Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Global temperatures are cooler now than they were 30 years ago. But the farce is worse than it seems. Two large volcanic eruptions during the last 20 years of the 20th century made temperatures almost half a degree colder than they would have been otherwise. The graph below removes those records and shows that there has been almost no warming in the past 30 years.
Alarmists are very lucky that there haven’t been any large eruptions in the last 15 years, because the depravity of their scam would be obvious to everybody.
Can you explain why the oceans continue to warm? Or why the top layer (0-700 m) gained more heat in the last 16 years than in the prior such period?
What caused the steady warming from circal 1650, especially since the IPCC has stated that warming attributable to CO2 was insignificant prior to 1950?
You mean the warming trend known as the Little Ice Age?
You are a man of few words.
Oops.. I guess wordpress thought that my comment was HTML.. let’s try again:
[sound of crickets]
@davidappell says:
“You mean the warming trend known as the Little Ice Age?”
No, I mean what followed and has been happening ever since 1650.
The LIA happened after 1650. Try to stay current, OK?
So the answer is you don’t know? If you can’t answer the most basic of questions why are you so sure of yourself?
The LIA happened after 1650. Did you notice?
So your reply is to introduce a red herring?
Let me try again. What caused the warming trend from 1960-1950?
It’s a really really basic question. Why are you avoiding an answer? Don’t you know?
the sun. which has say over ALL of our climate and weather patterns
NOT co2, and temperature controls co2 anyways.
That should have read 1650-1950. My typing is sometimes as accurate as the IPCC… 😉
Can you explain why you are wrong again?
After all you were spanked hard over at Bob Tisdale’s blog two weeks ago on this very thing:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/yet-even-more-sleight-of-hand-from-tamino/#more-2953
And you are avoiding that inconvenient chart with a deflection to water I am sure you can’t swim in.
Bob has made a good case of ocean warming that CO2 has nothing to do with since almost all of the energy to warm the waters is from the sun.
Tisdale offers no reason for ocean warming, except if you buy his book. (=suckers.)
He explains his reasons if you actually read anything he wrote on his blog.
Blog comments are just blog comments — any monkey can write them. They mean very, very little in the pantheon of science.
People like you quote blog posts because it’s really the only thing you have available to you. Imagine: Anthony Watts is supposed to be your savior.
Solar Cycle 24 to be huge!!!!!!!
I agree that blogs need to be treated sceptically, but Bob points you to the data and you can do the same analysis yourself. So if you don’t believe him, criticize his analysis. Rather than engage in ad hominem.
I can’t do the analysis for myself — Tisdale points to ENSO data, which is a small part of the ocean, in latitude, longitude, and depth. It is far, far, far from the total ocean.
Try to have some standards, OK?
OK, I’m beginning to understand your modus operandi… you make up something really stupid off the top of your head and hope the person you are engaging with will fall for it.
Bob’s data source is here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl
(Which demonstrates you’re full of shit… – if that’s the correct technical terminology.)
Clearly, you will believe anything any old person throws up on a blog, if it satisfies your ideology.
But some of us have standards.
Shame, Will, because you seem like someone of halfway decent intelligence.
Who told you I “believe” what Bob has to say about “causes” ? He doesn’t say much actually. But the data analysis. That’s not so much a matter of belief. However, the point of my reply was not to defend Bob, but to point out that you were making things up as you went along, because you don’t know what you’re talking about. In the old days we used to call it lying.
davidappell says: “Tisdale offers no reason for ocean warming, except if you buy his book. (=suckers.)”
Another untruth from davidappell. Falsehoods are a staple of proponents of manmade global warming like you, David. Everyone knows the vast majority of the content of my book “Who Turned on the Heat?” has been discussed in dozens of blog posts over the past 4 years. In addition, I’ve produced two YouTube presentations for the WUWT-TV special. See here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/the-natural-warming-of-the-global-oceans-videos-parts-1-2/
And just yesterday, I posted an essay titled “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge”. Refer to the blog post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/the-manmade-global-warming-challenge/
davidappell says: “I can’t do the analysis for myself …”
Obviously. One might guess you also have difficulty reading time-series graphs. Either way, you have no basis from which to criticize anyone’s work.
davidappell continued “ …Tisdale points to ENSO data, which is a small part of the ocean, in latitude, longitude, and depth. It is far, far, far from the total ocean.”
Yet another lie from you, David. I present the sea surface temperature data for the global oceans. East Pacific:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2i8kbjk.jpg
And the Rest of the World:
http://i47.tinypic.com/jzw3np.jpg
If geography is another one of your failings, here’s a map with the two regions highlighted:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2vccorr.jpg
You appear to have either no grasp of what I’ve presented or an overpowering need to misrepresent it.
davidappell says: “Try to have some standards, OK?”
