 to 20 years mostly by people unqualified to comment that refuse to debate or submit their hypothesis for proper review, and now the goalposts are moved ‘many decades’ hell why not make it hundreds or thousands of years so the very real cycle of people forgetting history only to repeat it is locked in a space time continuum.

      If you did leave off the sarc/ tag on purpose then kudos for some deep satire.

      230

    • #
      AndyG55

      There’s no evidence that CO2 has any effect on temperature of the open atmosphere, either.

      404

    • #
      AndyG55

      As the temperature starts to dip after this El Nino subsides, the length of the back calculated zero trend will increase slowly at first, then it will jump to take in the whole of the satellite record.

      In fact, the ONLY warming in the satellite record is from the NON-CO2 forced 1997-2001 El Nino event, as step change of about 0.26ºC.

      Up until the current NON-CO2 forced El Nino, the slight warming before that event has been essentially cancelled by the cooling after.

      http://s19.postimg.org/ojf5tbz1v/RSS_cancel.jpg

      There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the whole 37 years of the satellite data.

      304

      • #
        King Geo

        “There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the whole 37 years of the satellite data”.

        That is why the MSM in Oz, especially the ABC & Fairfax Group, never show the UAH & RSS Global Satellite Temperature data. The headlines continue “2015 THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD” (based on severely compromised land based thermometer data & buoy oceanic data). Never are the populace shown the “golden standard” UAH & RSS Global Satellite Temperature data which clearly show 1997/1998 as the hottest year in modern time – I CALL THAT DECEPTION. An analogy would be for a real estate agent to sell a home infested with white ants and not reveal this fact to potential buyers.

        162

    • #
      Simon

      I assume the author is discussing surface temperature? Who is the author?
      Climate Science 101:
      Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the atmosphere system.
      CO2 increases temperature, which results in more water vapour and some outgassing of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.
      At equilibrium, net forcing = 0.

      652

      • #
        AndyG55

        There is NO evidence that CO2 increases temperature.

        You have been CONNED…. its called gullibility.

        “in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the atmosphere system.”

        You did know that OLWR has actually increased, didn’t you ?

        345

      • #
        AndyG55

        And we have no reliable measure of the surface temperature, anyway.

        Just a very limited, highly locally affected, much manipulated, fudged and fabricated, load of rotting horse manure.

        The best we can go for is the evenly spaced, consistent, tightly packed measurements of the lower troposphere, where we all live. ie the satellite data

        324

      • #
        AndyG55

        “outgassing of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere”

        Ok simple Simon, now explain the “ocean acidification” scare/farce/lie

        324

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Simon:

        The balance of incoming and outgoing energy is for the Earth as an isolated system in space. Since all the claims are that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium there is no warming, unless the sun’s output changes. It is difficult to see how a temporary insulating effect can lead to a permanent ever rising temperature. Climate Science 101 is obviously [ snip ].

        204

        • #
          Rob JM

          Not Quite right Graeme,
          Equilibrium represents the lowest energy point for all forms of energy in the system. The ratio of the different energy forms can change, so you can have the system flip from a say ah high kinetic, low sensible heat state to its reverse while still maintaining the same energy level. Of Course energy minimisation is violated by CAGW theory because they claim increasing sensible and latent heat energy with no offset in other forms to get their positive feedback, thus violating the second law.

          140

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Climate Reality 101: Ice core data continuously show any rise in CO2 levels FOLLOWING temperature rise sometimes up to 8oo years.

        follow:
        1. go or come after (a person or thing proceeding ahead); move or travel behind.
        2. come after in time or order.

        273

      • #
        tom0mason

        Simon
        you said

        CO2 increases temperature, which results in more water vapour and some outgassing of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.

        The observations for CO2 increases temperature is where?
        Professor Wood’s experimental results says otherwise.

        182

        • #
          tom0mason

          As By Nasif S. Nahle (University Professor, Scientist, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico.)shows here

          GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:
          The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the
          environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the
          greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.
          The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically
          repeatable.
          In average, the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings causes an increase of
          temperature inside the greenhouses of 10.03 °C with respect to the surroundings temperature.

          10

      • #
        The Backslider

        and some outgassing of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere

        Very good. This question came up yesterday in Weekend Unthreaded if your care to look.

        My question to you sonny: How much has the ocean warmed since 1650 (when warming began) and exactly how much outgassing of CO2 according to Henry’s Law?

        161

        • #
          sophocles

          1650? Temperatures were still heading down at that time (the start of the Maunder Minimum).
          It was still cooling then, with the coldest part of the LIA around 1690-1695. 1715 as a start of warming is acceptable.
          Or did you mean 1850?

          20

          • #
            The Backslider

            If 1690 was the coldest part then that was the beginning of warming. It begins at the lowest point.

            00

          • #
            The Backslider

            Oh, and, the ocean will warm before the atmosphere, so 1650 is about right for the beginning of warming.

            00

      • #

        Climate Science 101:

        Which, as you will learn in Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 330 is simplistic, superficial clap-trap because it doesn’t satisfy boundary conditions. To wit; the quasi-steady state of an inert, nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere without any “greenhouse” gases that is unable to lose heat except by via the surface, when it’s cooling at night.

        Without the vertical, convective forces resulting from heat losses at high altitude, there will be no significant thermal convection, all but the bottom few metres of the atmosphere will heat and remain very hot. A boundary layer that cycles between maximum and minimum surface temperature, insulated and trapped by the atmosphere above. A maximum surface temperature under clear, cloudless skies, absent even the vertical stirrings of particles.

        50

        • #
          Rick Will

          To avoid convection you would also need to stop the Earth rotation; be flat surface rather than a globe and have constant surface absorptivity.

          10

          • #

            The “weather layer” due to diurnal heating, topography and coriolis would be much more shallow that what it is with “greenhouse gases”; little vertical convection components as the air above can’t cool; once it’s warmed by the surface.

            It’s a “stable climate”.

            00

    • #

      no evidence of a pause? Have you checked satellite data from UAH, RSS + high-altitude balloons?

      131

      • #
        ROM

        Simon, the believer, stuck his head up here and claimed there is no “pause” in the rise in global temperatures and is getting worked over fairly well for his lack of a relevant scientific background or even some good and accepted and verified global temperature data to argue his case with.

        Not a good idea to try and mix it with Jo’s mob who mostly have a pretty good grounding in the science, the politics, the scams and the banality of the three decades long unproven, unverified, never ending, never seen to occur, predictions of the Climate Catastrophe Cult.

        Catastrophic Climate Change, was, interestingly, formerly known as Anthopogenic Catastrophic Global Warming [ CAGW ] until embarrassingly it didn’t !

        The reasons for such a major name change being something that should give pause to the Simons of this world who should seriously consider the reasons for such a radical name change before venturing into a Skeptic blog’s environs and making a whole bunch of scientifically unsupported assertions.

        This what the head of the one of the Worlds major weather and climate data centres , the CRU, and a warmist to the core and one of the initiators of the whole global warming scam, thinks of these claims of a “pause” in the rise in the [" heavily adjusted" ] global temperatures.

        Phil Jones, head of one the major centers of global temperature data analysis, the Climate Research Unit [ CRU ] of the East Anglia University in the UK and a major figure in the debacle of the Climate Gate e-mails has the following to say in 2012.

        And good luck to you Simon if you wish to take Phil Jones on and tell him he was and is wrong.
        .

        Prof Judith Curry’s Climate Etc; Pause discussion thread [ 2012 ]

        Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. [ Prof Judith Curry ] Yet on two important points, he did.

        The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

        Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

        Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

        Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

        But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

        Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

        And just in case the Simons of this world still don’t believe that global temperatures have all but ceased to rise, their “pause” or in short, a “plateauing” of global temperatures increases, a “plateau” which is usually the very top of elevations, one can of course fall over a fairly steep edge to that plateau with a long fall to the bottom.
        Not a nice prospect to think of with severe cooling potentially creeping into many of the land masses in the Northern Hemisphere.

        Another of the major players in the global warming scene and a warmist organisation to boot, the British Met Office put up a graph in 2012 which admitted that Global Warming had stopped some 16 years previously, [ now going on to 20 years.]

        Quite a number of people who who held similar to Simon’s misplaced beliefs tried to tell the Met Office they were wrong, “wrong” based on nothing more, no science involved, than their own religious type beliefs in a catastrophic global warming / climate change .

        But the UKMO stuck to its guns and basically said, “Thems the data and we are sticking to it”

        Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

        The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
        This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

        And if the Simons of this world doubt the scale of the adjustments and the total cabortion of a scientific mess that has resulted from these numerous and continuously automated daily “adjustments” to the individual station’s data that is the basis for the Global Temperature data and which “adjustments” are almost totally responsible for nearly the entire [ spurious ] warming that has reputedly taken place over the last decade, then another Climate etc post; Understanding adjustments to temperature data posted by two dedicated warmist climate scientists working on the BEST project, is worth a close read as are the comments [ 2044 comments . I read the first 1000 comments. The whole read just makes one's hair curl at the scientific incompetence shown, the inherent gross warmist biases and the stupidity of most of these "adjustments". ] which brings out an incredible array of bad and unexplainable and futile attempts at the frequently quite spurious “adjustments” to the global climate data in an attempt to make it conform to the theology of a pending, always pending in Climate Science, Catastrophic climate change.

        130

        • #
          tom0mason

          ROM FYI …

          The distinguished university alumni from UEA show off their worldly knowledge and intellectual acumen in the UK TV series ‘University Challenge Christmas 2015 Manchester v The University of East Anglia’

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-HWM3FEokE

          I hope Professor Phil Jones realizes how we all know how bright the ex-students are from University of East Anglia. :)

          40

    • #
      ianl8888

      So you are saying that a non-linear, complex, coupled, dynamic system equilibrates ?

      When did it last do that, do you think ? Oh, and evidence please

      263

      • #
        AndyG55

        Gees, you are cruel Ian..

        The guy is only up to the beginning of Climate Science 101.

        His problem is that he will know even less once he finishes. ! :-)

        223

    • #
      Robert R

      Simon…

      There never was any statistical evidence for a pause.

      There is some very record cold weather in Eastern USA at the moment that is certainly evidence, why don’t you ask some of the relatives of those taken by hypothermia?

      182

      • #
        Robert R

        or ask those who are snow boarding on the streets of New York City for evidence for a “pause”
        or ask the weather men who have been accused of understating the snow depth measurements in the last few days for evidence of a “pause”

        160

        • #
          Robert R

          Oh they’ve just announced on TV that the U.S. East Coast snow falls have “just missed the all time snowfall record by one tenth of an inch”, and “therefore a new record has not been reached!”
          Wow such accuracy of measurement…….one tenth of an inch compared to many feet of snow. Are they joking? No, but anything to engineer not having an official record set.
          How gullible do these weather men think the population is. They are making themselves look so totally ridiculous.

          191

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        The Eastern USA just got lots of snow. Record cold was a couple of years ago when the Great Lakes froze over.
        This past week there was cold and snow across large sections of Asia.
        Instruments now show sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) and this could and might lead to another round of nasty cold weather. See:
        NoTricksZone

        71

    • #
      The Backslider

      Simon, are you not aware that atmospheric CO2 levels are governed by Henry’s law.

      When you say it takes decades to come to equilibrium I do believe that “decades” is quite wrong, but of course you are talking about the wrong thing…. what I am talking about is the only equilibrium there is.

      Ok, I’ll get onto your track – you believe that CO2 causes significant warming. You are of course aware that we had cooling between 1940 and 1975. What caused the warming prior to 1940? CO2 has risen quite steadily since the turn of the century, so your “equilibrium” argument falls completely to pieces. There should be a corresponding and continuous rise in temperatures, without “the pause”. There is not.

      201

    • #
      Rob JM

      The warming was due to a 4% decrease in cloud cover and the pause happened because the cloud cover stabilised.

      As for the CO2 forcing taking decades to reach equilibrium, you might want to consider the largest forcing in the system 1300w/m2 change is 6 hours as the earth rotates in the solar field, a few million times larger than CO2 forcing, which causes the temp to oscillate well beyond the forcing due to CO2 with the result that CO2 forcing reaches equilibrium daily.

      142

    • #
      The Backslider

      There never was any statistical evidence for a pause.

      Well sonny, you had better hurry up and inform the IPCC, who acknowledge the pause, and Kevin Trenberth who has spent years trying to prove that “the missing heat” (missing from temperature records) is hiding in the deep dark oceans (I am still waiting for Trenberth to explain by what mechanism the heat found its way down there without warming the surface layers, but that’s another story).

      171

    • #

      Forget all that… WTH is “equilibrium” in a planetary climate system?

      Methinks you have been enjoying some fresh garden herbs maaaaaaan.

      81

    • #
      RB

      There never was any statistical evidence for a pause.

      Any month not warmer than the previous one is evidence of a pause. You need to define what you mean by statistically significant. It was stated by the IPCC that 15 years of no warming is long enough to be statistically significant.

      In the RSS global mean anomaly (satellite data crunched by a warmy) the average of the first half of the last 15 years is 0.004°C cooler than the second half. That is not consistent with warming at 0.3°C/decade (0.2-0.25&deg increase should be observed) but is with a pause in warming.

      Only slightly more months before 2008.6 were cooler than the average over the 15 years (51%).

      19 months prior to 2008.6 are 0.68 SD above the 15 year mean (25% of a normal distribution) while there are 20 months after 2008.6

      There is no uncertainty that the data shows a pause.

      What you are referring to is whether there can’t be any AGW signal in the data because of natural effects that would have otherwise caused cooling – 2-3°C/century of cooling – for 15 years. The answer is no but if 2-3°C/century of cooling is possible due to nature, 15 years of <2°C/century of warming that was used to scare people into action is not evidence of AGW.

      92

      • #
        RB

        the IPCC that 15 years of no warming is long enough to be statistically significant.

        That the data wasn’t consistent with what was asserted about AGW rather than “statistically significant”.

        10

    • #
      Ron Cook

      Simon,

      I beg your bl—y pardon.

      You’ve got it the wrong way round. There is plenty of statistical evidence for “the Pause”, but none for what you call CO2 forcing only computer models that prove nothing and can be proved to be wrong in any case.

      R-COO- K+
      R Cook

      101

  • #
    TdeF

    The atmosphere weighs 5.15*10^18kg or 5,150,000,000 megatons. Total CO2 output is 450,000 megatons, so 87ppm. The increase in CO2 is 396-277 = 119ppm. Ergo Quod Factum Est. The argument of obvious, the CO2 increase is man made.

