Global Warming Total Fraud

[Little Fish]

Computer models were not manipulated to come up with "bogus predictions." Rather, ocean heat content was not considered, which is why it appeared that warming stalled.

so the models got it wrong then, yet the models are the only reason to care about global warming.

the oceans have warmed 0.06 degrees since 1968, if you believe they can measure to that accuracy. why should I care?

this translates to 0.5watts/m2 greenhouse effect due to co2 (this even assumes all the warming since 1968 is due to co2) which gives a climate sensitivity an order of magnitude smaller than the IPCC's claim, which means you should not care either.

http://motls.blogspo...ntless-but.html

http://judithcurry.c...-of-ocean-heat/

[MonkeyLove]

so the models got it wrong then, yet the models are the only reason to care about global warming.

the oceans have warmed 0.06 degrees since 1968, if you believe they can measure to that accuracy. why should I care?

this translates to 0.5watts/m2 greenhouse effect due to co2 (this even assumes all the warming since 1968 is due to co2) which gives a climate sensitivity an order of magnitude smaller than the IPCC's claim, which means you should not care either.

http://motls.blogspo...ntless-but.html

http://judithcurry.c...-of-ocean-heat/

Don't look at the oceans warming. Instead, look at the heat content absorbed. A lower heat content will prove that overall warming slowed down.

[Little Fish]

Don't look at the oceans warming. Instead, look at the heat content absorbed. A lower heat content will prove that overall warming slowed down.

the temperature is measured and converted to OHC which translates to a numeric value for watts per meter square for climate sensitivity to co2. all the assumptions here favour your position.

if you accept the measurements for OHC, or "heat content absorbed" then you have to accept that global warming is not a problem, as already explained in the links in my last post.

or maybe you think 6 hundreds of a degree rise since 1968 is a problem?

what would be a problem? one degree rise?

that would take another 750 years at the rate based on these measurements. fossil fuels would be long gone by then, and so would any industrial co2 in the atmosphere be long gone, all washed out by the rain which is constantly falling, so any theoretical one degree rise would not even be attained.

[Guest]

the temperature is measured and converted to OHC which translates to a numeric value for watts per meter square for climate sensitivity to co2. all the assumptions here favour your position.

if you accept the measurements for OHC, or "heat content absorbed" then you have to accept that global warming is not a problem, as already explained in the links in my last post.

or maybe you think 6 hundreds of a degree rise since 1968 is a problem?

what would be a problem? one degree rise?

that would take another 750 years at the rate based on these measurements. fossil fuels would be long gone by then, and so would any industrial co2 in the atmosphere be long gone, all washed out by the rain which is constantly falling, so any theoretical one degree rise would not even be attained.

The problem kicks in at about 2 degrees rise, which we are over half way towards. At that point ecological changes start to add to the ever accellerating level of Anthropogenic CO2 we will still be adding. As explained to you before, the oceans can give up their stored heat as easily as they absorb it and a switch from El Nino to La Nina dominated years will see a sudden and rapid spike in temperatures as the oceans release much of the damped heating they have masked.

At two degrees the permofrost is toast and vast amounts of methane and soil sequestered carbon kicks in, ice albedo is all but gone and this means more surface IR heating the atmosphere.

So the simple answer to your question is about 2 degrees which we have gone half way towards, stopping emitting CO2 today will likely mean that we will still arrive at 2 degrees centigrade warming anyway since the residence time of CO2/CH4 will carry on adding heat to the system for at least another few decades.

Since there is absolutely no sign that we will reduce emissions to managable levels (since emissions are still rising) the prospects are far more bleak than what I have just desribed.

Br Cornelius

[CyberKen]

so the models got it wrong then, yet the models are the only reason to care about global warming.

the oceans have warmed 0.06 degrees since 1968, if you believe they can measure to that accuracy. why should I care?

this translates to 0.5watts/m2 greenhouse effect due to co2 (this even assumes all the warming since 1968 is due to co2) which gives a climate sensitivity an order of magnitude smaller than the IPCC's claim, which means you should not care either.

http://motls.blogspo...ntless-but.html

http://judithcurry.c...-of-ocean-heat/

We all agree that global warming paused in 1998.

Now would be a good time to stop terrorizing children with end of the world scenarios.