This comment is laughable coming from someone like you, David, who has such difficulty with the truth.
davidappell says: “For the data we do have, the ocean has clearly warmed over the last 16 years: 0-700 m
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus”
When you divide the NODC OHC data (0-700m) into logical subsets, David, it’s very easy to illustrate the natural causes for the warming of ocean heat content. Are you aware that without the natural warming associated with the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Nina events, tropical Pacific OHC cools, David?:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2coogo7.jpg
Are you aware that without the very obvious 2-year climate shift, the OHC for the extratropical North Pacific would also cool over the term of the data, David?:
http://i47.tinypic.com/53mk3d.jpg
Looks like it’s time for you to move along, David. You have no credibility here. None whatsoever.
Adios.
I believe that the Sun is the culprit, as it is aging. I also believe that humanity is about to witness our star evolve. As the sun ages, it warms up. As it warms up, it warms us up. I would be more worried about the Sun’s behavior than cow farts. Just my two cents worth. We claim to have all this knowledge, but there are weather cycles at play here that mankind has not yet witnessed, patterns that probably range in the thousands of years.
Here is an interesting discussion of OHC:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/24/prof-fritz-vahrenholt-ohc-tells-us-to-prepare-for-a-long-period-of-temperature-stagnation/
What warming?
Appell posted there too the same claim that the charts in the link does not support at all.In any case there is no evidence that CO2 is doing it anyway since alleged CO2 effect is in the atmosphere and not in the ocean.
Which bodies of water?
All of them, in total (which is what oceanologists call “the ocean.”)
David
OHC has not increased in the past 16+ years, that’s why Trenbreth is constantly bemoaning the “missing heat”. If you remove land based measurements from the data, the trend becomes negative over the past 16 years, not flat. And since NASA/GISS and HadCrut3 have minimal compensation for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, the land based “massaged” data is suspect. The Earth warms and cools in cycles; some as short as 30 years, others that 100,000 or more years to play out. Man has had an impact, but it is minimal compared to natural variability!
Bill
Where is your data showing this?
For the data we do have, the ocean has clearly warmed over the last 16 years:
0-700 m
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
0-2000 m:
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
Looks flat to me for the last 9.
If you can view IR from the top of the oceans, then you are viewing transportation of IR to the top of the ocean as it dissipates. If you wanted to slow heat from the oceans you would need a cold layer at the surface. an example of this process is if you built an igloo from blocks of ice, inside your igloo it will be warmer than the out side temperature, this is because the cold layer (the Ice) slows down the heat dissipation by insulating the temperature on the inside from the much colder temperatures on the out side.
When a gas or a liquid warms under gravity and pressure it expands, as it expands it becomes less dense and rises to the surface. this means that the surface of the ocean will always be warmer than below the surface.
You seem to be trying to bastardize this process to imply that a warm layer at the surface of the ocean traps a warm layer below the surface or causes warming below it.
Graph here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/01/where-heat-went.html
You can make up any sort of untestable “just so” story by fiddling with the actual empirical data. I’d prefer, though, if you’d discuss the real world, not your virtual alternate reality world.
Still no evidence of CO2 causing the warming trend even by your own link!
It’s a chain of arguments, much like the proof that smoking causes disease — is that too much for you to handle?
Yes it’s “a chain of arguments.” They take thousands of Earth’s and expose them to CO2. Then they take thousands of Earth’s and take the CO2 away. Then they do a statistical analysis to see which Earth’s got hot and which Earth’s got cold. It’s just like the way they worked out smoking causes cancer. 😉
Yes, it’s a chain of arguments — but not a long one.
You must have a better way to do it, I’m sure.
Sounds like you’re just mumbling now…
DA Said:
“It’s a chain of arguments, much like the proof that smoking causes disease — is that too much for you to handle?”
So everyone that smoked has gotten a disease? What is your proof of that David? Please show us the proof that you reference, or admit your statement is false.
See how easy it is to play games? You apparently are trying to make a career out of it.
Why can you not source the original graph? Or is this just one of your mock ups?
And here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/01/scientists-dueling-letters-to-editor-re.html
First you state:
“Can you explain why the oceans continue to warm? Or why the top layer (0-700 m) gained more heat in the last 16 years than in the prior such period?”
Which you have yet to support meanwhile you suddenly want to go much deeper and blovate over 2000 meters deep all the while you still fail utterly to show clear evidence that it is CO2 doing the warming as YOU claim.
Meanwhile you should look into the links Bill Illis posted here showing how much influence the trade winds have in moving warm water around into pooled areas.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/#comment-1211633
Your flaccid attempts to make a case for CO2 ends in flames……. again.
It seems most of my comments here are being blocked. I take that as a badge of honor, and a surrender on “Steve’s” part.
I won’t waste any more time here.
Appell wants to argue that *any* detectable warming vindicates his position. And of course, the only explanation is CO2. So if the IPCC climate models best guess 3-4C of warming and the long term trend is 1C per century he is still proved right. The fact that the “problem” was exaggerated 3 or 4 times over, doesn’t matter…
Yeah since he deliberately overlooks the solar influence on the oceans instead to fawn over a trace gas with a tiny IR absorption window that is swamped by water vapor where it counts the most,in the tropics.