    So the rise in CO2 is wholly and solely due to fossil fuel emissions. Everybody knows. CO2 is a dangerous hot house gas.

    In so many public comments even by real scientists, people just go onto discuss the CO2 hot house gas theory. I find it amazing that so many accept the CO2 increase as man made. No one bothers to prove it or check it, or at least no one I have read.

    The problem is it is science fantasy, rough correlation presented as science fact, the view of the atmosphere as a bucket to be filled.

    My science question was, can science measure the proportion of fossil CO2? The answer is yes, fossil fuel has no C14 and this gives us an absolute measure. The answer in 1955 by Dr Suess was 2% fossil CO2. Now it is still under 4%. This is the real inconvenient truth.

    So what happened to the fossil CO2? Dr Suess answered that too, sixty years ago. As 98% of all gaseous CO2 is dissolved in the ocean and is in total and rapid exchange with the air like all gases, it vanishes into the huge reservoir in the oceans. Even the IPCC admit this, but in one place only say it takes 80 years for half to vanish. In fact it takes 14 years, so half of the CO2 from 2000 is already gone. 75% from 1986. 86% from 1972. etc.

    It is just modern arrogance to think man controls CO2, but it is the unquestioned basis of CAGW.

    What I would like to know is why none of the scientists at NOAA or NASA or the endless Chemistry and Physics societies talk about measurement of CO2 and the fact of equilibrium.

    The atmosphere is simply what is left over, not dissolved in the oceans. This is a liquid water planet and the weight of water is 400x that of the oceans. Look at humans beings. We are carry our salt water with us as saline, utterly dependent on water and salt. Our old cities like London were salt centres. The roads in North America were old buffalo trails from salt centres. Even our salaries were from the Roman and Egyptian payments in salt. Salt was white gold, because we die without it.

    Human embryos even show gills and our ancestors could breathe under water, but that is real science. As I write so often, fish breathe. As a species, we have forgotten about air in the ocean. As we consume O2, half is replaced by phytoplankton floating on the oceans. The oceans are our major and original ecosystem.

    We are told the oceans do not matter, when it is water, snow, ice, rain, humidity, storms, monsoons which control our climates. We land creatures have forgotten who we are. We have created an artificial world on land and myths to go with it. Visit Dubai to ski in the mall when it is 44C outside but the reality is that the oceans and sun control our world and the CO2 from which all life on earth is made.

    So the man made CO2 increase is coincidence presented as science fact but is science fallacy, not publicly corrected by the populist scientists and science commentators of the world, even the Royal Society. It is a disgraceful period in science history. Heavier things fall faster too. Everybody knows.

    393

    • #
      Evo of gong

      I recently came across a paper http://tinyurl.com/hhqrcd5 which has some interesting graphs from the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite IBUKI which show that Australia is a net sink of carbon to the tune of about 0.225 gigatonnes per year (multiply by 3.7 to get the figure for CO2). As a CO2 sink we come third behind Argentina and Brazil. Leaving out the oceans, the IBUKI figures show that while the countries in the Northern hemisphere are the biggest emitters (China, USA and India mainly) Southern hemisphere countries tend to be the sinks.
      I wonder whether this factor will be taken into account if we get involved in carbon trading.

      240

      • #
        AndyG55

        China is already spending a lot of its money down here.

        90

        • #
          Dennis

          The Australian reported last year (2015) that China is investing heavily into Australia. The article asked what would be worse than Chinese investment. The answer is no Chinese investment.

          People seem to be unaware that Australia’s wealth was created on a substantial amount of foreign investment without which national prosperity would today be much lower.

          71

          • #
            Ron Cook

            Dennis,

            No, no, no, the Chinese ARE NOT investing in Australia they are buying it. Take for instance Australia’s largest dairy farm in Tasmania’s NW. They offered 30 million above the asking price. The Chinese want Australia to be their food bowl. China will export all back to china, bring in Chinese workers AND decimate Australia. Australia’s very future is in danger. Our children will go without the veery basics – you only have to look at the chinese who are buying up a certain Baby Food and sending it to their home land at the expence of Australian babies. I rarely resort to expletives BUT BUGGER China we Aussies need to look after ourselves.

            R-COO- K+
            R Cook

            80

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        NASA’s O-CO2 satellite gave in even more interesting picture, with the tropical rain forests apparently being greater “emitters” of CO2 than the industrialised nations. It was blamed on “seasonal burn-off”, and the picture was withdrawn. Someone may be able to access the memory hole of the internet, to resurrect it here. It was even more interesting to compare the world-wide concentrations of CO2 with the global distribution of oceanic pH – another contrary picture that seems to have been hidden.

        182

      • #
        Bill Burrows

        You might obtain further insights by checking out the Detmers et al. 2015 paper cited in your link. During the 2011 La Nina year they detected a sink of about 0.77+/-0.10 Pg C/yr in Australia. This is equivalent to roughly 2,800 Mt CO2-e, or five times the net emissions detailed by Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2011. It is also instructive to view depiction of Australia’s net CO2 emissions (relative to other countries) from September 2014 – September 2015 (https://youtu.be/_UEZqyGU5RU ) courtesy of NASA’s OCO-2 satellite sensors.

        50

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      …so many accept the CO2 increase as man made.

      A point for questioning that I have long been advocating. It is also a point that Murry Salby (a scholar due considerably greater respect than I) makes, in many of his ridiculed presentations; perhaps he was so close to the truth that the ridicule and derogation of his work – and his abandonment in Europe – were the only resort the Believers could muster at such short notice.

      252

      • #
        TdeF

        He stated in his excellent Hamburg lecture that CO2 and temperature were not correlated. That was about any argument that CO2 caused warming. I did not hear him question that the CO2 was man made however.

        In his examination of correlation, he did found that CO2 and the integral of temperature were directly connected. This is a corollary of my point. To a physicist, this is startling. The integral is the impulse over time, the sum of which is energy. So he found a direct correlation between CO2 and the radiant heating of something which did not change the planetary temperature. Of course it was the ocean, on which 66% of all light falls directly. He inadvertently proved that ocean surface warming is directly connected to CO2. Surprise. Surprise.

        I did write to Prof Selby immediately, but received no reply. He was busy surviving I expect. His discovery is proof. CO2 comes from ocean warming.

        172

        • #
        • #
          Peter C

          . CO2 comes from ocean warming

          The figures quoted by Jo above support that proposition.

          In 1758 the atmospheric CO2 was 277ppm.

          By 1798 the atmospheric CO2 was 282ppmm, yet human emissions were essentially zero during that time.

          By 1875 the atmospheric CO2 was 289ppm yet human emission were only 1% of the current total.

          So atmospheric CO2 increased by at least 5ppm and probably as much as 12ppm all on its own with no help from human emissions.

          Increasing atmospheric CO2 was a natural phenomenon back then and most probably the same natural forcing is occurring now.

          70

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry, just watching is latest stuff. I had missed it. Thanks. He is looking at the lack of correlation now between CO2 emissions and total CO2. Good stuff.

        50

        • #
          TdeF

          He has it! C14 decay from the atom bomb blasts. Exactly as I have been saying for years but in more detail and beautifully presented and slowly. However using his analysis to separate anthropogenic CO2 from temperature induced CO2, he previously draws the same conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is too small to measure. With C14 it can be exactly measured and it is insignificant. CAGW is totally busted if only because man does not control CO2 levels. There is no need to even talk about so called hot house gases.
          Maybe we can now move on. (after the removal of the massive taxes on refrigerants).

          110

          • #
            TdeF

            There is so much more he could infer from those graphs. For example the seasonal wriggles in the CO2 graph from Moana Loa. These demonstrate and measure the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, confirming that seasonal temperature controls CO2, not the other way around. He could have concluded from the C14 graph that there is a perfect exponential decay as he did, but also that there is only one. It is not a compound graph, so there is one huge fast sink, the one the IPCC try to discredit, the ocean. He could have noted the horizontal asymptote is incredibly close to the ancient C14 levels, where it should be 33% below if the 50% recent increase in CO2 was fossil CO2. In fact the exact amount by which it misses is a precise measure of the amount of CO2, less than 4%. Then he does explain that in equilibrium, you reach a balance point and gases in equilibrium do not accumulate forever. He even brings in the Bern diagram, which is clearly quite wrong. Overall he does a great job and then asks for his old position back, pointedly at Lord Monckton.

            A terrible wrong has been done to this honest and good scientist. Cook et Al. notes that 2/3 of scientists in this job do not publish an opinion on man made global warming and infers that they agree. The obvious explanation is not mentioned but you could ask Professor Selby what it costs to speak the inconvenient truth.

            111

    • #
      Dariusz

      Excellent summary.
      I agree that there is not enough attention paid to isotopes not just C14, but also O18.
      I am currently involved in reconstructing paleoclimate of the Ordovician in the Canning Basin and we are using O18 proxy for the temperature variations. This will also lead me to paleoenvironmental reconstructions, sea level change and correlations across the continents. Such technique is used for decades now by petroleum industry using chemostratigraphic method or looking at chemical composition of rocks that include dozens of compounds and trace elements. co2 is just a minute little indicator that if taken in isolation means nothing.

      The theory of O18 is summarised below:
      “Water molecules containing light oxygen evaporate slightly more readily than water molecules containing a heavy oxygen atom. At the same time, water vapor molecules containing the heavy variety of oxygen condense more readily. ” This process has obvious connection to temperature and is well demonstrated in the literature.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        Thanks. O18 and C13 are both stable isotopes, so they last forever. Both are useful because of the very slightly different uptake rates with the very slightly different weight. It is however a tiny chemistry effect requiring great care in measurement. In comparison, C14 testing is black and white. No careful measurement needed. Fossil fuel has absolutely no C14. The amount in the air is a constant as long as the sun is a constant at least averaged over hundreds of years.

        Unstable C14 formed only by cosmic rays has a short half life of 5,400 years, so it is perfect for measuring the very recent history of mankind and testing the idea that fossil fuel is responsible for the 50% increase in CO2. Fossil fuel has no CO2.

        So we would expect the current C14 levels to be 66% of the ancient ones. It was only 2% below in 1955. Then in 1965 with the atmospheric tests, C14 levels were doubled and we have watched as this radioactive CO2 has very rapidly vanished, defining perfectly the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere and so the exact residence time. It is not the 80 years the IPCC have used to classify all green house gases, but closer to 14 years.

        Professor Murry Selby is making use of this now as in another post. He destroys the Bern diagram. He shows temperature is not correlated to CO2 levels. He even points out the obvious, that human emissions are not correlated to CO2 levels either. He points out the CO2 levels correlate perfectly with surface warming/radiation, although he leaves out the oceans. I just like the way he chuckles through the bleeding obvious. Man made global warming is so far from real science, it would be science comedy, if it were not taken so seriously, supported by an army of opportunists.

        101

        • #
          Scott L

          Agree TdeF

          I always like to point out that the ice core data shows quite clearly that CO2 follows Temperature over a very long period of time. all the rises and all the falls.

          if you look closely at those ice core graphs you will notice a very interesting feature.

          the temperature turns down at the apex while CO2 continues to rise for a short period then it also turns down.

          Think about that for a second: temperature turns down before CO2 does – if CO2 was the driver, temperature would not be able to turn down prior to CO2 !!

          The turning points of the ice core graphs are really all you need to send the hypothesis of CO2 driven warming straight into the bin. The rest is just icing on the cake.

          70

          • #
            TdeF

            Exactly. History shows us CO2 lags temperature. We are getting to the point where there is no basis whatsoever for CAGW. No CO2. No warming. No linking anyway between anything. Just a wild hypothesis jumped on by the usual suspects, Greenpeace, the activist, communist and unelected United Nations and a host of academics and instant experts. Carpetbaggers.

            The fundamental problem is not science but that elections are being determined by the indulged fringes of society. Even the Olympic games are going to allow transsexuals to compete. At least Bruce/Caitlin Jenner even at his/her age can win the women’s decathalon too.

            In Australia, the new Liberal party is nothing of the sort. It would not stop the boat invasion. It would bring and may bring in a carbon tax. It believes in big spending and massive borrowing and led by a merchant banker who loves borrowing and taxes. Everything for everyone. The government of the people for the very few. I want our PM back. The media are desperate to get him to retire because most in the media are soft left to extreme left at the ABC/SBS monolith.

            Only with Abbott back can we stop building windmills and handing money to the UN slush funds.

            111

    • #

      TdeF

      I find it amazing that so many accept the CO2 increase as man made. No one bothers to prove it or check it, or at least no one I have read.

      Note this from the LAW DOME link above.

      Firn air measurements span the past 65 years and overlap
      with the ice core and direct atmospheric observations.

      About those direct atmospheric observations and how they DO NOT support it all being man made.
      http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

      50

  • #
    Robert O

    The beginning of this series in 1751 was in the Little Ice Age when rivers, such as the Thames, were frozen each Winter. History tells us they had ice fairs and that armies marched across them. Since that time we accept that global temperatures have increased by as little as 3/4 of a degree celsius and carbon dioxide levels have gone from 280 ppm. to 400 ppm. now. Based on the solubility of carbon dioxide in water, which is known, it is reasonable to assume that this increase is due to mainly to this, rather than the AGW hypothesis.

    We know that photosynthesis is a photochemical reaction, what is wrong with a little more substrate and warmth as it provides more carbohydrate for the planet?

    161

    • #
    • #

      Based on the solubility of carbon dioxide in water, which is known, it is reasonable to assume that this increase is due to mainly to this, rather than the AGW hypothesis.

      Expect a burst increase in the near-future CO2 reports. All this geological activity does not occur without CO2 “bubbles”. These add to the continuous, deep-ocean vents that keep adding CO2 and other gases to the oceans; largely unobserved. The submarine stuff takes longer to get into the measured atmosphere.

      40

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      I agree with you in general, but I should point out that there were other reasons for the Thames to be more likely to freeze over in the seventeenth century. The Thames isn’t very deep, at all. It could be forded at both London (one reason why London is where it is) and Westminster and it didn’t take one of the Romans’ more ambitious bridges to cross it (the other reason why London is where it is). The construction of Bazalgette’s sewage system and parts of the Underground system required the creation of the Thames Embankment, which does, predictably, cause the water to flow much more rapidly between London and Southwark than it would have done previously and hence be less likely to freeze. The mediaeval London Bridge, which survived until the eighteenth century, looked like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, but it had, according to a print I have, fourteen arches *. I think those would also have assisted the freezing of an already languid river.