BTW, i thought geothermal heat from the center of the Earth warms the pacific ocean? El Nino ?

El Nino effects our weather, not mankind activity.

Solar Wind + Solar CMEs + El Nino = Global Warming / Cooling for Earth

I see very few sunspots this year.

[Guest]

We all agree that global warming paused in 1998.

Now would be a good time to stop terrorizing children with end of the world scenarios.

BTW, i thought geothermal heat from the center of the Earth warms the pacific ocean? El Nino ?

El Nino effects our weather, not mankind activity.

Solar Wind + Solar CMEs + El Nino = Global Warming / Cooling for Earth

I see very few sunspots this year.

Please oh please show us how geothermal heat causes the El Nino and how geothermal activity has taken a significant uptick over the last 150 years.

This is not a trick question.

PS - if you see almost no sun spots - why hasn't the planet experienced significant COOLING this year.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 29, 2013 by Guest

[Little Fish]

As explained to you before

you didn't explain, you asserted, not the same thing. speculation and fact are different.

the oceans can give up their stored heat as easily as they absorb it and a switch from El Nino to La Nina dominated years will see a sudden and rapid spike in temperatures as the oceans release much of the damped heating they have masked.

enso is related to the trade winds which affect the surface waters. the 0.06 degrees temperature change over the last 50 years is to a depth of 2 kilometers, well below the surface. thermodynamic laws tell us the heat won't jump out all of a sudden. any el nino is not long lasting enough to affect global temperature for very long, it's weather not climate.

[Little Fish]

proxie reconstructions only show a strong MWP in the Northern Hemisphere centred around Europe.

"the world's climate alarmists have been loath to admit there was an MWP anywhere other than in countries surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. And so it is that the results of the several studies described above are of great importance to the ongoing global warming debate, as they greatly advance the thesis that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, wherein temperatures throughout the world were significantly warmer than they have been anytime subsequently, and that there is thus nothing unusual or unprecedented about earth's current level of warmth, with the obvious implication that the maximum temperatures of the present simply cannot be attributed to the historical increase in the air's CO2 content."

http://scienceandpub...wp_aus_newz.pdf

[+DieChecker]

I have not read the report detailing the absorbtion of heat into the oceans yet, but was there some forcast on how long the ocean absorbtion will put out the melting of Greenland?

This looks pretty bad here...

But without knowing the parameters where damage will occur, it is meaningless. If it takes 3C to cause a noticable effect in the deep ocean, but that is going to take 500 years to get to, then we can look at this graph and know how bad it is.

I've been reading several online articles about this, but have not found the data that says how bad (how many years) (how many degrees at 2000 feet) (how many animals will be hurt) the rise actually is. Mostly all that is printed is, "LOOK AT THAT RISE!!! DOOMSDAY!". It would be nice to know if this is actually something to worry about in the near term, or long term.

Edited September 29, 2013 by DieChecker

[Little Fish]

but have not found the data that says how bad (how many years) (how many degrees at 2000 feet)

since 1968 the temperature of the oceans down to 2000 meters has increased by, drumroll....0.06 degrees (6 hundreds of one degree)

see post 451.

[Little Fish]

proxie reconstructions only show a strong MWP in the Northern Hemisphere centred around Europe.

bull****

in addition to MWP in australia and new zealand previously given.

MWP in russia

http://scienceandpub...riod_russia.pdf

MWP in north america

http://scienceandpub...wp_namerica.pdf

MWP in arctic

http://scienceandpub...s/artic_mwp.pdf

MWP in china

http://scienceandpub...s/mwp_china.pdf

MWP in south amercia

http://scienceandpub...uth_america.pdf

[+DieChecker]

since 1968 the temperature of the oceans down to 2000 meters has increased by, drumroll....0.06 degrees (6 hundreds of one degree)

see post 451.

And as air temps keep increasing and the surface of the oceans remains fairly constant, wouldn't we expect that the transfer would increase? Thus expectations of air temp increases might have to be re-evaluated. It would seem that such would have been calculated in. Did any thermal exchange experts get invovled in these reports I wonder?

If 40+ years of heat dumping into the oceans raised the deep ocean by 0.06 C then probably we have hundreds of years of dump left there. Unless something like the methane bubble gets burst and then we're toast. I wonder if adding a degree C or two to the deep ocean increases the chance of the frozen methane being released?