What solar influence? Can you show an increase in total solar irradiance in recent decades?
Can you explain the increase in top-half ocean warming, or not?
It is YOU AGW believers who claims that CO2 is warming up the oceans and yet you NEVER provide that evidence just basic claims of ocean warming and that is all.
Can you explain the increase in top-half ocean warming, other than an enhanced greenhouse effect?
Explain the warming since 1650. Don’t just ignore my question. You can’t just ignore a question put to you then turn around and demand the same question from someone else. You end up looking like a moron.
GHGs. By all rights the Earth should be approaching another ice age.
But IPCC AR4 says atmospheric GHG were too insignificant to effect the temperature trend prior to 1950. We know this from GCM’s. So you just made that up didn’t you?
So what does this mean? You don’t know the answer? because the one answer you’ve offered so far is clearly wrong.
Where does the IPCC 4AR say that?
WG? Ch? Section?
Please provide a citation.
That’s a joke right?
Steve is now banning my comments. I win.
WordPress thinks you are spam
Convenient excuse.
David, don’t you have some climate porn or something to entertain yourself with rather than saturate blogs with graphs that people repeatedly debunk for you?
Debunked how? Where is your graph for ocean warming?
Dave, don’t you think SST’s are included in the “global temperature” averaged to show no net global warming for 16 or so years?
Are you aware that your graphs are not normalized for the same total amount of solar insolation on the seas between the years?
What SST data show no net warming in 16 years?
Why does the 0-700 m and 0-2000 m show warming in that time?
What evidence shows solar insolation is responsible for ocean warming?
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 2:26 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:38 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:39 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:39 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:40 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:41 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:41 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:44 am
davidappell says:
February 1, 2013 at 3:45 am
Mental.
No more pictures of melting North Pole ice to “get off” with so he takes it out on other people
The man does not know when to stop shooting himself in the foot.
Appell now B.S’s openly here since Bob has stated causes of warming in his blog before:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/the-tao-of-el-nino/#comment-1211073
That was one example.
“Tisdale offers no reason for ocean warming, except if you buy his book. (=suckers.)”
He clearly shows that the RATE of warming has greatly slowed down at his blog and repeatedly show that CO2 is not a driver of periodic warming/cooling in the ocean waters.
Why do you believe a blog comment over peer reviewed science in real journals?
Translation:
this dude cant even contradict Tisdale’s basic presentations so he wants to resort to infantiles replies instead that does nothing for his position at all.Not only that Bob DID post a few links to “peer reviewed” science papers that blind David Appell failed to notice.
Are you really that dumb David?
Tisdale’s links are about ENSOs, not total ocean warming.
So I’m asking the same question again.
If Bob Tisdale is the best you can do, I pity you.
You have no idea how what you miss………..
A stupid statement from David who fails to notice that hot and bright ball in the sky:
“What evidence shows solar insolation is responsible for ocean warming?”
The waters get about 99.9% of the energy from the sun and the other .01% from warmist bullshitters like you.
What is your evidence that the Sun has increased in strength?
duh um kloudd kovurr dave isnt dum um the same alla time
What is your evidence?
Start here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
Here are a few “peer reviewed” science papers you never read:
Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was the highest in 1200 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/paper-shows-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
New paper finds significant, persistent influence of solar activity on regional cloud cover & climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-paper-finds-significant-persistent.html
Paper finds solar activity at end of 20th century was highest in 9,400 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/paper-finds-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
New paper explains how the Sun controls ocean oscillations
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-paper-explains-how-sun-controls.html
Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/paper-shows-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
New paper finds climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-climate-responds-to.html
New paper finds solar cycle changes Earth temperature
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-solar-cycle-changes.html
To name a few………………………
From U Colo Solar Radiation & Climate experiment I see an increase of 1365.2-1365.5 W/m2 total solar irradiance over the period 2009-2011, Kopp & Lean (2011) report 1360.8 +/- 0.5, this is evidence that there is more solar variability than can reasonably be discriminated by integral annual measurements.
That’s over 3 years — part of the normal solar cycle. I asked about the long-term: 16 years or so.
Also, tell us what temperature change we should expect from a change in solar intensity. From the Stefan-Boltzmann law I find, to first order
dT/T = (1/4)(dS/S)
Please calculate this for the change you have indicated.
If the intensity I = (sigma)T**4 then dI/dT = 4(sigma)T**3 so dT = (dI/I)(1/4T)
Gotta go to bed, you’re not selling global warming on this blog go visit Huff Post and tell them you smashed deniers flat. Good work. Good night.
Your algebra is laughably wrong.
Yes, go to bed and stop embarrassing yourself.
you’re right, sorry
I’m glad you finally agree.
Yes, time for you to retire.
Time for you to stop trying to “prove” global warming with your dog shit SST argument.
Can you do algebra, or not? (The “T” doesn’t belong in the denominator.) People who can’t do simple algebra get no say in the science.