      * I was in the neighbourhood of London Bridge today, but failed to count the arches – definitely a lot fewer than fourteen of them.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        There is certainly a history with the number of arches originally reaching 20, then some combined, some collapsing due to ice, the fire, the rebuilds and now it looks like five arches as in Rennie’s original design but reinforced concrete. The other bridges also have fewer arches so you make a good point that a slow river was blocked by many narrow spans at the limit of those technologies.

        At the same time you make the point that narrows actually speed up the flow, which could counter that argument. The last ice festival was 1814, the nineteenth century. The centre span was widened in 1762 leading to a rapid deepening of the channel and erosion of the other piers which had to be continually loaded with gravel. Ice though forms on the top and river can flow very quickly at depth. It needs to be sufficiently cold to form ice. The peasouper fogs too have vanished too.

        30

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          You’re right, of course, and I don’t dispute the Little Ice Age. My point was simply that the Thames Frost Fairs have other partial explanations. It’s a very good point about 1814, because I think there would have been three Thames bridges (London, Westminster, Blackfriars) by then, rather than the jealously guarded single bridge of earlier centuries. They would all have had much broader arches than the London Bridge of seventeenth century prints. Having said that, the Thames was still extraordinarily shallow.

          30

  • #
    el gordo

    The science should be falsifiable if the pause continues for another decade, but on the other hand the warmists could argue that human induced CO2 has over-powered a cool sun and its going to get really nasty as soon as the damper comes off.

    102

    • #

      The cessation of further warming is already longer than the period of warming; which wasn’t continuous over a period of 30 years anyway; the WMO average for “climate”.

      50

    • #
      Mari

      EG – the pundits are already claiming AGW (Global Warming version) has/is slowing the next ice age – perhaps with a hint of prevention?

      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807 for one example. I noticed the first article some time last week, can’t recall its print date, though.

      And more folks are spewing hot air about how hot 2015 was and 2016 will be. I think it is the same few articles being passed around news outlets, though. Headlines have gone from “Warmer” “Hotter” to “Hottest EVAH” and verbiage claiming 2015 “smashed” all records is getting bolder. Sigh.

      00

  • #
    Ron

    Looks like the hockey stick lives ;)

    80

    • #
      Robk

      The cumulative CO2 emission “hockey stick” is a bookkeeping exercise an only exists “on paper”. No carbon has been created or destroyed.

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        A small amount has been released from accidental sequestration……

        Back to where it belongs… in the CARBON CYCLE.

        112

  • #
    Joe V.

    Jo, Where are the Hi-Res Vostok Ice Core graphs I used to refer to regularly on your site ?

    10

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    I plotted up your data. From 1940 to 1950 the CO2 content stayed the same at 311 ppm. The percentage of current gross produced CO2 went from 12.0% to 15.4%.

    So what gives? During WWII, you’d have expected more CO2 in the atmosphere from all the military activity, including burning cities etc. So where did the emissions go?

    110

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yeah, surely all that extra CO2 would have trapped all that extra heat from burning, in the atmosphere.

      But it cooled after WWII.

      92

    • #
      Joe V.

      I know the range here doesn’t cover the 1940s, but see how cumulative CO2 changes track the temperature http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4240

      50

    • #
      el gordo

      The period covering WW2 was very warm, so it seems reasonable to suspect there was a lot more out-gassing from the oceans.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/engelbeen4-6.jpg

      30

      • #

        The period covering WW2 was very warm

        Tell it to those who survived Stalingrad.

        (Note the huge error bars from the mid 1940′s through to the 1950′s)

        40

        • #
          el gordo

          It was a disaster and a turning point in the war, 100,000 killed and another 100,000 sent to the gulag, but was it a global cooling signal?

          This from Net Weather TV:

          ’1937-42: These years were all snowy, with numerous falls of 1-2ft, and occasional falls (such as 1940-41) in which snow depths of up to 16 foot (drifts) were recorded. Places worst affected by this mini outbreak of snowy winters were Scotland and Northern England, but the South was also quite badly affected, more particularly the South West and Wales. 1939-40 saw the supposed ‘blizzard of the decade’ in Scotland and England when in late January snow fell widely, excluding only some areas. The snowy period ended in 1942-43, when little snow was recorded the next 2 winters.’

          Gives us a glimpse of the wayward jet stream, so I’ll follow this up and see what the oscillations were doing. It has the fingerprint of regional cooling all over it, thanks for drawing it to my attention.

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            Try 1.2 million killed, perhaps many more. I was there a few months ago. The core German Sixth Army was lost 250,000+ but also the allies, French, Croatian, Romanian, Italian and even Russians, another 350,000. So closer to 600,000 on the German side and perhaps double that on the Russian side with not a step backwards and that is just around Stalingrad itself. You had Operation Blue in the Caucuses, the rescue mission to the Kessel and the flight from the Caucuses, Rostov, the Crimea and the rearguard actions and the partisans in the rear. The winter was the worst in memory, as it was for Napoleon in 1812. All due to CO2 I suppose, the greatest moral challenge in a generation.

            51

            • #
              ROM

              Some WW2 researchers put the German armies losses at Stalingrad and its immediate surrounding battles at close to 850,000 including 85,000 POWS of which only 5000 returned to Germany in the early 1950′s.
              The Russians were a bit shocked as there were about three times the numbers of German Sixth Army troops in the Stalingrad pocket after it was closed than the Russian intelligence had estimated.

              The Luftwaffe lost one third scarce transport aircraft trying to supply the cut off Sixth Army.
              Lost to both the Russian Airforce and to the continuous heavy icing and severe cold weather which caused a very large number of crashes.

              A Russian technique to start frozen aircraft engines was to put a tray of aviation fuel on the ground under the engine and light it.
              A few minutes of flames boiling up around the engine nacelle and hit the starter and away she would go.

              The grease used in the German light weapons froze. The Russians had no problems. They used an anti freeze oil for their weapons.

              20

              • #

                The grease used in the German light weapons froze. The Russians had no problems. They used an anti freeze oil for their weapons.

                Graphite, IIRC. Unsophisticated but it worked well enough for the Kalashnikov.

                00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    This headline is the killer apprisal for the whole argument.

    After fighting the spell checker, which wanted me to use appraisal, I’ll throw it in too for good measure.

    50

    • #

      There have been others. In combination they are sufficient evidence (for normal people at least) to rule out CO2 as a driver of anything other than taxation.

      70

  • #
    Neville

    Roy Spencer fairly recently reminded everyone that an increase of co2 of about 100 ppm since 1750 was about 1 part co2 to 10,000 parts of the atmosphere. Sure the extremists will howl that it’s the accumulation that’s caused their CAGW but where is the evidence? But anyway where is their catastrophic AGW ?
    Don’t forget that Hansen and others claim that 350 ppm is the number to aim for, but would that make a scrap of difference to the climate, SLR, extreme events, polar ice, PDO/ENSO,etc, etc? Of course it wouldn’t make any difference at all? But they still want to waste endless trillions of dollars to try and prove their point. As mad as hatters the lot of them.

    153

    • #
      AndyG55

      There is only on chemical reaction that FEEDS the world..

      that is PHOTOSYNTHESIS

      This requires H2O, CO2 and sunlight (or its equivalent)

      Below about 200ppm, many plants cannot carry out this single MOST IMPORTANT chemical reaction

      Even at the current 400ppm (approx., the atmospheric CO2 level is still VERY LOW

      153

    • #
      Mari

      “that an increase of co2 of about 100 ppm since 1750 was about 1 part co2 to 10,000 parts of the atmosphere.”

      Sounds like homeopathic ratios.

      10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it.

    With nothing to show for it? This is inexcusable. We’ll have to rectify it at once. We can’t let all that fuel be burned up for nothing. So quick, everyone, turn up your thermostats and turn on all your heat generating appliances, run your car engines, anything to generate heat. We’ve got to see if we can raise the Earth’s temperature to where it should be.

    30% all wasted is a tragedy as bad as the 97% of scientists who agree that the Earth is warming. Help! ;-)

    82

  • #
    Richard

    Great work Jo. Of course warmists have a million excuses ready at hand.

    Some time ago I did a similar thing and compared human CO2 emissions to the warming periods since 1860. I got the CO2 emissions data from CDIAC as you did and the warming periods from the Phil Jones BBC Q&A in 2010 that you can find online. This is what I got:

    Time Period——-Length in Years——-Trend/Decade——-Total CO2 Emitted
    1860-1880—————–21———————–0.163C—————12 Gigatonnes
    1910-1940—————–31———————–0.150C—————110 Gigatonnes
    1975-1998—————–24———————–0.166C—————148 Gigatonnes
    1975-2009—————–35———————–0.161C—————770 Gigatonnes

    So, all that extra CO2 we have been pumping into the atmosphere has pretty much made no difference to the rate of warming.

    161

    • #
      Richard

      Opps. 148 Gigatonnes should be 440.

      50

    • #
      me@home

      Richard, Is the last period meant to overlap the previous one and it would be interesting to see the same comparison for the missing years – 1881-1909; 1941-1974

      20

      • #
        Richard

        Yes, they’re meant to overlap. I should point out that the 440 ‘corrected’ figure should actually be 480. Gosh, I can’t even copy information from my blog correctly. I wish I could copy-and-paste but that’s not an option on the Xbox 360. I posted the above info on WattsUpWithThat last year in the comments of the topic ‘Attribution of Surplus CO2 in Atmosphere’ and on my ‘Digging into the Core’ blog. I would have just linked it if I had the power to copy-and-paste the URL. I wish I had that power :(

        00

  • #

    There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on temperature in the atmosphere but there is ample evidence of the benefits of extra CO2 in the atmosphere on plants. There is evidence that higher temperatures cause extra CO2 in the atmosphere but no measure of how much CO2 that people and industry have added permanently to the atmosphere. There is no need to panic.

    153

  • #
    AndyG55

    “When we hear that it’s the warmest summer since 1939″

    That is highly debateable.

    102

    • #
      AndyG55

      Down here, November and December where both in 13th place in UAH.

      The much adjusted, twisted, homogenated, BOM may have a different result,
      but we have all seen what they try to do with the past temperatures.

      143

      • #
        ROM

        When reading the BOM’s 2015 Annual Climate statement at the link as given below, remember that very interesting statistic that the temperature data, suitably belted into shape by the mathematical and climate modelling manipulation division from Australia’s BOM and NZ’s NIWA , accounts for close to ONE QUARTER of the global temperature data.

        BOM’s Annual climate statement [ for ] 2015

        2015 was Australia’s fifth-warmest year on record, while national rainfall was slightly below average according to data collected and analysed by the Bureau of Meteorology.
        2015 was another warm year, especially during the last three months.

        Strong El Niño, comparable to the El Niño events of 1997–98 and 1982–83

        Overall, it was Australia’s fifth-warmest year on record with the annual national mean temperature 0.83 °C above average

        Warmest October on record nationally, for both maxima and minima, with the largest mean temperature anomaly on record for any month

        Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales ranked in the ten warmest years on record

        And to add salt to the wound;

        The Australian area-averaged mean temperature for 2015 was 0.83 °C above the 1961–1990 average.

        A very, very convenient cold period to compare against as the 1950′s 1960′s and most of the 1970′s were bloody cold here in SE Australia.
        I spent enough hours in open field work on tractors and etc to testify to that
        And around 1970 for a few minutes I saw the only snow almost falling on our property north of Horsham in west Vic’s Wimmera that I have ever seen there before or since.
        The snow flakes actually dissipated a few metres up just before reaching the ground

        And I grew up and lived and worked on that property from 1948 to 1998

        So Australia supposedly had only its Fifth warmest year on record in 2015
        The record being based on the period beginning in 1910.

        And yet the Karlized temperature claims are that 2015 globally, was the Warmest Year Evah despite one quarter of the Earth’s surface temperature data, Australia’s, ever upward adjusted temperature data indicating it was officially only the fifth warmest year in Australia and its quarter of the Earth’s surface..

        There are lies, damn lies and statistics and Karl and Schmidt have indulged themselves in the lot in this case.

        101

        • #
          Robert R

          Very well put ROM. This misrepresentation of weather data is not only scurrilous because it is changed from the original (homogenised), but also because of the way the data is collected and recorded. In reality, technology does not exist to collect weather data accurately enough to make any extrapolations or predictions by analysing it, especially the type of predictions the war mists make.
          An excellent download pdf from SCMSA in Paris at this link, presented here before, explains why meaningful temperature data does not exist and can’t be collected (even though many claim it does).
          http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
          As an analyst myself, I’ve never read such a good explanation as this about why weather data is mostly meaningless for analysis purposes and why it can’t be collected properly. It is incredible that these people are presenting any weather data at all (homogenised or not) as if it is has any real real meaning or significance. It is just not accurate enough.

          21

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Merkel is fixing the Euro against any currency.

    I know this off topic, but….

    Generally I am big fan of Germany, but these days I am not.
    There is suppression and people are being muzzled for their outspoken opinions.
    In addition Merkel is fixing the exchange rate against the Euro.
    in an effort to bolster the failing currency she has set exchange rates that exceed the norm.
    the USD which trades at 1.08 can only be exchanged for unity.

    It is very disturbing

    102

    • #
      Dennis

      Merkel is cooperating with her international socialist comrades with instructions from the EU comrades, with one world government by four regions the ultimate goal. But in between times economies must be undermined, capitalism collapsed and social disruption achieved so that our new controllers and managers can offer us their solution.

      70

    • #

      Merkel is fixing the Euro against any currency

      She can’t do that. Such things are the exclusive purvey of the European Central Bank (ECB).

      Check your sources!

      42

      • #
        Robert R

        Even Mario Draghi can’t do that, the Euro is a free floating currency. Some currency exchangers do make a killing on the spread though (which is the difference between the buy and the sell price).

        30

      • #
        ScotsmaninUtah

        I am in Germany my sources are reliable please check your out of date opinions

        00

        • #

          I suggest that you misunderstood. We can’t help you unless you state the source.
          ECB says that the rates aren’t set that way. But then, what would they know?

          Let’s count, In German:


          Eins!
          Zwei!
          Drei!
          Bier!