[MonkeyLove]

the temperature is measured and converted to OHC which translates to a numeric value for watts per meter square for climate sensitivity to co2. all the assumptions here favour your position.

if you accept the measurements for OHC, or "heat content absorbed" then you have to accept that global warming is not a problem, as already explained in the links in my last post.

The rising ocean heat content shows that global warming did not slow down. Rather, heat was absorbed by oceans. What are the consequences of that?

or maybe you think 6 hundreds of a degree rise since 1968 is a problem?

No, if I don't consider positive feedback loops.

what would be a problem? one degree rise?

that would take another 750 years at the rate based on these measurements. fossil fuels would be long gone by then, and so would any industrial co2 in the atmosphere be long gone, all washed out by the rain which is constantly falling, so any theoretical one degree rise would not even be attained.

At least we're no longer dealing with the issue of whether or not there is global warming, as results have been clear:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

The question, then, is the effect of that on the biosphere. To answer that question, you should look at the NAS final report.

As for connections between global warming and fossil fuel supply issues, try the IEA Outlook 2010 report:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/

[Guest]

you didn't explain, you asserted, not the same thing. speculation and fact are different.

enso is related to the trade winds which affect the surface waters. the 0.06 degrees temperature change over the last 50 years is to a depth of 2 kilometers, well below the surface. thermodynamic laws tell us the heat won't jump out all of a sudden. any el nino is not long lasting enough to affect global temperature for very long, it's weather not climate.

Indeed it is Little Fish and that is why its suppressing of global surface temps over the last 15 years is just short term weather which will have no overall effect on the climate trend of about 0.16 degrees centigrade per decade. Its good to see you admit that the enso is just weather and not a primary climate driver. Progress.

Just remember that 1998 (that highly significant year) was a very high El Nino year which caused a significant spike in Global temperatures - which shows the real relationship between the weather and the Enso. La Nina takes heat out of the surface atmosphere and sends it to the deep ocean where it produces very small actual temperature rises. The temperature suppressing effect of the La Nina dominated years since 1998 cannot carry on for much longer and we are already seeing ENSO neutral years starting to dominate again.

Fundamentally though you still show a poor understanding of how the Enso works to effect global temps.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 30, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

bull****

in addition to MWP in australia and new zealand previously given.

MWP in russia

http://scienceandpub...riod_russia.pdf

MWP in north america

http://scienceandpub...wp_namerica.pdf

MWP in arctic

http://scienceandpub...s/artic_mwp.pdf

MWP in china

http://scienceandpub...s/mwp_china.pdf

MWP in south amercia

http://scienceandpub...uth_america.pdf

Do you understand the difference between peer reviewed research and propeganda ?

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Here is an explanation of why looking at individual regions throughout the MWP is misleading at best;

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

http://www.nature.co...s/ngeo1797.html

Not spacially homoganous or temporally homogenous. Conclusion - the MWP was not a global event - it was a series of related local events. This is also why global reconstructions tend to average it out into background noise. This makes it fundamentally different to present warming.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 30, 2013 by Guest

[Zaphod222]

The "man made global warming" believers want to tell us that man-created CO2 content in the atmosphere is the sole cause of climate change, and that we can control the planetary climate like an airconditioner.

But just look at the numbers: The CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently about 0.038%. Of that 0.038 %, roughly 4% are man made. That means 0.00152 %! Lets go the whole hog and say we could reduce that by one third. So they are talking about a gas making up 0.0005 % of the atmosphere, and THAT, they want to tell us, CONTROLS the climate?

If you want a definition of insanity, look no further.

The whole "global warming" agenda is political, as even the politiians themselves admit sometimes.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy". (Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

[Zaphod222]

And those who gobble up the IPPC political talking points: You are the definition of gullability. Every politicians dream!

Wear the hat if it fits.

[Guest]

The "man made global warming" believers want to tell us that man-created CO2 content in the atmosphere is the sole cause of climate change, and that we can control the planetary climate like an airconditioner.

But just look at the numbers: The CO2 content in the atmosphere is currently about 0.038%. Of that 0.038 %, roughly 4% are man made. That means 0.00152 %! Lets go the whole hog and say we could reduce that by one third. So they are talking about a gas making up 0.0005 % of the atmosphere, and THAT, they want to tell us, CONTROLS the climate?