Like NOAA who has reversed the US temperature trend with their junk mathematics.
In other words, you have no evidence.
Typical “Steve Goddard” bullshit.
Typical Appell can’t deal with reality.
Evidence?
David writes:
“What is your evidence?
Start here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt”
Ah yes the one dimensional TSI numbers.
LOL
Then provide your evidence, if you don’t like LASP’s measurements of total solar intensity. Let’s see it.
You have been shown the evidence many times and still you are pulling this “evidence” shit again.
You are predictably pathetic David.
Provide your evidence. Clearly, you have none.
What is so funny that David has not once showed any evidence that it is CO2 warming the oceans because he knows that IR radiation can’t penetrate past the surface waters but Visible and UV light goes well into the oceans depth of a few hundred meters which CO2 does not absorb or block at all.
The fact that the Sun ITSELF provides about 99% of the energy in the oceans does not faze David at all and that is why I laugh at him for his abject stupidity.
What’s more, the increase of IR reflectivity on the water surface with increasing angle from the normal would mean that the influence of CO2 on the water temperature would decrease toward the poles
Pseudoscientific B.S. Has this reflectivity changed in recent decades?
Provide proof, or don’t expect a reply.
If IR warms the top layer of the oceans, that heat travels below. Basic physics?
What caused the ocean and atmospheric warming from 1650-1950?
IR does not warm the water surface so please stop the B.S.
Sunsettommy, but the atmosphere is kept slightly warmer. This extra heat can then be absorbed by the ocean, because the surface is choppy and churns a lot.
Deep ocean circulation. Must have brought waters warmed by undersea volcanism to the surface. Warmed the water and the air too.
I don’t think there would be any other escape from a LIA over such a short time frame.
Did the ocean warm since 1650? Where is that data?
This topic is about atmospheric warming. You are the one who introduced the red herring about ocean temps. But I would make the reasonable claim that if the atmosphere warmed the oceans warmed along with them. Unless you have discovered a new type of physics where the oceans stay the same or cool, while the atmosphere warms. Maybe you’re keeping secret this discovery from the rest of the world? 😉
“Data” is the plural of “datum.”
The data have been inferred from coast line contraction, resulting from a decrease of water density with increasing temperature.
Your evidence for deep ocean circulation is…what?
No one seems to understand the temperature change in the deep ocean. So I’m intrigued that you think you do.
Please, provide data. Thanks.
The ocean has 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere (mass x specific heat)
Hence any energy imbalance will create more heat there than in the atmosphere, by a large factor.
This is basic physics 101.
Basic physics is that you have no idea where the missing heat is.
Your irritation value is surpassed only by that bitch, Susan Solomon.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to call her a “bitch.”
I meant to call her a
um ….
“Steve”: you get stupider every month.
And more cowardly — when are you going to reveal your real name, like a real man, and stand behind your opinions? Or are you afraid of losing your cushy little defense job (where you spend all day blogging)?
What a pussy.
David, you obviously have some sort of financial interest in this scam – because an honest person would have given up years ago.
“Provide your evidence. Clearly, you have none.”
It is in the moderation big waiting for Steve to approve it.
You have yet to show that CO2 is warming the ocean waters and you have deliberately been ignoring Wills question about what caused the warming from 1650 to 1950.
Since the entire global warming propaganda is built around the impossible idea that a trace gas with very limited absorption windows and beaten badly by water vapor in the tropics where the vast amount of the planets energy originates Warmist/Alarmists has to prove it is happening by the bullshit route and all David does here is babble about some short term warming of water and says NOTHING about CO2 causing it.
Meanwhile here is something called a “peer reviewed” paper to mull over:
New paper shows N. Atlantic Ocean cooled from 1953-2007
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-paper-shows-n-atlantic-ocean-cooled.html
Enjoy!
It’s really not a very long chain of evidence:
CO2 and CH4 are trapping OLR (Harries et al, Nature 2001).
Infrared radiation heats material substances (Planck, early 20th century)
The ocean is warming (Levitus 2012)
CO and CH4 have small absorption effect and mainly OUTSIDE of the main IR terrestrial outlow region as well:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
CH4 is a negligible player in IR absorption:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-10140.html#pid10140
You still fail to show that it is CO2 and he he… CH4 driving the warming of the oceans while Bob Tisdale shows that it is the increased solar irradiance that is driving the warming of the ocean waters and it is very easy to see why but YOU are too busy pushing the stupid idea of a trace gas with tiny absorption windows to over come the power of incoming solar radiation which is only around 1360 to estimated CO2 forcing of just 3.7 .
ROFLMAO!
Interesting — you think that a little blog comment counters the careful work of professional scientists who spend all their time gathering and analyzing data.
Have you written a letter to Nature with your valuable criticism of Harries et al? The world is dying to know, of course….