          Prost!

          00

  • #
    Don B

    By 1892, only 2.2% of total emissions caused the Glacier Bay glacier to retreat 50 miles. That early carbon dioxide was powerful. :)

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/glacier-bay-ice-retreated-50-miles-between-1780-and-1892/

    You don’t suppose natural variability and solar cycles have anything to do with climate change, do you?

    160

    • #
      AndyG55

      Don Easterbrook did a study on the Mt Baker glaciers using USGS data.

      Despite being on the other side of the country, there is a very good match to the AMO.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/13/mt-baker-glaciers-disappearing-a-response-to-the-seattle-times/

      52

    • #
      Don B

      By 1772, CO2 emissions had accumulated about 0% of all emissions.

      “January 28, 1772: This storm was named the Washington and Jefferson Snow Storm since both of their diaries recorded it. The storm left 36 inches of snow (3 feet) in central and northern Virginia and the Washington area. Official weather records did not begin until after the Civil War. Therefore, this storm is not listed as the record, but it was the largest snow for this area ever noted.”

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/22/flashback-1772-dc-largest-snowstorm-ever-noted-36-inches-washingtons-historic-winter-storms-and-cold-waves-national-weather-service/

      20

    • #
      Don B

      When future Atlantic hurricanes elicit the inevitable warmist comments about CO2 causing them, it is well to remember history during the low CO2 era:

      The Great Tempest of 1879–One of the strongest east coast hurricanes of the 19th century, the storm slammed ahsore in Eastern North Carolina on August 18th. It produced wind gusts of 138 miles per hour at Cape Lookout with gusts up to 168 miles per hour. Wind instruments from Cape Lookout to Cape Hatteras to Cape Henry in Virginia are devastated.

      Indianola Hurricane of 1886–Destroyed what had been the leading port city in Texas at the time on August 19-20, 1886. Indianola, which was located in Matagorda Bay, was hit by this storm, and another one a bit more than a month later. As a result, business that previously came into that port, moved up the coast to Galveston, which became the prominent port city in the Lone Star State until it was devastated by the Great Hurricane of 1900.

      Galveston Hurricane of 1900–The deadliest natural disaster in United States History, this Category Four Hurricane moved through Cuba into the Gulf of Mexico before slamming ashore in Galveston, Texas on September 8, 1900 killing 6,000 people.

      http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html

      30

  • #
    StefanL

    Interesting, but CO2′s greenhouse effect (blocking of outgoing long-wave radiation, OLR) is a logarithmic function of CO2 concentration. So what does the logarithm of that CO2 emissions curve look like ?

    40

  • #

    If you believe there is such a things as a global temp based on min/max (world’s most “clouded” statistic), that global temp, as shown in many graphs, started its big climb after 1910. The carbophobes actually like to show these graphs as proof of something or other. Is it proof that Big Steam started our problems and Big Paraffin made things much worse?

    Or maybe a warmie’s eyes can only go to the top right of any page?

    80

  • #
    Rick Will

    US east coast blizzard was attributable to more CO2 in the atmosphere according to Michael Mann:
    “Take unusually warm Atlantic ocean surface temperatures (temperatures are in the 70s off the coast of Virginia), add a cold Arctic outbreak (something we’ll continue to get even as global warming proceeds), mix them together and you get huge amounts of energy and moisture, and monster snowfalls,” said Michael Mann, a climate researcher who directs Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, in an interview prior to the storm’s arrival in Washington.

    From this article:
    http://mashable.com/2016/01/23/blizzard-of-2016/

    So more snow is due to more CO2 – that is what burning carbon does.

    40

  • #
    Neville

    The US govts EIA shows the extra co2 emitted since 1980. But if we start at 1990 we find OECD countries were emitting about 11.6 bn tonnes pa and the non OECD ( China, India etc) were emitting about 9.9 bn tonnes pa. That’s a total of 21.5 billion tonnes pa in 1990.
    Next if we go to 2012 (last listed) we find that the OECD is emitting about 12.9 bn tonnes and the no OECD has jumped to 19.5 bn tonnes , for a total of 32.4 bn tonnes. Note the OECD has increased by just 1.3 bn tonnes and the non OECD has increased by 9.6 bn tonnes, or 7.3 times more than the OECD in just 22 years. And India plans to double coal use by 2020. Little wonder that Dr Hansen called COP 21 a fr–d and BS. So I ask why can’t the rest of the scientists and pollies add up simple sums? What do we pay them for?

    100

  • #
    Casey

    The problem is that their brainwashing is supremely good – they all believe the “hottest year” thing, every time some Muppet spouts it.

    When we say what you’ve said here it just reinforces their delusion – “hottest year”??? + “Human CO2???” = “Oh Noes, we must be responsible”.

    We need to face facts – we are losing the battle, stupidity is winning…

    20

  • #
    Rosco

    Simon Says – “Climate Science 101:
    Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the atmosphere system.
    CO2 increases temperature, which results in more water vapour and some outgassing of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.
    At equilibrium, net forcing = 0.”

    But he is wrong

    Climate Science 101 from http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html says that 239.7 watts per square metre from the Sun combines with 239.7 watts per square metre atmospheric back radiation – primarily due to water vapour and CO2 – to cause the surface to heat to 303 Kelvin where it emits 478 watts per square metre.

    Of course there is the usual reasons why the earth’s surfaces aren’t that hot.

    But they somehow miss the obvious indisputable fact that their model explicitly says atmospheric back radiation has equal heating power to the Sun – Trenberth et al say it is more powerful.

    That is absurd – or else our engineers are the stupidest people on Earth for failing to make solar thermal power stations work when the pathetic solar radiation sets with the Sun.

    72

    • #
      tom0mason

      Rosco,

      But they somehow miss the obvious indisputable fact that their model explicitly says atmospheric back radiation has equal heating power to the Sun – Trenberth et al say it is more powerful.

      If Trenberth et al were correct, then surely that solar thermal power stations will work both in the Sun and by atmospheric back radiation heating at night.

      31

  • #
    Neville

    Anthony Watts has a good article about a former Gore forecast that the earth should be stuffed by now. He used a Business Investor Daily claim that Al Gore has been running a global warming ra-ket. He lists their 5 points as proof of Gore’s ra-ket and adds his own points as well. At the end he calls Gore a bare faced li-r.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/25/state-of-the-climate-10-years-after-al-gore-declared-a-planetary-emergency-top-10-reasons-gore-was-wrong/

    61

  • #
    nofixedaddress

    Further to Tdef’s post at #3 above.

    Has anyone actually looked at, reviewed the whole calculations biz that supposedly determines atmospheric CO2ppm?

    For instance, how do they calculate the mass of the atmosphere for 1751?

    And, must be convenient to base your early data on 3 ice core samples from the South Pole and then shift your measuring to a Northern Hemisphere location, specifically volcanic sites, for the ‘modern’ era.

    I call bull!

    51

  • #
    chrism

    Great graphic
    looks logarithmic
    presumably it’s going to straighten and then flatten, and then dwindle
    as we find a way to make cheaper fuel over the next 50 years
    When will we reach peak CO2 ?
    Peak CO2 I think will be when India starts to seriously convert to nuclear
    (ideally thorium) and will be (a guess) 2100
    I would like this graphic and the best global temperature and CO2 levels (estimated) over this period in a single graph – is there one?

    20

  • #
    Paul Bamford

    Thanks Jo, Ive been looking for this data

    20

  • #
    John

    What pause?

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

    [John, the rules here insist that some text comment(s) be added to a post with a link. I'm letting this through because I believe it is your first post here. In the future please add some comment otherwise it becomes 'my link beats your link'. Not very helpful.]ED

    210

    • #
      AndyG55

      roflmao..

      You do know that graph is based purely on models.

      If not, please explain how the heat content of the whole ocean was measured in 1960, when we only just have very minimal ability now.

      Can’t find anything on this new computer, but ARGO raw measurements don’t show any warming.

      And btw, what temperature change do you think that graph represents.? No idea, have you.

      Ask yourself why they don’t display the modelled change in degrees C. !

      154

      • #
        John

        Hi Andy,

        Thanks very much for your reply. I am aware calculations have to be made to turn the raw data into a graph.

        I had hoped anyone that challenged the science behind the NOAA graph would do so using links to peer-reviewed science instead of simply stating their dislike for modelling. Did you know a model is also used for the RSS temperatures?

        You would be more convincing if you could show, using science, how the methods used by Levitus are incorrect.

        OHC is typically measured in joules. How this heat could convert into surface temps was described by Levitus.

        “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

        518

        • #
          Joe V.

          The attempt to dismiss algorithms used in satellite measurement on the performance of failed Climate models is amateurish and reprehensible. The consistency of satellite’s data with radiosonde observstions is yet further demonstration of the inefficacy of Climate models.

          143

          • #
            John

            Hi Joe,

            Did you mean to reply to me? I’m not dismissing the algorithms used in satellite measurement.

            It would be very unscientific to reply on just one set of data or to cherry pick start dates.

            315

            • #
              Joe V.

              Don’t take it personally, to your point Did you know a model is also used for the RSS temperatures? as recently popularised in a media release from Scientists who should know better when preaching to the scientifically untrained.

              121

              • #
                John

                Oh I don’t take it personally – I’m not a gambling man. I heed what 97% of climate scientists say.

                You haven’t attempted to address any of my points, not even my first remark of OHC, with any peer-reviewed science.

                Don’t take it personally.

                512

              • #
                Joe V.

                Surely not ! All 75 of them ? And they they agree with you. That’s amazing. You ought to get out more.

                112

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I heed what 97% of climate scientists say.”

                The fact that you are still using that piece of junk says all that is needed about your scientific aptitude and relevance… ZERO !

                83

              • #

                John
                January 26, 2016 at 11:03 pm

                “Oh I don’t take it personally – I’m not a gambling man. I heed what 97% of climate scientists say.”

                Climate Alchemy!

                “You haven’t attempted to address any of my points, not even my first remark of OHC, with any peer-reviewed science.

                Does anyone now accept the disgraced “peer review” as valid?

                73

              • #
                John

                Oh please gentlemen, stop bombarding me with all of your evidence! :)

                35

              • #
                AndyG55

                Oh please John, stop bombarding us with your hypothetical, model-based propaganda.

                43

            • #
              Matty

              The satellite records began c. 1979, since when there has been one step change in GAT, around El Niño 1997/98 in both of them. Performance of the repeatedly adjusted & 2/3 infilled surface record against real satellite measurements since their inception to present leaves little confidence in portrayals of GAT anomaly before that.

              101

              • #
                John

                Both surface and satellite data show warming, as does the OHC.

                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/

                What’s your point? That if I ignore most datasets and only focus on one, and only from a cherry picked start date, then there has been no warming? To use an Andyism “roflmao”

                512

              • #
                Matty

                John,
                You’re “roflmao”ing at your own absurdity. The entirety of two independent satellite records that say the same thing & concur with the radiosondes is not a cherrypick. People can make their own judgements about the veracity of all the 66% made up data series.

                123

              • #
                AndyG55

                John.. are you a monkey with a ruler?

                Unthinkingly putting a linear trend across step changes without showing any understanding is low-end, but apparently all you have the intelligence to do.

                In fact, the ONLY warming in the satellite record is from the NON-CO2 forced 1997-2001 El Nino event, as step change of about 0.26ºC.

                Up until the current NON-CO2 forced El Nino, the slight warming before that event has been essentially cancelled by the cooling after.

                http://s19.postimg.org/ojf5tbz1v/RSS_cancel.jpg

                There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signature in the whole 37 years of the satellite data.

                Either try to understand the reality.. or just be another monkey.

                84

              • #
                John

                Matty, people are entitled to make up their own minds. Those that believe in conspiracies wish to pretend it’s not happening.

                People like myself are mentally stronger and don’t shy away from the data and the scientific method that shows warming via numerous lines of evidence.

                Glacier melt, ice sheet melt, animal and plant life moving polewards and to higher elevations, the ENTIRE satellite record, surface temperatures, ocean heat content, sea level rise due to thermal expansion. All point to a warming planet.

                You might have a hard time coming to grips with that – I’m tougher than you are. I can admit that we, myself included, have been responsible for warming this planet.

                AndyG55, that’s the funniest cherry pick of trends I have ever seen. Thanks!

                38

              • #
                AndyG55

                Gees, you really are brainwashed if you can’t make sense of climate events yet.

                Just keep drawing those meaningless straight lines through an event/cyclic/chaotic system

                Its shows a very low understanding of climate, but hey, if its all you are capable of…. ;-)

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                “People like myself are mentally stronger

                You seriously are fooling yourself, aren’t you. :-)

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                “All point to a warming planet.”

                NATURALLY. We had this little event called the LIA. Maybe you have heard of it.

                By all reports, it was cold and rather nasty.

                As the world has warmed, totally naturally, out of the LIA, weather has generally become more benign.

                You really do have to stop drinking the climate kool-aide, open up your brain-washed mind, and actually start to use it.

                Did you know that the only warming event in the whole satellite record was the 1998-2001 EL Nino? It was totally unrelated to any CO2 non-warming.

                That means that there is NO CO2 WARMING signature in the whole of the satellite temperature period. NONE, NADA, ZIP.

                Apart from that, the alarmist models say the troposphere should warm faster than the surface.. so they are WRONG AGAIN.

                And even the much fudged and fabricated and adjusted surface data sets are only following Hansen’s ZERO CO2 scenario and are WAY below the so-called “climate models”. Reality BITES.

                62

              • #
                John

                Ahhh. Interesting. So Andy goes from “It’s not warming” to “Yes it’s warming – of course, it’s natural”.

                Unfortunately, even though you’ve made progress, the science still doesn’t support you position.

                Attribution studies show we’re the caus.

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

                27

              • #
                AndyG55

                “goes from “It’s not warming” to “Yes it’s warming – of course, it’s natural”.”

                So you think that is what “IF” means, do you. You are that dumb !!

                you really are a low-level, low-intellect, non-science operative, aren’t you

                But we knew that as soon as you used the 97% meme.. the mark of a brain-dead climate alarmist.

                And then you link to SkS…. roflmao…

                You really don’t want to be taken seriously, do you !!!

                62

              • #
                John

                Gosh, more name calling and still no science or evidence from Andy.

                I’m starting to see a trend.

                27

              • #
                AndyG55

                Its not name calling if its just drawing attention to the obvious.