If you want a definition of insanity, look no further.

The whole "global warming" agenda is political, as even the politiians themselves admit sometimes.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy". (Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

Which just shows you neither understand the concept of potency or the mechanism by which CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere.

I ask all people who make your dubious point if they would like to consume the same concentration of cyanide to prove the point that potency is unimportant. We are responsible for a rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. We did that.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

And those who gobble up the IPPC political talking points: You are the definition of gullability. Every politicians dream!

Wear the hat if it fits.

There is a middle way between gullibility and not heeding good warnings. Many like you seem to be to be ignoring the storm signals and other warnings, much to the peril of all of us if the political will to act is held off by people who think they are not "gullible." Politicians like excuses for not calling for sacrifice, and you provide it.

[Little Fish]

There is a middle way between gullibility and not heeding good warnings. Many like you seem to be to be ignoring the storm signals and other warnings, much to the peril of all of us if the political will to act is held off by people who think they are not "gullible."

what storm signals would that be?

"Politicians like excuses for not calling for sacrifice, and you provide it."

politicians like excuses for calling for sacrifce, and you provide it.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

Here is an explanation of why looking at individual regions throughout the MWP is misleading at best;

http://www.nature.co...s/ngeo1797.html

Not spacially homoganous or temporally homogenous. Conclusion - the MWP was not a global event - it was a series of related local events. This is also why global reconstructions tend to average it out into background noise. This makes it fundamentally different to present warming.

Br Cornelius

I have shown you that the MWP occurred in all the regions of the planet, you stated that it only occurred in europe.

what you called propaganda are reviews of the published literature. the studies are there for you read, hundreds of them.

you claim that if they were "averaged out" then the MWP would disappear, but in order for that to happen, then there must be an equal number of studies that show the MWP was as cold by the same magnitude as the other studies show it to be warm - there are none that show that.

[Guest]

I have shown you that the MWP occurred in all the regions of the planet, you stated that it only occurred in europe.

what you called propaganda are reviews of the published literature. the studies are there for you read, hundreds of them.

you claim that if they were "averaged out" then the MWP would disappear, but in order for that to happen, then there must be an equal number of studies that show the MWP was as cold by the same magnitude as the other studies show it to be warm - there are none that show that.

I Showed you a comprehensive study which supports the position I have stated from the start. It looks at all regions and finds that the MWP was not a single event but a series of events. By dividing the analysis up into regions the skeptical source you have used attempts to imply that the events were synchronous across the globe when they are not. Willie Soon attempted a similar slight of hand as well in one of his most infamous papers.

And yes - it was strongest in Northern Europe - as I stated.

I have refuted your contention with a peer reviewed global analysis and it says that current warming is global and greater than the average warming of the MWP.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 30, 2013 by Guest

[CyberKen]

And those who gobble up the IPPC political talking points: You are the definition of gullability. Every politicians dream!

Wear the hat if it fits.

The science behind man-made Global Warming is faulty and politically driven.

What would happen if the IPCC admitted the truth?

They would be chased down the street!

[Little Fish]

The rising ocean heat content shows that global warming did not slow down. Rather, heat was absorbed by oceans.

"global-mean sea level has continued to rise during 1998–2012, at a rate only slightly and insignificantly lower than during 1993–2012"

if the "extra heat" was absorbed by the oceans during the period 1998-2012 then the ipcc contradict this by stating the rate of sea level rise has declined over that period - the sea level should have risen at a higher rate than the previous decade if the oceans absorbed that "extra heat" - they didn't.

"In order for the post-1997 atmospheric/SST slowdown (pause) to be explained by ocean heat uptake the ocean uptake must have been HIGHER during this period. The data I have seen look like a steady uptake with maybe even a surface level (0-700m) slowdown in uptake post-1997. Just the opposite of what is required. The movement of heat into the deep ocean is then claimed but data do not allow this to be proved or refuted." - Craig Loehle

No, if I don't consider positive feedback loops.

there is no reason to believe feedback is positive, there is reason to believe any feedback is negative - the lower climate sensitivity models are consistent with empirical measurements of no warming over the last 15-16 years

Edited September 30, 2013 by Little Fish