Another “peer reviewed” paper to read dear David:
Current North Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Well Below Those of Medieval Warming Period, New Study Finds
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/current-north-atlantic-ocean-temperatures-well-below-those-of-medieval-warming-period-new-study-find.html
PS: Can you show me a single scientific conclusion that DOESN’T rely on a chain of evidence? Just one??
What is the volume of the North Atlantic, as a fraction of the total ocean volume?
Typical evasion of a peer reviewed reality since it is MUCH cooler than it was 750 years ago and you have nothing to counter it but move a few goal posts around in your desperation.
Eastern Pacific was not warmed at all in 112 years either.
Are you in love with miss CO2?
What is the volume of the North Atlantic, as a fraction of total ocean volume? To, say, the nearest tenth…..
Also, how do you define the “Eastern Pacific,” and what is its volume compared to total ocean volume?
What data are you using for its temperature? What area? To what depth?
Data please.
Will writes,
“Sunsettommy, but the atmosphere is kept slightly warmer. This extra heat can then be absorbed by the ocean, because the surface is choppy and churns a lot.”
Not very much because it is always rising due to evaporation which carries the heat upward and that the Sun DIRECTLY provides 99% of the solar energy a few hundred meters below the surface and at higher energy levels than IR runs in.
Keep in mind the level of heat capacity of the water and the air:
Energy Content Atmosphere vs. Ocean
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-9653.html#pid9653
Provide data and calculations, not pseudoscientific gobblygook.
Please explain what caused the warming trend from 1650-1950.
*WHAT* warming trend?
Is there ocean data that shows warming??
I’m talking about the atmospheric temperature trend.
What data shows the atmosphere warmed since 1650??
Are you asking this question because you don’t know about the warming trend from 1650? This is news to you?
Or you are aware of the warming trend from 1650, but you don’t know anything about the scientific papers published on this?
What do you know, exactly? (If anything.) Please clarify.
Just provide the ocean data, OK? Stop avoiding the question.
LOL,
David you just destroyed your earlier argument because of what you wrote here:
“The ocean has 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere (mass x specific heat)
Hence any energy imbalance will create more heat there than in the atmosphere, by a large factor.
This is basic physics 101.”
And where does most of the heat come from that is overwhelmingly powered by solar radiation that warms the atmosphere?
Really how did you miss the obvious, one that has not changed for at least a billion years.The sun warms the oceans and the oceans warms the atmosphere.
Carry on with your self inflicted damages.
David now enters the twilight stupid zone because he tries to shoot down a chart I posted recently that actually supports his basic argument he just posted:
“Provide data and calculations, not pseudoscientific gobblygook.”
David just wrote:
““The ocean has 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere (mass x specific heat)…”
The chart shows this:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/23/#more-11849
But as Jeff observes that ; “See the problem is that if CO2 is really trapping/retarding/backradiating heat, we would be able to see it in ocean temps more accurately than air. That’s because so much of the earth’s surface heat capacity is in the water.
All the energy is in the water, whatever happens to air is moot. And the plot worth a thousand words from Roy Spencer’s post shows this:”
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/23/#more-11849
The problem is that the Sun does about 99% of the ocean warming so that leave only crumbs for a few CO2 and extremely few CH4 molecules to do their impossible warming frolic.
You are really messed up David.
David with another pathetic response to my comment:
“Interesting — you think that a little blog comment counters the careful work of professional scientists who spend all their time gathering and analyzing data.
Have you written a letter to Nature with your valuable criticism of Harries et al? The world is dying to know, of course….”
He he,but you can’t answer against it yourself with that PH.D in your back pocket.
What I posted IS based on what scientists published but you are too stupid to notice because you are in love with Miss CO2 and her son CH4.
David A. is a man who apparently thinks that a couple of trace gases is a more powerful driver of the climate than the sun he apparely hates since he is continually downplaying that hot and bright ball in the sky.
I wonder what classification of mental illness does he fall under?
So you haven’t written a letter to Nature.
You’re afraid. You have no confidence.
I get it.
Yawn………………..
That Chart at the top of this page is so painful to you that you ignore it completely and push the ocean angle that gets 99% of the thermal heat from the sun.Co2 does not do shit in water for heat content.
That is how stupid you guys are.
Why haven’t you written a letter to Nature, disproving the famous result of Harries et al? Too busy? Afraid?
Echoing Will N.
Please explain what caused the warming trend from 1650-1950.
I’m yanking his chain…
What warming? Data?
So you’re completely unfamiliar with global temperature proxy reconstructions? Still trying to avoid the question?
Stuff like this. It’s called ‘science’. Try it… it’s fun. 😉
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Proxy-Reconstruction-Comparison5.png
Your link does not work.
Also, I notice it’s to a blog. Can’t you do any better than that??
Blogs have very low standards. They aren’t reviewed at all. They have no authority except that of their author, which is not much at all. To anyone who has done real science, and knows what real science is all about, they are laughably inadequate.
Can’t you do any better??
All citations to all papers are included on that link, so you can’t bullshit your way out of it that easily. There is also nothing wrong with the link.
What data? Your link does not work.