                If you don’t want to be considered a waste of space brain-dead alarmist hack, don’t use the 897% meme (do you really think that was any sort of “science”)

                and don’t link to the tripe from SkS. They are the two biggest give-aways that you have zero scientific acumen.

                —-

                Oh, btw, you do realise that even IF you do accept that Levitus OHC graph, it totally destroys Trenberth’s “missing heat” myth. Don’t let that worry you though, I’m sure one of your priests will come up with something else..

                Buckets, maybe ?

                62

              • #
                John

                I posted a link to Ocean Heat Content as evidence of a warming planet

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

                And since then there’s been a lot of gesturing, but not one single person here has been able to use any science to counter Levitus.

                24

              • #
                AndyG55

                You do know that this TINY amount of ocean warming modelled by Levitus is FAR less than that predicted by the climate models, don’t you. ;-)

                OOPS.. you didn’t know that either. ;-)

                It DISPROVES the climate models, just like real temperatures do

                32

              • #
                John

                Oh, let me guess, you read this on a blog somewhere on the interweb so therefore it must be true.

                :) :) :) :) :) :)

                23

            • #
              tom0mason

              John,

              Sorry but no you appear not to be strong minded but just someone who believes that they can make a direct correlation to causation relationship where such does not exist.

              You say you are not afraid of reading science, then start here go through the links and finally come back and explain how predictions in such systems are made.

              After that explain exactly how land-based surface thermometer temperature records can tell so more than just mere local effects when this planet’s surface is 2/3 water.

              52

              • #
                John

                tomomason, you appear to be confused.

                I posted a link to Ocean Heat Content as evidence of a warming planet

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

                And since then there’s been a lot of gesturing, but not one single person here has been able to use any science to counter Levitus.

                Oh there’s a lot of name calling, wishful thinking, conspiracy claims, but no evidence or science to counter the OHC graph.

                The planet still warms.

                28

              • #
                AndyG55

                There are no measurements to confirm that paper either. Its MODELS based on HYPOTHEITCAL ASSUMPTIONS

                And the amount of warming, even IF the hypothetical assumptions that the paper uses in its models are correct (lol), are absolutely immeasurable and unimportant, as we climb out of the LIA… to somewhere below the temps of the MWP.

                But as it seems to be only thing you can hang your brain-washing on….. just keep your gullibility going.

                62

              • #
                John

                Andy – you forgot your link to the peer-reviewed science – again. :) :)

                27

              • #
                AndyG55

                And did you know that even RealClimate admit that doubling atmospheric CO2 will only raise the ocean temps by 0.002C !!

                http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html

                Seem you forget to look at the science, rather than the SkS propaganda.

                62

              • #
                tom0mason

                John you are confused, nature has countered Levitus with an extended pause.

                41

              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                Gees, there’s that SCARY 0.09ºC in 55 years again.. really has got little Johnny obsessed !!!

                Little johnny still thinks that 0.09C in 55 years is like HUGE and SCARY !

                Still hasn’t realised that its the tail-end of warming from the LIA, which was the coldest period of the last 10,000 years.
                (Warming we can be very thankful of, btw)

                Little johnny is not very bright !!!

                How about some REAL data for one part of the ocean

                Real Data from ARGO..

                (sorry little johnny, I know you are SCARED of REAL DATA, probably even more than you are SCARED of 0.09C ocean warming in 55 years….
                thems the breaks, though)

                33

              • #
                John

                Still struggling to rebut the data hey?

                But quite capable of cherry picking! :)

                Why hide from all of the data Andy?

                34

              • #
                AndyG55

                Johnny boy.. you haven’t produce ANY data… just a model outcome.

                and it shows a totally meaningless 0.09C over 55 years with goodness know what error margins. DOH !!!!!

                You are just way to dumb to realise it.

                You never did any science at high school , did you. !

                33

              • #
                John

                More science and less attempted insults would benefit you – or at least think of some new ones.

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

                “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

                34

              • #
                AndyG55

                ROFLMAO..

                Did someone hire you to make a MOCKERY of climate alarmists.

                Because you are being underpaid if they did.

                You are succeeding in spades, doing much damage to the alarmista cult in the process.

                Why do you think I have kept you going :-) ;-)

                Tell me, child-mind… what is the probability of the ocean releasing all that modelled hypothetical energy instantly?

                A comment like that should have been immediately chopped from any reasonable scientific paper as being irrelevant and a load on hogwash.

                Your continued highlighting of it brings it to the fore as a totally non-science comment from a dubious assumption driven model… and I thank you kindly for that.

                You have been trolled into exposing your absolute ignorance and stupidity in every aspect of your understanding of climate science.

                Its on the web, and the web remembers. :-)

                Sleep well, child-mind. !! :-)

                24

              • #
                John

                Well at least you came up with some new remarks, but sadly you still couldn’t find the link to any science to rebut the remark and support your claims.

                :) :) :) :)

                35

              • #
                AndyG55

                Every remark you made HAS been rebutted.

                You have produce ZERO data, just a singular modelled, almost infinitesimal warming in the oceans.

                Is that seriously ALL you have ?

                Its a pretty poor effort from you, that’s for sure

                34

              • #
                John

                “Is not!” might be a rebuttal to a five year old, but not to the scientific world.

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

                “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

                The planet’s warming.

                44

              • #
                John

                Come on Andy. Show me the Science!

                :) :) :) :) :) :)

                34

              • #
                AndyG55

                OH OK. The model says that…..

                This watery planet is warming at 0.09C per 55 years..

                OK !!!!

                Now everyone……. PANIC !

                34

              • #
                John

                You repeatedly get this wrong.

                The 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean has warmed by 0.09°C – that equates to 36°C if that energy instead went to the atmosphere.

                PANIC? No need, but we do need to take action on carbon pollution.

                43

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao.. you really are a funny little troll, thanks for the clown act. :-)

                And just when do you think this instantaneous release is going to happen.?

                Atmosphere and oceans strive for equilibrium.. The most effect it can have is 0.09C of warming

                IMMEASURABLE.

                34

              • #
                John

                Keep up Already answered that dirt for brains! :) :) :) :)

                33

              • #
                John

                The most effect it can have is 0.09C of warming

                Please supply the science to support this claim of yours. I find it utterly stupid since you seem to be confusing the temperature of the 0-2000 with some “maximum possible” value.

                Oh that’s right – YOU CAN’T PRODUCE ANY SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS BECAUSE YOU’RE A DuCKWIT!

                33

              • #
                AndyG55

                I can’t help it if you have zero grasp of thermal transfers.

                The oceans are a huge sink for energy.

                The mythical CO2 back radiation would be long-wave radiation, and so would have zero warming effect on open water.

                You didn’t know that either, did you.. Oh dearie me. :-(

                The science is there.. go and learn it, don’t expect other to spoon-feed you.

                See you 10-15 years, by then, you may actually know something…. Or not.

                33

              • #
                John

                Once again you are exposed for being full of it.

                :) :) :) :) :) :)

                33

              • #
                AndyG55

                Once again you are exposed as being empty of it.

                Go back and do John Cook’s climate 101 again, because you are failing miserably, even by his standards.

                33

        • #
          AndyG55

          “If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere “

          (did that really get through peer-review?.. seriously !!!)

          Anyone that would make such a stupid statement needs to go back to junior school and should immediately be dismissed as a alarmist crank.

          Even if the tiny 0.09°C in 60 or so years is actually real and not some modelling assumption artefact.. so what..

          There was this period called the LIA.. be very thankful of the slight warming we have had. Or do you choose to live in Siberia?

          And above all John.. grow-up and DON’T PANIC !!!

          83

          • #
            John

            What no science to counter the scientific claim? Only more rhetoric?

            38

            • #
              AndyG55

              Yep, its all you have.

              A statement like that is totally un-scientific, and never belongs in a serious, properly reviewed paper. Its hypothetical nonsense.

              If you think it does belong, I can only assume you missed out on most of your science in you high-school years. Low-end arts or something, is my guess.

              63

              • #
                John

                Yes, all I have is the science showing how much heat the ocean has accumulated.

                All you have is a weakness, an inability to cope with reality.

                36

              • #
                AndyG55

                It is model based driven by hypothesis and supposition.

                Show us the measurements from 1960, where they are able to measure to nearest 1/100 of a degree.

                if not.. you are just blowing empty suppositions and imagination.

                And as I said.. even if 0.09C ocean warming is correct.. SO WHAT !!!!

                Its unmeasurable and meaningless considering that we have been climbing out of the LIA for the last couple of hundred years.

                63

              • #
                John

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

                The planet warms and you’ve no science to counter the claim.

                You say it’s natural, but offer no science to support your position.

                You now say it’s wrong wrong wrong, but again offer no science or evidence.

                36

              • #
                AndyG55

                RealClimate say that doubling atmospheric CO2 can only raise ocean by 0.002ºC.

                http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/realclimate-admits-doubling-co2-could.html

                As the atmospheric CO2 has nowhere near doubled, let’s say for the sake of argument, that it has forced ocean temps to rise 0.001ºC

                The rest is obviously natural.

                SO ok, 0.089ºC of natural modelled ocean warming. and 0.001ºC from our CO2.

                Where’s your next bit of propaganda coming from ?

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                Did you also know that oceans have been significantly warmer than now during the past 10,000 years ?

                http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/new-paper-finds-pacific-ocean-has-been.html

                Must have been our fault as well, hey

                62

              • #
                AndyG55

                Like in the Arctic, where bio-proxies clearly show that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, an ice-free summer Arctic was the norm,

                How have the failed predictions from Al Gore and his minions worked out for ‘ice-free’ recently. ;-)

                You see the problem you have is that we are still actually in a cold period of the current interglacial, with most of the last 10,000 years being warmer than now.

                You can focus on the tiny period of warming since the coldest period of the last 10,000 years, and prove yourself to be non-thinking, ill-educated alarmist troll, or you can face the reality that nothing in climate at the moment is out of the ordinary or unusual.

                62

              • #
                John

                Andy, blog pages on the internet are no substitute for actual science. ;)

                35

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor johnny-boy can’t follow links.

                When will you learn !!!

                Either you can counter the facts in the two posts above, and accept that we are at the cool end of the current interglacial…

                or you can stick to your childish propaganda pap. !

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                Here’s a little video from an actual scientist on the cold face.

                https://vimeo.com/14366077

                Maybe if you listen and let the facts past your brain-washed miasma, you will start to comprehend.

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                Not a bad idea to let that video continue to the next one… again, you have to option of LEARNING …. or not. !!

                53

              • #
                John

                Hi Andy,

                You still didn’t address the OHC that shows dramatic recent warming of the planet.

                Off topic and regarding your video, a few points:
                - The temps shown are of Greenland, not GLOBAL. Greenland is recent decades is warming much more than the average of the planet.
                - The LIA and MWP are known to climate scientists.
                - The causes of past climate changes doesn’t automatically means they are causing todays climate change. See previous link on attribution.

                But in future, please stay on topic and come back with some published SCIENCE to support your claim that the OHC graph is incorrect.

                36

              • #
                John

                The warming is not natural.

                Here’s actual science to support my statement.

                http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831

                See how easy it is not to make stuff up. ;) Well assuming you aren’t frightened by truth.

                36

              • #
                AndyG55

                “OHC that shows dramatic recent warming of the planet.”

                roflmao… did you really write that !!

                0.09ºC in 55 years is NOT dramatic, not in anyone’s language!

                Yawn, and you are not here to tell me what I should discuss.

                I will bring up any topic I think is pertinent to try to educate you.

                You still haven’t admitted to the REALITY that we are actually at the cooler end of the current interglacial.

                REALITY is not something that you can allow past your brain-washing.

                And YAWN.. Is that the link to SkS propaganda that you posted?

                You make a mockery of yourself continuing down that line.

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                Greenland raw data proves you mistaken, yet again

                http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/greenland_pt1_fig2.JPG

                http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/greenland_jja_temp.gif

                And let me guess..

                You don’t know anything about the AMO, either. !

                Did you know that Iceland Met have pronounced 2015 the coldest year in Iceland this century?

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                ROFLMAO..

                Now you are quoting papers from Mickey Mann.

                SERIOUSLY HILARIOUS. !!!

                How embarrassing for you.

                53

              • #
                John

                Yes I did. This is what the science says, even if you can’t psychologically cope with it or scientifically rebut it and instead wish to change the topic.

                “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

                You’ve present ZERO science to support your “it’s not happening” or “it’s natural” claims, and now you’re making further irrelevant statements.

                36

              • #
                AndyG55

                this paper is a giant exercise in circular reasoning:

                1. Assume that the global surface temperature estimates are accurate; ignore the differences with the satellite atmospheric temperatures

                2.Assume that the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can be used to accurately portray probabilities

                3.Assume that the CMIP5 models adequately simulate internal variability

                4.Assume that external forcing data is sufficiently certain

                5.Assume that the climate models are correct in explaining essentially 100% of the recent warming from CO2

                IE.. The paper is load of JUNK based on other JUNK, based on even more JUNK.

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                ““We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

                This statement is a NONSENSE, IRRELEVENT statement that should never have appeared in a science paper.

                You still don’t see that, do you.

                But then, as you have shown.. science is not your forte..

                you know only propaganda.

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                Isn’t it wonderful to have YET ANOTHER SkS allocated climate drone. :-)

                This one knows even less than the last one.

                63

              • #
                John

                Oh dear Andy. You still can’t seem to find the science to back up your statements.

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

                The planet warms and you’ve no science to counter the claim.

                25

              • #
                AndyG55

                Sorry that you don’t have the scientific understanding to see the scientific nonsense of that statement.

                Not my concern.

                Why are you SO SCARED of a modelled warming of 0.09ºC in 55 years?

                And why don’t you comprehend how meaningless it is?

                Did you even read the post that shows that doubling atmospheric CO2 can only raise ocean temps by 0.002ºC?

                Did you understand it ?

                53

              • #
                John

                I understand you have trouble presenting the science to back up your figures.

                :) :) :)

                35

              • #
                AndyG55

                hey??? what, you mean the 0.09ºC in 55 years?

                Don’t you know where that comes from?

                53

              • #
                John

                Yes I do

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

                “We have estimated an increase of 24×1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F).”

                “Pause” you say? :)

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                OMG! it really like a Norwegian Blue. !!

                yes, a modelled warming of 0.09C in 55 years is a PAUSE.

                its IMMEASURABLE, and MEANINGLESS.