And why am I supposed to believe a blog over peer reviewed science? Is that all you can do?
David A. and his ever tightening circle of absurdity:
“Blog comments are just blog comments — any monkey can write them. They mean very, very little in the pantheon of science.”
and,
“People like you quote blog posts because it’s really the only thing you have available to you. Imagine: Anthony Watts is supposed to be your savior.”
The same meathead who has his own science blog where he comments in and quotes others.
Do you have multiple personalities we don’t know about because you keep slapping yourself down.
Can you cite real science, or not? It appears not….
Which one are you David or is now Dave or Bonnie.It is hard to tell which part of you I am talking to.
I have posted a few peer reviewed published science papers and you just post evasive crap in response.
I wish Steve would go approve my long post with about 6 links in it.
You have quoted some papers about a small surface patch of the ocean (NINO 3.4).
The real ocean is far, far bigger than that. So where is your data?
The chart Steve started this blog post that David A has avoided ever since with his meandering bull crap clearly shows NO warming trend since 1998 a 15 year run.That includes the ocean water surface too since this is from RSS.
The IPCC has projected a .20C or even up to .30C warming for the first decade based on the AGW conjecture and we got ZERO! The second decade is also running well below the projected warming rate too.
David you have nothing left to B.S. us with since we read the reports and see the problems all over it.
Steve’s chart is for the surface — a thin layer of air on a large planet.
If you thought heat was being added to your planet, would you look on a thin, 2-dimensional surface, or in the large oceans?
RSS covers most of the Ocean surface and since it is about 70% of the planets surface and still no warming since 1998 anyway you are NOT doing well here.
Just by eye balling the chart that looks to me like mid tropospheric temperature trends. (Not some imaginary 2D layer, whatever that strange remark means.) It covers the entire plant except some polar regions, is free of UHI effects, and according to GCM’s, should show approx. 1.2 x greater warming than the surface. (If the model assumptions are correct.)
If you follow the link it’s lower troposphere.
Where, exactly, is the RSS ocean data?
Link please?
“Eyeballing….” Good night, loser.
You wouldn’t know science if you tripped over it.,
“Eyeballing” – yet my guess was right David. Meanwhile you crap on about “2D layers” and other nonsense you make up as you go along. A bit sad isn’t it?
Here is BTW, 16 years of ocean cooling, based on HADSST2. Although it’s not clear to me why Appell thinks this sort of data is important or insightful. And it doesn’t support his claims anyway.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1997/plot/hadsst2sh/last:192/trend:12
So you don’t think the surface is 2-dimensional.
Interesting….
That’s the surface… do you know what a surface is, Will?
How does it compare to a layer 700 meters deep?
This is basic physics, Nietsche. Did you study basic physics?
On a planet without an atmosphere, say the moon, maybe you could calculate things that way. But on a planet with a lot of convection and GHG’s, no a comment like that is remarkably stupid. I think, though, you are just tired right now.
David just does not know when to quit exposing his stupidity:
“Why haven’t you written a letter to Nature, disproving the famous result of Harries et al? Too busy? Afraid?”
Yawn what a feeble response to the well known fact that the Sun does 99.9% of the warming of the oceans which warms the air.
Why haven’t YOU written a letter to Nature,exposing the famous numerous FAILED predictions/projections from 1990 onward of future temperature trends published by the IPCC all based on the AGW conjecture?
Again and again you and your propaganda camp ignore the obvious that the SUN the freaking SUN does virtually all of the heat/energy input to the planets system.
You’re afraid to take the risk of writing to Nature. Of using your real name. Of exposing yourself.
We understand. Completely.
Grow up.
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
It is clear that you have no answer to my attack on the many IPCC failures since 1990.
You are like Jehovahs Witnesses,always looking around the corner for that elusive proof that the AGW conjecture is alive and well.
Just tell us: why haven’t you written to Nature with your criticism of Harries et al 2001?
It’s been recognized as an extremely important result.
What are you afraid of?
Another fucking pussy. Lots of anonymous blog comments, won’t dare say anything meaningful.
Another coward.
David says,
“Your link does not work.”
It works for me.
My long post must be considered spam so I break it up into smaller posts:
David,
Here are a few “peer reviewed” science papers you never read:
Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was the highest in 1200 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/paper-shows-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
New paper finds another mechanism by which the Sun controls climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-finds-another-mechanism-by.html
New paper finds significant, persistent influence of solar activity on regional cloud cover & climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-paper-finds-significant-persistent.html
Paper finds solar activity at end of 20th century was highest in 9,400 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/paper-finds-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
Neither of your papers comes close to explaining the ~1 W/m2 energy imbalance the Earth has been experiencing.
And I notice you ignore all other papers that do.