                The “instantaneous release” statement is a scientific nonsense, that is what the oceans actually do, control the climate by storing and releasing energy ( as in an EL Ninos).

                How any real scientist could even make such a stupid statement, amazes me.

                There is also NO PHYSICAL WAY that CO2 back radiation could cause even that tiny amount of warming.

                Estimates from the most severe IPCC hypothesis would give about 0.002C ocean warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.. its a NON-EVENT..

                But that NON-EVENT appears to occupy your whole empty mind.

                You need to see a psychiatrist.. maybe Lewy can help you ;-)

                33

              • #
                John

                You keep saying stuff without backing it up with any science what so ever!!

                And you seem to forget previous conversations.

                You keep wanting to wish it away – but the physics wont listen. The heat is on.

                23

    • #
      John

      [John, the rules here insist that some text comment(s) be added to a post with a link. I'm letting this through because I believe it is your first post here. In the future please add some comment otherwise it becomes 'my link beats your link'. Not very helpful.]ED

      At the moment it’s my link to peer-reviewed science vs their junk-talk.

      Rather than present science to counter mine, they respond with unsupported comments that only demonstrate their own inability to deal with scientific reality.

      To me they are physiologically weak, instead of accepting the reality that the planet is warming, they have a variety of excuses to help them cope. None of their excuses so far has been backed up with any peer-reviewed science.

      27

      • #
        AndyG55

        The troposphere is NOT warming, hasn’t for 18+ years.

        The last warming was a step in 1998-2001.

        From 1979-1997 there wasn’t much warming either.

        An assumption driven model says the oceans are warming at 0.09C in 55 years at the end of a rise from the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. SCARY !!!!

        The surface data is way too tainted with urban UHI, airports, infills, adjustments etc etc to tell us anything worthwhile. Its meaningless.

        There is no warming at all in the Antarctic in the last 40 years.

        Any warming in the Arctic is purely in line with the AMO.

        Every facet of the climate is well within the NATURAL VARIABILITY of the current interglacial.

        There is NOTHING out of the ordinary that is actually happening !!

        This is what you alarmist shills have yet to admit. !!

        52

        • #
          John

          Oh dear Andy. You still can’t seem to find the science to back up your statements. Instead you run for a gish-gallop of miscellaneous unsupported “thoughts”.

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

          The planet warms and you’ve no science to counter the claim.

          25

        • #
          AndyG55

          I am using your graph. Its the only point I made that is at all contentious.

          As you said “0.09C in 55 years”.. Your so-called “science” backs my comment.

          Do you have a problem with that ?

          And do you seriously find “0.09C in 55 years”, so scary and ominous, especially at the end of a climb out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.?? really??

          And why do you dismiss/ignore the science that says that ocean temperatures were considerably warmer during most of the last 10,000 years?
          papers were provided at the link.. did you ignore them as well ?

          If you don’t know that everything else in my statement is easily supported, …

          …. you better head off and do some research… and no, not on SkS. !!!

          52

          • #
            John

            Still waiting for your link to the science that support your claims.

            After this many posts, with so much opportunity I’m guessing you’re just full of make-believe.

            25

            • #
              AndyG55

              Hint, follow the link, find the paper that shows that oceans temps have been considerably warmer for most of the last 10,000 years.

              http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/new-paper-finds-pacific-ocean-has-been.html

              Antarctic temperatures
              https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/spolar.jpg

              Arctic temps early Holocene.. just use the gisp video linked earlier..
              Those are the guys actually doing the science.
              (But you will ignore them too, without a doubt.)

              No warming 1980 – 1997, (IPCC, 2001)
              https://i1.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-04-17-05-54.png

              No warming Since 2001 http://s19.postimg.org/aqoiuskvn/RSSv_UAH.jpg

              Arctic cooling apart from 2010 jump
              http://s19.postimg.org/sm42pougj/No_Pol2.jpg

              All you have to do is find the REAL DATA..
              but I know you cannot accept any of that REALITY.

              You are very obviously working from a very low knowledge base, and you need to educate yourself.

              52

              • #
                John

                blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog

                Still no science there Andy.

                Avoiding warming by labelling rises in temps as “jumps” and then ignoring them is not science.

                And still you failed to address OCEAN HEAT CONTENT. The surface temperature is NOT the same thing.

                34

              • #
                AndyG55

                I see you have zero intention of accepting easily available data.

                And you certainly don’t have the ability to find it and process it yourself.

                Ignore the REAL DATA all you want, you just makes even more of a fool of yourself.

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                If you don’t understand any of this, why not just say so, instead of IGNORING THE DATA.

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                I have addressed the OHC issue.

                its 0.09C in 55 years.. that’s what you said, wasn’t it ?

                Meaninglessly immeasurable and based on models.

                You cannot deny that temperature value, its the value you keep quoting.

                and you cannot deny it is based on models not measurements, because its says that right in the paper.

                52

              • #
                John

                Hi Andy, seeing as I posted about OCEAN HEAT CONTENT and you replied with various random cherry-picked graphs from blogger website, yes, I’ll choose not to respond and be drawn into endless pointless arguments.

                Instead I will simple point out that once again you FAILED to counter the fact that the planet is warming based on OCEAN HEAT CONTENT data. :) :) :)

                26

              • #
                AndyG55

                Warming at the rate of 0.09C every 55 years.. OK.. we get it !!!

                52

              • #
                AndyG55

                Can we agree that is what the paper says, “a modelled ocean warming of the equivalent of 0.09ºC in 55 years”

                Which just happens to be at the tail end of warming out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

                But hey…… DON’T PANIC!

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                And I’m sorry, John, if the presentation of REAL DATA aimed at educating you, is way too much for you to manage.

                52

              • #
                John

                You seem to confuse the 0.09ºC figure of OHC with a surface warming temp.

                As the authors state, “If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C”.

                Most of the warming that enters the system is retained in the oceans. The oceans have been warming consistently. The planet has continued to warm.

                At least you emphatically agree that Joanne Nova’s comment about a pause is in error, even if you have yet to realise the cause of he warming and why this is different to climatic changes of the past.

                :) :) :)

                27

              • #
                AndyG55

                ““If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C”.”

                OMG, you still haven’t realised what a DUMB statement that is.

                Its a hypothetical nonsense statement, and you are WAY TOO DUMB to realise it.

                52

              • #
                John

                Of course it’s hypothetical. Even the authors said that.

                It serves as a comparison to surface temperatures. Our system, mostly the oceans have been gaining heat at a rate that dwarfs surface temps.

                Still waiting for your scientific study to rebut that, or one that shows this warming is all natural as you suggest.

                26

              • #
                AndyG55

                “At least you emphatically agree that Joanne Nova’s comment about a pause is in error”

                NO, again you intentionally misinterpret what I said.

                Again, because you seem to have very poor comprehension skills to go with your scientific ignorance…

                A modelled rise of 0.09C in 55year is meaningless and totally irrelevant.

                Do…you…under…stand. ??? ….. or even that too much for your brain to process.

                52

              • #
                John

                Given that you can’t tell the difference between OHC and surface temps – yes I understand.

                26

              • #
                AndyG55

                WTF are you talking about?

                52

              • #
                John

                I’ll take that response, and the response below as confirmation that you’re a bit confused. :) :) :)

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                Confused.. Yep, you are far more ignorant than even I thought.

                Confused that someone can be that ignorant and still function in the real world.

                42

              • #
                Heywood

                So John,

                Genuine question. Apart from having some weird fascination with arguing with Andy on this blog, which you clearly don’t agree with, what are you personally doing about preventing us frying and dying?

                31

              • #
                John

                Heywood, Andy needs help finding science to rebut the OHC data. Can you help?

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                Rebut.?

                I’ve agreed that the paper presents a modelled 0.09C ocean warming in 55 years.

                Do you disagree that is what the paper says?

                Or do you have some mechanism where that huge storage can release that modelled 0.09C. energy.

                The size of the comparative numbers seems to be rally confusing you, poor thing.

                23

              • #
                John

                Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data.

                Whoops. Andy’s been caught making crap up again!!

                :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

                23

              • #
                John

                See what happens when you just make stuff up without actually reading (or comprehending) the science.

                :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

                23

            • #
              AndyG55

              Another one for you to learn about

              Global sea ice is pretty much right on the 20 or so year average.

              http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalSeaIceAreaSince2000.gif

              42

  • #
    pat

    worth a repeat of this one from the previous thread.
    CAGW maths is extremely flexible:

    25 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: India halfway to meeting 2020 GHG target despite rising emissions
    India’s greenhouse gas output rose 64% between 2000 and 2010, but carbon emissions per unit of GDP fell 12% after 2005, half the reductions it aims to achieve by 2020, according to the nation’s first Biennial Update Report to the UNFCCC…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/14632/

    51

  • #
    Doug Cotton 

    And the reason “there is nothing to show for it” is that there is nothing in physics that can link surface warming to an increase in any greenhouse gas, water vapour, CO2 or CH4. Correct physics considers what happens when entropy is tending towards a maximum. Such physics allows us to explain the surface temperature and, more importantly, how the required thermal energy gets there. It does not get there mostly by radiation at all. Climatologists have got it all wrong. It gets there by processes that are tending to maximize entropy, because that’s what always happens. We see evidence in every vortex cooling tube and in every planetary troposphere, where temperatures are anchored in the upper troposphere or above, and then increase downwards as natural convective heat transfer processes maximize entropy. You can’t argue that this doesn’t happen, because it’s the law – the second one.

    58

  • #
    Doug Cotton 

    Most people don’t like physics, probably because they don’t understand much of it, especially thermodynamics and entropy. In climatology texts I have shown precisely how and where the laws of physics are disregarded and/or altered so as to be incorrect, but usable to “explain” their false radiative forcing “greenhouse” conjecture.

    When we apply the laws of physics correctly everything falls into place and science is confirmed by empirical evidence, as it should be.

    It is no longer a “coincidence” that planetary systems have just the right temperature gradient from the core to the tropopause, getting down to just the right temperature there so as to be in radiative balance with the Sun. It’s not a coincidence at all, because it happens the other way around: the temperature plot builds up going downwards from that anchoring layer.

    Many other “mysteries” are also solved, not least of which is how the surfaces of Earth and Venus receive the required thermal energy to rise in temperature during the day, balancing the cooling from the night before. Is convection going downwards during the day? Well, study what I have explained and find out what is really happening, because the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface is way too little to explain the mean temperature.

    You can be enlightened, or you can stick with such mysteries seemingly unsolved: that’s your choice as I’m just here to help those who want to learn.

    48

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘It is no longer a “coincidence” that planetary systems have just the right temperature gradient from the core to the tropopause…’

      Jupiter is not warmed by the sun.

      ‘Jupiter’s magnetic field is almost 20,000 times as powerful as Earth. The electromagnetic storms they generate can be heard by amateur radio operators on Earth, beamed toward us by the plasmas and magnetic field lines. At times, Jupiter can produce more powerful radio signals than the sun.

      ‘On Earth, charged particles from the sun power the Earth’s magnetic field. But Jupiter deflects most of the sun’s rays. The charged particles come from other sources, such as the volcanically-active moon Io.’

      - See more at: http://www.space.com/18385-jupiter-atmosphere.html#sthash.Qr4cWTWf.dpuf

      30

      • #
        Doug Cotton 

        Jupiter is contracting because it has no solid core. That leads to a net conversion of molecular gravitational potential energy (which obviously decreases) to kinetic energy which is thermal energy that then leads to excess radiation outwards. Whatever energy shortfall there may be below what is required to maintain core temperatures is then made up by the Sun, as with Venus and Earth’s cores, and others. But you won’t understand the process until you understand what I have explained about maximum entropy production. Meanwhile, I suggest you consider more straight-forward examples, notably the planet Uranus where it is hotter than Earth at the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere. You can disregard the stratosphere of all planets where the rate of absorption exceeds the rate at which the convective heat transfers operate.

        28

    • #
      el gordo

      As you know Jupiter has no solid ground, only gas and liquid to the core.

      ‘Within the regions of gas, the temperature varies in the layers of Jupiter’s atmosphere. From the surface to about 30 miles (50 kilometers) up, the temperature decreases as you ascend, ranging from minus 100 C (minus 150 F) to minus 160 C (minus 260 F).

      ‘In the next layer, the temperature increases with altitude, returning to up to minus 150 F again. At the top of the atmosphere, temperatures can reach as high as 1,340 F (725 C), over 600 miles (1,000 kilometers) above the planet’s surface.’

      See more at: http://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html#sthash.W3u2ktXI.dpuf

      20

      • #

        This only means temperature is both a proxy for gas pressure, density, (when the ratio P/ρ and heat content is constant), and also for heat content, when gas density is constant!

        10

  • #
    KR

    Nothing to show for it?

    2015 is the hottest year on record by a considerable margin, and from the observed trend in surface temps (0.14-0.16 C/decade) it will be the norm in 10-15 years. Ocean heat content (where ~93% of the energy accumulation goes) accumulated as much energy since 1997 as it did in the previous 130 (Gleckler et al 2016), which closely tracks the path of CO2 increases.

    The world is changing, and it’s because of us.

    [KR says: "The world is changing, and it's because of us

    Nothing. I repeat NOTHING could demonstrate Malthusian precepts better.]ED

    822

    • #
      AndyG55

      roflmao Links to the Guardian, well that’ll impress everyone.;-)

      They probably got their info from a headline grabber from the data fabricators at NOAA/GISS.

      Believe their fantasy numbers if you like.. Nobody else with a lick of common sense or scientific acumen does.

      159

      • #
        KR

        So you don’t believe “…the data fabricators at NOAA/GISS”? Why? The data is public, the methods are published, the century-long trends for the raw data are actually steeper than after correcting for TOBs, equipment changes, and SST sampling methods.

        Why would NOAA/GISS be fabricating data? What possible motivation?

        67

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Why would NOAA/GISS be fabricating data?”

          Because they only have a sparse coverage in many parts of the world.

          Heck even about 40% of US reading have an “E” next to them.

          They HAVE to fabricate data.

          63

          • #
            KR

            There is some interpolation in all temperature records between stations, particularly over the polar regions – there is also an extensive literature on the strong spatial correlation of temperature anomalies, and on just what effects such interpolation has on uncertainties. Those effects are far smaller than observed trends.

            But if you don’t like the GISS methods, HadCRUT4 drops regions with few records, using area-scaled averages of all temperatures available for the rest. And despite that limited coverage, they also conclude that 2015 is the warmest year in the records going back to 1850, by 0.75 +/- 0.1C over the 1961-1990 average, and about 1C over the 1850-1900 period.

            Again, these methods are published for all to see, and have held up to considerable scrutiny. I therefore consider your claim of “…data fabricators…” wholly unsupportable.

            26

            • #
              AndyG55

              What you consider, is totally irrelevant.

              53

            • #
              The Backslider

              Why do people like you always have an aversion toward the far more accurate satellite record?

              You cannot in any way show your fantasy ocean heat accumulation because it has never been measured. Are you not aware that this line was the warmist excuse for “the pause”, which you have all now abandoned squawking “There never was a pause!!”. You can’t have it both ways you know?

              42

              • #
                AndyG55

                The dopey John is OBSESSED with the Levitus paper showing0.09C warming in 55 years..

                Absolutely hilarious.. because its the only thing he seems to actually know about climate science.

                A writers used assumptions to MODEL a tiny, immeasurable rise in ocean temperature.

                and little Johnny thinks its actually relevant to anything..

                The really bizarre thing is…..

                He even seems to think it was actually measured.. I can barely stop laughing. :-

                73

              • #
                KR

                Levitus 2012 mentions models being used in other related papers, but their paper on ocean heat content changes between 1955-2010 is based strictly on observations. And they conclude:

                One important result presented here is that each major ocean basin has warmed at nearly all latitudes. A net warming has occurred despite interannual to decadal variability of the ocean associated with phenomenon such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation as well as other such phenomenon.

                Your claim that it’s based on modeling clearly shows you haven’t read the paper you’re (incorrectly) bashing.

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao…

                Now explain how they have sufficient “measurements” from 2000m depth in 1955 to make anything but a wild a**d guess.

                52

              • #
                KR

                Backslider – Personally, I have nothing against the satellite data, I consider it a useful set of information. All of the data has uncertainties and caveats, though, and those need to be considered.

                However, the adjustments made over the span of the satellite data are 5x the size of adjustments made to GISS, to HadCRUT, etc., over that time, the response of the satellite data to ENSO is considerably larger than in the surface temperatures, meaning longer periods are required to identify real trends, and the recent divergence of both satellite records from radiosonde tropospheric temperatures (as discussed here on JoNova) seems to indicate some basic issues with them.

                Therefore there is little (none, actually) support for claiming that the satellite data is some kind of ‘gold standard’ in accuracy – you really have to look at _all_ the data to be realistic, with their issues, to avoid cherry-picking.

                I’ve found it amusing that over the last few years the ‘skeptic’ view of the best data set has shifted in sequence from HadCRUT3 to UAH to RSS – with the only common element in that emphasis being the temperature record with (at that point in time) the lowest recent trend. I fully expect that when a different data set shows a lower trend than RSS, that data will suddenly become the ‘gold standard’ for many, with copious complaints about how bad RSS is. That’s not an informed decision – that’s cherry-picking and confirmation bias. And it really makes me laugh.

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                Quote.. from the text…….

                ““We examine changes in global OHC occurring since the
                industrial revolution, comparing observational estimates of global
                surface–bottom OHC changes with results from a recent suite
                of state-of-the-art climate model simulations

                They have used models to “adjust” the small amount of data they might have had.

                The result is based on those models. END OF STORY.

                trust the models if you feel your belief relies upon it.

                Again,

                1. IPPC data says 0.002ºC from a doubling of CO2.

                2. Even if it existed, radiation form CO2 cannot warm the oceans.

                3. There was a LIA.. be thankful for some warming even if only an immeasurable model-based 0.09ºC.

                4. Modelled warming is significantly LESS than IPCC estimates from their models, yet another nail in the AGW coffin.

                53

              • #
                AndyG55

                NOAA’s own satellite temperature data concurs with RSS and UAH.

                End of story.

                54

              • #
                AndyG55

                And of course, since the paper uses “climate models” to adjust the sparse data, and spurious warming in the climate model would necessarily be passed into the OHC output.

                But of course, there’s no spurious warming is any of the climate models, is there, KR ? ;-)

                53

              • #
                KR

                Andy – Again, you don’t seen to have read the paper in question, and your objections are baseless.

                “They have used models to “adjust” the small amount of data they might have had.”

                That text is apparently from another paper entirely – it just doesn’t appear in Levitus 2012. In Levitus et al 2012 the word ‘model’ occurs only four times, all in the discussion of related work – none in regards to their own observational conclusions regarding ocean heat content. All of your ‘model’ objections to the Levitus et al data are both baseless and pointless.

                “Now explain how they have sufficient “measurements” from 2000m depth in 1955…”

                See the Appendix of that paper, entitled “Error Estimates of Objectively Analyzed Oceanographic Data”. Given the quite small standard deviations of ocean temperature anomalies over time and space, even the relatively sparse early data is sufficient to establish bounds on possible error, bounds which are much smaller than the trends. Those error ranges are shown in each of the supplemental graphs in the paper, demonstrating significant warming in almost every ocean basin on the planet.

                And unless you have solid objections to those estimates and error bounds (i.e., with math/data, either yours or something published), you are simply indulging in the Argument from Incredulity fallacy.

                14

              • #
                KR

                Andy – Ah, my mistake and apology, you were back on the Gleckler et al 2016 paper rather than the more recently discussed Levitus et al 2012.

                However, in both cases ocean heat content measures are taken from observations. What Gleckler et al states is that:

                “…the multi-model mean constructed from the current generation of historically forced climate models is consistent with the OHC changes from this diverse collection of observational systems.” (emphasis added)

                Having thus validated the model behaviors, Gleckler et al looked at the total rate of heat uptake, and found that by those models half the total OHC change since 1865 has accumulated since 1997, with 1/3 below 700m.

                The observations themselves are sparse enough in early years to make conclusions challenging, but the observational data is more than sufficient to solidly establish OHC over the last 60 years or so, and the observations do indeed validate the models – meaning it’s quite reasonable to look at longer term model behaviors.

                As stated previously, and described in quite some detail in Levitus et al, we have more than enough observational data to establish OHC changes over the last half century, changes that show a long term imbalance in climate energy that is inconsistent with any natural cause, and wholly consistent with AGW. Trying to dismiss those observations with personal incredulity is unsupportable.

                15

              • #
                AndyG55

                Ok, so its models before ARGO then they try to use ARGO after 2003

                I can live with that.

                http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/acidification/global-ocean-heat-content.gif

                an “Estimated” warming of 0.09ºC in 55 years, as we climb from the coldest period of the last 10,000 years.

                Try not to PANIC. !!

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                And here is ARGO before it was “adjusted” in 2010

                https://weathercycles.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/loehle-ohc-800.jpg

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                Don’t know if this will work, but anyone can see the coverage of ocean profiles over time.

                blue is the start of ARGO deployment.

                https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/animation1-nodc-0-2000m.gif

                Anyone that thinks anything before ARGO is anything by a wild a**e guess, is off their medications.

                33

              • #
                John

                We examine changes in global OHC occurring since the industrial revolution, comparing observational estimates of global surface–bottom OHC changes with results from a recent suite of state-of-the-art climate model simulations

                The compare observations against the model.

                Try again numbnut!

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                Look at the observational data, yappy little chuhuahua

                https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/animation1-nodc-0-2000m.gif

                There was basically NO DATA over 99% of the oceans before 2003… its all models.

                Then look at what happens in 2003 when they start actually getting some half decent coverage instead of modelling from basically zero data.

                http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/acidification/global-ocean-heat-content.gif

                Notice how it levels off.

                You have nothing except a modelled 0.09C of HORENDOUS modelled warming in 55years.

                The end of the world is nigh.. especially for parrots of the Norwegian blue variety.

                Now off you go and play in your sandpit, little child.

                You are no longer worth bothering with.

                34

              • #
                KR

                Andy – You seem to be deliberately ignoring the observational data. “Ok, so its models before ARGO then they try to use ARGO after 2003″ is utter nonsense, as Levitus et al 2012 doesn’t use models in any form to estimate OHC changes back to 1955. I previously referred you to the Appendix in Levitus et al 2012 that discusses just how they established error bounds – the time/space variation in ocean heat content is low enough that quite sparse sampling is sufficient to identify the trends. Gleckler et al uses those observations from 1955 on as well as some additional data to validate the ocean heat models, then discusses those.

                There’s a 60 year clear observational record of an added 28*10^22 Joules, which equates to a 60 year imbalance of more than 0.6 W/m^2, a long term imbalance of added energy that in the presence of decreasing natural forcings is only consistent with AGW.

                Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeatedly chanting the disproven “La la la models la la” does absolutely nothing to invalidate the observations of OHC. It simply makes you look silly.

                Unfortunately, it’s IMO clear that Andy will never accept any data contrary to his beliefs, returning over and over to disproven claims. Barring a marked improvement in the quality of his discussion, I’ve pointed out the evidence, and I consider this conversation over.

                Adieu

                02

            • #
              The Backslider

              Again, these methods are published for all to see, and have held up to considerable scrutiny.

              False. The NOAA is currently being investigated for both data fraud and withholding data.

              63

            • #
            • #
              John

              Could you please provide a link that isn’t to a blogger website. You never know what tricks they do to hide the incline.

              :) :) :) :) :)

              22

    • #
      AndyG55

      roflmao!

      “We examine changes in global OHC occurring since the
      industrial revolution, comparing observational estimates of global
      surface–bottom OHC changes with results from a recent suite
      of state-of-the-art climate model simulations

      seriously ? !!!!

      1811

    • #

      Dear KR,
      Wrong, wrong and wrong.

      1311

  • #
    Dennis

    Off Topic.

    With due regard for Australia Day and the latest republican push to convince us that a change is needed. But if it isn’t broken, if the system of government works well, why change it?

    However, some facts the republicans choose to ignore;

    To summarise, the Australian Constitution does not refer to the Head of State; the Head of State is the person who performs all of the duties of the Head of State; the Queen has never performed any duties as Australia’s Head of State; such constitutional duties as the Queen does perform are as Sovereign and Queen of Australia and not as Head of State; the Governor-General performs all of the duties of the Head of State; the Constitution confers the duties of the Head of State on the Governor-General in his own right and not as a surrogate or delegate of the Queen. As this paper shows, there is a long list of legal advice and judicial opinion in support of the case that the Governor-General is the Head of State, and not a skerrick of constitutional or legal evidence to the contrary.

    Sir David Smith

    72

  • #

    I am still waiting for anyone (someone) to show me any correlation whatsoever between CO2 and temperature.

    103

  • #
    pat

    o/t but some fun from Fran’s brekkie now that her taxpayer-funded holidays are over.
    Pt 2 of a week-long series :

    AUDIO: 8mins: 26 Jan: ABC Breakfast: Local communities in the Galilee Basin: Bowen
    Last month, Adani finally got federal approval for its Abbot Point port expansion.
    The port is just north of Bowen, which for many years now has been eagerly anticipating an economic boom from the Galilee Basin projects.
    But as RN Breakfast reporter Cathy Van Extel found during a visit to Bowen, the delays have had a devastating effect on the city.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/local-communities-in-the-galilee-basin/7114482

    6 mins of faux ABC sympathy for the “devastated” residents of Bowen, then Cathy heads to a BBQ with kindred souls, the opponents of the mine.
    by chance(?), she meets Eric Oliver of Airlie Beach (80 kms from Bowen!) who Cathy says is considering a run for Whitsunday Mayor as an Independent. Eric says those complaining about the delays, going bust, etc are not in it for the benefit of the community, they’re in it for a fast buck.

    this is no doubt Eric:

    Oct 2015: MarineConservaton.org: Trio dumps concerns in the laps of officials
    A THREE-person group of Whitsunday locals has met with State Government ministers in Brisbane this week to keep one of the Labor Government’s election commitments in the spotlight.
    Great Barrier Reef Divers spokesman Tony Fontes, Whitsunday Residents Against Dumping’s ***Eric Oliver and the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Cherry Muddle met with ministers and chiefs of staff on Tuesday and yesterday…
    Talking to Tourism Minister Kate Jones’ representative, the group of three discussed the Great Barrier Reef Divers’ project – The Coral Bleaching Project – to monitor coral bleaching at a citizen science level, with the collected data used to better advocate for reef protection against climate change.
    For Mr Oliver, this week’s trip was his first visit to the capital to lobby government ministers.
    “They listened to what we had to say,” Mr Oliver said…
    http://www.marineconservation.org.au/news.php/712/trio-dumps-concerns-in-the-laps-of-officials

    maybe Eric will run for the Greens!

    1 Nov 2015: Larissa Waters Facebook: to Larissa from Eric Oliver, Airlie Beach
    It was a real pleasure to meet you in person yesterday in Mackay. A pity time was so short. I hope you can get to Airlie Beach next time. Sincere Regards Eric Oliver
    https://www.facebook.com/larissawaters/posts/10153688550439099

    funny how this guy just happens to be in Bowen to share a BBQ with Cathy & impugn the motives of the local entrepreneurs who have lost so much due to the delays caused by green groups.