New paper explains how the Sun controls ocean oscillations
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-paper-explains-how-sun-controls.html
Paper shows solar activity at end of 20th century was near highest levels of past 11,500 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/paper-shows-solar-activity-at-end-of.html
New paper finds climate responds to short and long-term changes in solar activity
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-climate-responds-to.html
New paper finds solar cycle changes Earth temperature
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-paper-finds-solar-cycle-changes.html
To name a few………………………
Once again David shows what a poor reader he is as he whines:
“Where, exactly, is the RSS ocean data?
Link please?”
I stated “RSS covers most of the Ocean surface and since it is about 70% of the planets surface and still no warming since 1998 anyway you are NOT doing well here.”
and Will stated N:
“If you follow the link it’s lower troposphere.” and it is the GLOBAL mean too.
Steve posted that chart and the link to the data and you still did not know that it covers most of the planets surface area and I said Ocean SURFACE not the ocean as a whole.
There is no warming trend since 1998 and YOU KNOW IT!
You are hopeless.
I think Appell is getting confused over global SST data and temperature measurements at depth. Obviously RSS measures the atmosphere. The closest equivalent would be to use HADSST2, which only measures oceans surface temps. (Where the ocean makes contact with the atmosphere.) Which is – surprise surprise – in agreement with RSS broadly speaking, as one would expect… You can probably milk 18 years of cooling out of that particular data set…
You clearly do not understand why a volume measurement is far more instructive than a surface measurement or atmospheric measurement.
You’ve become a waste of time, Will. Good night.
Oh he is more than confused Will.
I never said RSS measured the waters itself just over the surface of it but that was enough for him to stumble over it like a drunkard:
“Where, exactly, is the RSS ocean data?
Link please?”
I had written:
“RSS covers most of the Ocean surface and since it is about 70% of the planets surface and still no warming since 1998 anyway you are NOT doing well here.”
What can I say?
I understand perfectly well. Which is why a few years of ARGO data which shows flat ocean temps in the 0-700m range is hugely significant. You would need decades of atmospheric data to reach the same sort of conclusions about global energy balance.
RSS measures the lower troposphere and up. They do not measure the ocean surface.
The lower troposphere is not the ocean.
You’re the one asking for RSS ocean data, not me.
Nobody did David.
Please put on your glasses.
David continues to manifest his confusion vividly:
“You clearly do not understand why a volume measurement is far more instructive than a surface measurement or atmospheric measurement.”
Good night David.
I agree with Appell. It is far more instructive. The problem is, the data points to the opposite conclusion from the one he thinks it does.
Don’t you get tired of being a little man who thinks he knows everything, but is afraid to say his name?
I would lie in bed at night, and that would just eat me up.
I’m not an expert in these matters. But I do read what the experts have to say. Which is vastly more than you do. Your information seems to be limited to activist blogs. A little self contained echo chamber. You seem to be unaware of the most basic content of even the IPCC reports. From past exchanges, you even seem oblivious to the contents of the IPCC AR4 executive summary. You are sort of like one of those Christians who worships the Bible but has never actually got around to reading it.
Will, I follow the science far more than you do — it’s how I make my living.
I don’t get paid for promoting crappy blog postings. I get paid for reporting on real science.
Up your standards. Seriously.
Yeah I know, me with my fancy pants knowledge and logic and stuff. And to make matters worse, I don’t promote Green Science(tm) either. I’m an enemy of the sort of state you want to live in…
But getting back to the question, did you ever think up a good reply to the question as to what caused the atmospheric global warming trend from 1650-1950 since GHG’s are largely ruled out for this period?
I am still waiting for the data that shows a warming trend since 1650 AD, especially in the oceans.
Please respond clearly.
I presented that data to you. Here it is again, this time a direct link to the URL:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Proxy-Reconstruction-Comparison5.png
You’ll get all citations to the peer reviewed studies off that table if you want to double check. (Although it is utterly incredible to believe that anyone who does ‘science’ writing has not read all of these papers many many times. There are not that many of them on this subject anyway.)
Although you do realise, that by “demanding” to see the data, you are implying that you don’t believe the trend is there or know nothing about it. In other words, you’re basically declaring in public that you’re a fucking idiot? (Again.)
I told you: that link does not work. It goes nowhere.
And I told you: blog posts aren’t science. Smarten up.
I guess suss what’s his name has left. Afraid to speak up like a man. Another pussy, just like “Steve Goddard” — a little girl afraid of what people might think.
So you’re saying you don’t believe the planet has warmed since 1650? You doubt this has happened? And you call yourself a ‘science writer’ ?
A very sad state of affairs.
Just present the data, OK?
I’m trying to get this down to simpler and simpler questions until you answer one rather than keep running away from each like a little coward…
Do you aware that the planet has warmed since 1650? Yes or no?
Are you aware of the data that supports this claim? Yes or no?
If you answer yes to the 2nd question, what is this data called?
If you think the planet has warmed since 1650, then just present the data, or shut up.
Once I present the data, you will make some stupid remark and crawl under some little rock somewhere for a few weeks. Where’s the fun in that?
Are you a coward?
Can you answer a simple question or not?
Are you aware of the atmospheric warming trend from 1650-1950? Yes or no?