    31

  • #
    pat

    CAGW returns from vacation:

    25 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: UN aims for clean energy, climate gains at New York summit
    CRIB NOTES 25-31 JANUARY: Ban, Bloomberg and Gore headline Big Apple climate bash, Norway holds oil price crisis meet, UK govt to see 1.5C recommendations
    After the lull – now the storm.
    Global efforts to drive climate change back onto the front pages start this week in New York, as the royalty of climate policy and politics meet for two days to discuss risk, clean energy investment and measuring the threat posed by stranded assets. Expect to hear from Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore, Segolene Royal, Michael Bloomberg plus a raft of business leaders at a UN HQ two-day meet…READ ON
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/24/28419/

    25 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Solar panel costs set to fall 10% a year
    Power from the sun could supply 20% of energy worldwide by 2027 on current technology trends, say UK researchers
    That is the conclusion of Oxford University researchers, based on a new forecasting model published in Research Policy…
    Mathematics professor Doyne Farmer, who co-wrote the paper, said the research could help to shape clean energy policy.
    “Sceptics have claimed that solar PV cannot be ramped up quickly enough to play a significant role in combatting global warming,” he said…
    Farmer’s model, jointly developed with economist Francois Lafond, draws on historical data from 53 different technologies.
    “We put ourselves in the past, pretended we didn’t know the future, and used a simple method to forecast the costs of the technologies,” Farmer explained.
    The research was supported by the European Commission and US Department of Solar Energy Technologies Office…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/25/solar-panel-costs-set-to-fall-10-a-year/

    20

  • #
    pat

    25 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Ben Garside: EU Market: Carbon sinks 7.1% to back below €6 as warm weather weakens power prices
    EU carbon prices dropped back below €6 on Monday to hit a 20-month low, wiping out late last week’s ‘relief rally’ that had given brief respite to this month’s steep losses.
    The Dec-16 EUA futures on ICE fell to a session low of €5.72 before climbing back to settle at €5.91, a 45-cent or 7.1% daily loss…
    “The weather is not giving much support, but already on Friday [EUAs] didn’t look too strong,” said one trader, referring to a late sell-off that pushed carbon back below €6.50…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/14640/

    25 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: CN Markets: Beijing, Shanghai CO2 prices drop to all-time lows as fundamentals catch up
    Carbon prices in Beijing and Shanghai fell sharply to record lows on thin turnover Monday amid fresh supply, regulatory uncertainty and an accumulation of surplus allowances that some observers say is likely to depress prices in China’s seven regional pilot markets this year.
    Beijing Emissions Allowances (BEAs) fell 23.7% on Monday to close at 32.40 yuan ($4.92), with 4,350 allowances traded…
    Since the first Chinese pilot markets launched in 2013, they have been uniformly unresponsive to market fundamentals.
    Prices have barely budged despite data releases on falling coal consumption, slowing GDP growth, and forced shutdowns of industrial over-capacity…
    “In 2016, who is going to buy allowances anywhere in the seven pilots?” one sources asked.
    “The seven pilot markets are entering an era of single digits,” added Chai Hongliang, an analyst with Thomson Reuters Point Carbon…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/14644/

    10

  • #
    pat

    25 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: 21st century warm streak ‘almost certainly’ human caused
    The chances of natural variability causing the record warm streak this century are vanishingly small…
    Without human activities, scientists calculate the odds are between 1 in 5000 and 1 in 170000 of the pattern seen between 2000 and 2014: thirteen of the 15 warmest years on record.
    “2015 is again the warmest year on record, and this can hardly be by chance,” said co-author Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…
    “Natural climate variability causes temperatures to wax and wane over a period of several years, rather than varying erratically from one year to the next,” said lead author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center, Penn State University.
    “That makes it more challenging to assess the chance likelihood of temperature records. Given the recent press interest, it just seemed like it was important to do this right, and address, in a defensible way, the interesting and worthwhile question of how unlikely it is that the recent run of record temperatures might have arisen by chance alone.”
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/25/record-breaking-warmth/

    25 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Solar panel costs set to fall 10% a year
    Power from the sun could supply 20% of energy worldwide by 2027 on current technology trends, say UK researchers
    That is the conclusion of Oxford University researchers, based on a new forecasting model published in Research Policy…
    Mathematics professor Doyne Farmer, who co-wrote the paper, said the research could help to shape clean energy policy.
    “Sceptics have claimed that solar PV cannot be ramped up quickly enough to play a significant role in combatting global warming,” he said…
    Farmer’s model, jointly developed with economist Francois Lafond, draws on historical data from 53 different technologies.
    “We put ourselves in the past, pretended we didn’t know the future, and used a simple method to forecast the costs of the technologies,” Farmer explained.
    The research was supported by the European Commission and US Department of Solar Energy Technologies Office…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/25/solar-panel-costs-set-to-fall-10-a-year/

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I still have an article from The Scientific American (bought cheaply at an Opportunity Shop I am happy to say) written in 1987 talking about solar PV and how it would be cheaper than ‘conventional sources’ by 1995 at the very latest.

      60

  • #
    pat

    25 Jan: NYT: Reuters: As Japan’s Oil, Gas, Power Use Stalls, Coal Imports Hit New Record
    Yet in the same year that the world agreed to combat climate change, Japan’s utilities continued to increase the use of the cheapest but dirtiest fossil fuel, ramping up coal imports to a record…
    To save cash, Japan’s utilities are increasingly switching to cheap coal.
    In 2000, Japan’s coal demand was only slightly bigger than LNG consumption, around 60 million tonnes a year versus some 55 million tonnes for LNG, but gas use has now stalled while coal imports have nearly doubled since then.
    Thermal coal imports rose 4.8 percent to a record 114.145 million tonnes in 2015, the same year as the world reached a climate deal to combat global warming caused in large part by coal burning.
    “The rise in coal imports comes down to economics,” said Energy Partnership’s Wilcox.
    “The figures are consistent with the government’s 2030 basic energy plan which aims to reduce LNG usage and maintain coal,” said Tom O’Sullivan of energy consultancy Mathyos Japan. “This would seem to contradict the aims of the COP21 (Paris) conference in December that sought to reduce global carbon emissions.”…
    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/01/25/business/25reuters-japan-energy-demand.html?_r=0

    30

  • #
    pat

    finally:

    google result shows this headline:

    World mourns loss of Townsville scientist
    Townsville Bulletin-18 hours ago

    26 Jan: Townsville Bulletin: Christopher Owen: Family and friends farewell Professor Bob Carter
    TRIBUTES from across the world have poured in following the death of renowned Townsville scientist and author Bob Carter.
    Professor Carter died from a heart attack last week, aged 73.
    A crowd packed into the Lakes Chapel yesterday to farewell the man who “led his life by example and was never afraid to speak up and support what he ­believed in”.
    Prof Carter’s son Jeremy said that as word of his ­father’s death spread, countless tributes had poured in from across the world.
    He said people had flown from New Zealand and the US to attend the funeral.
    “My father was such a man of humility. I don’t think he realised just how much he was loved,” he said…
    Prof Carter, a geologist and palaeontologist, celebrated a long and influential career in science, with almost 50 years of professional ­experience…
    Long-time friend and brother-in-law Bill Linqvist said Prof Carter had mentored hundreds of students during his career and had been honoured with many awards. Mr Linqvist said that, in the past 15 years, Prof Carter had become increasingly involved in climate science and was a key figure in the climate change debate.
    Prof Carter challenged the theory of human-caused global warming and never failed to answer the call to ­defend climate science.
    The Townsville grandfather was the author of the book Climate: The Counter Consensus in 2010 and co-authored Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change in 2013. Prof Carter was also a witness in a 2007 British High Court case, which found Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth contained errors of fact…
    http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/family-and-friends-farewell-professor-bob-carter/news-story/ac9048fe72049943c0b83450937f1b4d

    still not a word from taxpayer-funded ABC or SBS.

    91

  • #
    DOC

    I think people are missing the plot here.

    Figueres even explicitly stated the matter is not really about Global Warming. That was the bait to develop the basis by which most people in the world could be scared witless into believing Armageddon was at hand and pay anything to anyone to avoid it. Her claim is the plan was hatched to change the world financial system from Capitalism to Central Control at the International level.

    Governments forced acceptance of frought science, brooking no argument against it, so the fear was implanted solidly. That phase is done. Any science argument is immaterial to the progressive elites. Enough folk believe the story and know the story of the huge ‘real scientists’ belief in warming.

    The next phase has been developed in tandem. The warming science is becoming the Red Herring science whilest the story is carried using failed computer models. Computerisation has taken
    over the cause.

    The arguments should be directed heavily at the developed models and mathematicians creating them. Their results, homogenised, are what are quoted to continue the attack, supporting the fear and the huge pecuniary imposts to be imposed on the West. I noticed here stated the ornery Satellite data that tells the tale without meddling with the data, is ignored and never referred to.

    The Centrally run, Russian, Chinese , and other non western nations, often the ‘enemies’ just can’t believe their luck at a period of total Western stupidity destroying itself by hubris. It is argued that the recent Paris Climate Change Meeting was anything but useless as most think. The world is moving on.

    Somehow, the attack has to be relentlessly in the public face by any means possible. The failed science
    in the face of accurate, clean data has to be exposed
    continuously as does the fight against what is presented as facts that continue the fairy tale. That is, government bodies have to be called to account, and so do our politicians and our money men.
    How to do it?????

    61

    • #
      Len

      Mike Nahan is reported in Monday’s West that he was a sceptic but now believes the science, code for becoming a warmist. Not possible.

      22

  • #
    Gd Holcombe

    “I know you’ve been waiting for it.”

    I HAVE been waiting for it. Thank you, thank you, thank you! You’d be surprised how hard it’s been to find this precise information and I’ve been looking for it. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve been looking for precisely this and have found a lot of general info, but not these specifics.

    Thanks again!

    30

    • #
      Peter C

      Here’s your handy reckoning table for human emissions from 1751 – 2014. (I know you’ve been waiting for it).

      Jo, Do you have the same table with Human emissions expressed as say Giga Tons of CO2? That would allow for updates.
      If so could you put it on your resources page.

      10

  • #
  • #
    Amber

    Higher CO2 = Happier Planet
    A 30% CO2 increase makes it a larger trace gas essential to life on earth .
    If someone denies that they should go on a no CO2 diet and see how they feel and what their
    lifestyle is like .

    30

  • #

    [...] Fonte : http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/since-2000-humans-have-put-out-30-of-their-total-co2-but-there-is-n… [...]

    00

  • #

    A quite remarkable table and very informative. Just one problem though! I attended secondary school in 1966. In my first chemistry lesson we were taught about the composition of the atmosphere. The chemistry teacher told us that carbon dioxide was 400ppm.Its very strange how past temperatures are always adjusted down and now carbon dioxide too!

    10

    • #
      nofixedaddress

      Its very strange how past temperatures are always adjusted down and now carbon dioxide too!

      Richard,

      That is the basis of my post at #24 above.

      I think the whole focus on temperature anomalies is a screen to cover the absolute uncertainty we have about past levels of atmospheric CO2 levels.

      01

  • #
    John

    I posted a link to Ocean Heat Content as evidence of a warming planet

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

    And since then there’s been a lot of gesturing, but not one single person here has been able to use any science to counter Levitus.

    Andy keeps getting confused between surface warming and OHC – please help him.

    All data shows warming

    So you have to do some pretty amazing cherry picking in order to make Joanne Nova’s claim.

    46

    • #
      AndyG55

      No-one needs to counter 0.09ºC of modelled ocean warming in 55 years during the latter part of the climb from the LIA.

      Its irrelevant and immeasurable.

      And its really is like a fly buzzing round the empty recesses of your mind, isn’t it. :-)

      62

      • #
        John

        You got it wrong again (not surprised now).

        :) :) :) :) :)

        The 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean has warmed by 0.09°C – that equates to 36°C if that energy instead went to the atmosphere.

        Oh, and they use data too.

        Still waiting on the science to show your version of attribution and how the causes of the localised LIA are the same as those causing the current warming.

        Of course I request science full well knowing you’re incapable of producing.

        ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

        69

        • #
          nofixedaddress

          John,

          I started to look at that paper you referenced but I stopped when I saw the word “estimate”.

          Science papers that I will read include words like “observed”, “measured”, “recorded”, or similar that denotes actual reality.

          For someone to infer from an “estimate” that there has been 9/100th degree Celsius increase in the 0-2000m layer of the ‘World Ocean’ in the last 55 years (16/10000th degree Celsius per year) and then to equate that to a 36C increase in atmospheric temperature if released is fantasy.

          Mind you, I will grant that such a scenario (36C release) could happen but I haven’t bothered to work out how big a meteorite would be needed to knock Earth orbit onto a trajectory that would plunge us into the Sun, nor how close we would be to evaporate the water on planet Earth.

          Or perhaps when the Sun blows up, which should happen, like, really soon.

          Your arguments reinforce for me something that I have been saying for some time which is we should save our money and defund all ‘Universities’, BOM, CSIRO, Grants Commissions, whatever.

          By the way, do you think that some of us ‘folk’ deny that the temperature has increased since the LIA?

          I wont be satisfied until atmospheric CO2 is at least 700ppm (double 350.org) and ideally should be about 800ppm. But that is my personal opinion.

          Final thought. From 1954 to 1990 I grew up and lived in a semi-desert region in Australia. Over 40C was not uncommon. Nor was -3C. But now, and for the last 5 years I have been living at a location 10degree North and it is very cool at the moment. 22C.

          But hey, Climate Justice Now!

          95

          • #
            AndyG55

            “until atmospheric CO2 is at least 700ppm “

            Towards 700+ppm CO2 !

            Let the world flourish ! :-)

            74

          • #
            AndyG55

            Unfortunately, even with the continued growth in the global use of fossil fuels, I doubt we will get much beyond the mid 500′s. Probably not in our life times, anyway.

            There’s so much oil and gas available at the moment, its ridiculous.
            … and as we all know, prices are plummeting…..

            ….and with governments around the world having to tighten the purse-strings, subsidies for inefficient unreliables will also have to be cut… no loss there.

            86

      • #
        John

        So to summarise.

        - You confused OHC with Surface Temps.
        - Thought it was only modelled when it uses a number of sources of data.
        - Think it can only warm a maximum of 0.09°C, but can’t explain why (gee even a numbnut would realise the upper layers are warmer than the lower ones so using the average value of 0.09°C would be plain stupid).

        The 0-2000m layer of the World Ocean has warmed by 0.09°C – that equates to 36°C if that energy instead went to the atmosphere.

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

        No “pause” is this data!

        :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

        56

  • #
    gbees

    Am I reading the y-axis correctly? “Millions of Tonnes of Carbon (MT of C)”
    So humans are really putting Carbon (C) into the atmosphere? So now the warmists are changing the terminology again to suit their agenda?

    20

  • #
    Dave

    Jo,
    minor point with your graph. The lower bound of the 50% zone seems to be plotted at 1975 rather than 1987.


    Hey Dave, thanks. Sorry it took a while, but you are right and it is fixed. Well spotted! Thanks – Jo

    10

  • #
    Carbon500

    That graph looks good, just look at that vertical axis fly to the sky – who’d have thought we were looking at trace gas figures?
    Also, proxy data is being mixed with actual measurements taken from the atmosphere.
    CO2 from 1751 to 1771 for example was 277ppm. For twenty years? Really? A large pinch of salt, please!

    20

  • #

    [...] using annual Law Dome CO2 data from 1759 through 2015, the relationship is less well-behaved. (See Fig. 2, below) The correlation [...]

    00