It’s not a hard question. You either know the answer or not. Just type ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Why are you so scared to answer such a simple question? Be a man!
Stop whining. Just present the damn data, since 1650.
Remember this is a scientific question David. I’m not asking you to question your faith. Or is that what makes you fearful right now?
When you answer that really simple question, I’ll give you some links to the actual papers with the data. How’s that?
Just present the data since 1650 — OK????
😆 looks like Toshinmack is on the rag again!
This is too funny… !
Come on David, I’m calling you a wimp. A coward. You’re only making it worse by ducking the question.
Do you know, yes or no, if the planet’s atmosphere has warmed since 1650?
You get your lolly pop as soon as you’re a good boy and answer this simple question first.
Just present the data, OK?
Or shut up. It’s that simple. Present the data.
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges
Heel David! Heel Boy! Answer the question – yes or no – and you get your reward.
A big juicy bunch of links to 5 peer reviewed papers – count them 5 papers – complete with data – on this very topic. But wait, there’s more! 4 separate independent research teams are involved. Plus – wait for the bonus – 2 of those papers are from Mann’s team as well. *The Team.* A hero of your I assume. Sounds tasty eh? How can you resist?
And you — “Me” — are an even littler man.
Who I won’t waste any more time on.
What data shows the Earth has warmed (or cooled) since 1650???
Can’t you even provide that?
Just this?
😆 Toshinmack this is what you sound like, waah waah waah show the data waaaaah!
Remember what Phil Jones said! LMAO!
David, just admit that you don’t know the world has warmed since 1650 – or admit that you do know – and I’ll give you *lots* of tasty links. Data you can roll around in!
Are you coward?
It’s such a simple question. Just a yes or a no. I know part of you *wants* to type ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It won’t hurt. I promise. OK, maybe it will hurt…?
Is this going to cause one of those ‘cognitive dissonance’ type sensations that overcome Believers from time to time? (I read about that somewhere… does that sort of thing really happen?)
😆
Where is the ocean and atmospheric data since 1650?
Go ahead and laugh, little man. How does it feel to be so inconsequential?
Is that another Duck I see 😆
I never promised you ocean data. But I am promising you atmospheric data. Lots of it. You can rub it all over yourself. Do whatever you want to it. (Do things to it I’d rather not think about.)
Just answer the question. Yes or no?
The data await you… it’s close David. Real close…. how can you turn away from it now when you’re so so close?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbNxugO-uf0
😆
A planet = ocean + atmosphere
You want to ignore the former, even though ~90% of the heat goes there.
OK, we see your game.
So where is the atmospheric data? Surface, troposphere, stratosphere, since 1650?
Produce it, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo-L9GS6Z0k
And another having some Quack Soup, 😆
So, in fact, you don’t have any useful data at all about planetary warming since 1650.
That’s what I suspected, and that’s what I wanted to prove.
Thanks for your help in proving this.
Waah, Waah, Waah, Duck Duck, Waaaaaaaaaah! 😆
I want to produce that data and I can tell you’re drooling for it. I can sense the saliva.
But.. first rule of dog training. Don’t give the treat until you get the trick.
So answer the question and it’s all yours… all of it. I won’t hold any back. Promise.
And you do have to do your trick soon – because I will be shutting off my web browser shortly. Then we’ll have to resume training tomorrow.
So you have no data since 1650. (No one does.)
You can leave now.
We’ve seen now that “Will N” is a fake skeptic.
He has not earned any more responses.
It’s here waiting for you. Just answer the question. “yes” or “no”. Let me remind you about what the question is because you’ve ducked some version of it for 200+ posts now…
Are you aware that the atmosphere of the globe has warmed since 1650?
Yes or no.
Surely there is one Eco-worrier out there who can face up to this question and answer it. The answer to a question doesn’t go away because you’d prefer the question not be asked.
Data?
Put up or shut up.
Yes or no and the data is instantly yours.
You want it. I know you do. You’re still here. Sniffing for it.
Fuck off. You don’t have the data — atmosphere (surface, troposphere, stratosphere), ocean — anyway.
Why are you so scared to see the data?
Open your feelings to us. You’re among friend here. And it’s cheaper than therapy.
Loser.
Coward. LOL.
Here a chart showing the relative warming of the oceans versus the warming that should be happening.
10^22 joules people.
http://s14.postimage.org/r6gfdd9sx/Earth_s_Energy_Balance_Dec_12.png
I’m sitting in the small regional Lafayette Airport laughing so hard my belly hurts. Mr. Will, you’re awesome.
“I want to produce that data and I can tell you’re drooling for it. I can sense the saliva.
But.. first rule of dog training. Don’t give the treat until you get the trick.”
But David is a Cat Person…….you probably won’t be able to train him, but if you leave the data in an open box he will probably hop in and sleep on it. The nap, however, will not help him grasp reality!
Hilarious!
Hello, its nice article on the topic of media print, we all be aware of media is
a enormous source of information.