- June 2020
- May 2020
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- January 2019
- August 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
Category Archives: Ocean heat content
A referred paper in Quaestiones Geographicae* written by Cliff Ollier titled “Global Warming and Climate Change: Science and Politics “ maintains the idea that global warming will bring on devastation is a dangerous belief. Ollier challenges the belief that CO2 is a major force in defining the globe’s climate. He also takes on the corollary issues such as sea level, the Sun and climate. The abstract to the paper follows:
The threat of dangerous climate change from anthropogenic global warming has decreased.
• Global temperature rose from 1975 to 1998, but since then has leveled off.
• Sea level is now rising at about 1.5mm per year based on tide gauges, and satellite data suggests it may even be falling.
o Coral islands once allegedly threatened by drowning have actually increased in area.
o Ice caps cannot possibly slide into the sea (the alarmist model) because they occupy kilometres-deep basins extending below sea level.
o Deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years and in all that time never melted, despite times when the temperature was higher than it is today.
o Sea ice shows no change in 30 years in the Arctic.
• Emphasis on the greenhouse effect stresses radiation and usually leads to neglect of important factors like convection.
o Water is the main greenhouse gas.
o The CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere are in equilibrium: if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere the ocean would give out more to restore the balance. Increasing CO2 might make the ocean less alkaline but never acid.
• The sun is now seen as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.
o There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate.
o Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling.
• Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models.
o The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.
The issues listed in the Abstract are explored in some detail in the full paper that you can access by clicking here.
Dr David Evans has made a youtube video titled “Climate Change in 12 Minutes-The Skeptic’s Case”. The focus of this video is the “positive feedback” claimed by the greens which they claim amplifies the effect of CO2. This positive feedback is used in all the green’s computer models. These computer outputs are incompatible with the actual data. Air and ocean temperatures as well has the tropical hotspots do not agree with computer output. In fact, a negative feedback appears to exist that reduces, rather than amplify, the effect of CO2.
See Evan’s video by clicking here.
The UAH satellite temperature readings for January show a lower tropospheric temperature anomoly of +0/51C. This is a large increase. Dr Spencer, co-manager of the system, says he has double checked the results and finds them to be real, as opposed to a measurement error. He suggest that the reason for such a large spike may be due to “ a temporary increase in convective heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere.” The UAH chart is shown below:
Last September, I posted: Dr Evans:”Climate Models Are Violently At Odds With Reality”. This posting is a Dr Evans up-date of the September information. This time he adds a simple explanation of the central issue regarding CO2 caused global warming—will feedbacks from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 be positive or negative? The Warmers claim that a 1C increase due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will really become a 3.3C increase because of positive feedback. We skeptics believe that the feedback will be negative and the warming will probably be in the range of 0.6C.
For those of you more inquisitive types, Dr Evans in his footnotes, gives more information and references to help you do some research of your own.
If the first release of Climategate emails in November of 2009 wasn’t enough to convince people that a small group of superwarmer scientists have been advancing the theory of man-made global warming through manipulation, this newly released batch (generally called Climategate 2) should convince them.
First of all, why should anyone care if this “small” group of superwarmers is doing bad things? The reason is that this small group controls the dialogue on this subject. It manipulates the data to comply with their point of view; it writes the critical parts of the IPCC reports; it decides what is published and what is not published; and, it punishes scientists and organizations that don’t toe the line. While we are being squeezed financially, they are pulling in millions of dollars in grants and honors.
The people that need to step up and put an end to this charade are the good and descent scientists that have been taken in by the superwarmers. They suffer from a confirmation bias that has to be pretty hard to sustain these days of no global temperature rise, falling sea levels and all the climategate email revelations, just to name a few things. These scientists must stand up against the blind allegiance that their professional societies maintain to catastrophic man-made global warming theory. Certainly there are enough reasons for them to become skeptics. They should be comfortable in saying that until there is more proof and open discussions of the science of the global climate, they no longer are going to support the warmer supergroup. Until that happens, the media will continue to uncritically pass on to the public anything the superwarmers tell them because they always use in their defense “almost all scientist agree with the supergroup”.
By the way, for those of you are under the impression that members of the warmer supergroup have been investigated and exonerated, you need to read up on this and you will learn that the exoneration was predetermined. For one good read on this, see here.
Solar Cycle 24 August Sunspot and Solar Flux data continues to paint a picture of a much less active Sun when compared against the previous Cycle 23.
First, David Hathaway’s September edition of his sunspot predictions. Hathaway has a mid, high and low range chart with the actual data slightly below the mid-range forecast. The Hathaway midrange predicts a maximum monthly high of about 70 Sunspots in early 2013. Cycle 23 experienced a maximum monthly high of about 120 in 2001.
NOAA sunspot prediction chart has only a single line which predicts a maximum monthly of about 90 sunspots. It is shown below:
Solar flux through August appears to be trending below the NOAA prediction for Cycle 24. The NOAA Cycle 24 solar flux prediction is for a peak of 140 in 2013. This contrasts with the Cycle 23 maximum of about 195 in 2002. See the NOAA chart below:
Following several brief comments about another AGW scientist owning up to the weakness of the computer models, is a site that lists failed AGW climate computer models projections. Remember it is these computer projection upon which rests the entire rationale for the manmade global warming theory,
Kevin Trenberth is “Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research”. Trenberth has been a lead author for IPCC Global Warming Reports. He is also one of the Climategate gang. In one of the hacked emails he sent to his compatriots he said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” (My emphasis) He later explained that what he really meant is that the globe is still heating up but nobody can figure out where the heat is going. Recently Dr Spencer and Dr Braswell seem to have explained this. See here for their paper On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance Roy W. Spencer, and William D. Braswell.
So we are talking about a major leader in the AGW theory crowd. He recently has published a paper in “Climate Research”. In that paper according to CO2 Science:
…..(he) compares the projections of state-of-the-art climate models with what is known about the real world with respect to extreme meteorological events related to atmospheric moisture, such as precipitation and various types of storm systems, as well as subsequent extreme consequences such as droughts, floods and wind damage. So what does he find?
The C3 blog summarizes that paper as follows:
Specifically, Trenberth takes issue with the climate models’ inadequacies in regards to precipitation. Such as:
“…all models contain large errors in precipitation simulations, both in terms of mean fields and their annual cycle, as well as their characteristics: the intensity, frequency, and duration of precipitation…”
“…relates to poor depiction of transient tropical disturbances, including easterly waves, Madden-Julian Oscillations, tropical storms, and hurricanes…”
“…confidence in model results for changes in extremes is tempered by the large scatter among the extremes in modeling today’s climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics…”
“…it appears that many, perhaps all, global climate and numerical weather prediction models and even many high-resolution regional models have a premature onset of convection and overly frequent precipitation with insufficient intensity,…”
“…model-simulated precipitation “occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large…”
“…a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture…”
and finally, he has a NSS moment…”major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle.”
Ok we skeptic were pretty sure that was the case. But remember that group still wants us to bet the future on their models.
I want to lead you to a treasure trove of AGW computer model “Fails”. If you click HERE you will get a listing of computer models failures.
Here are some of the recent titles:
Look at the other links that take you to more good information.
The January global temperature had an anomaly of +0.72C, which is the warmest January in the 32 years of satellite temperature measurements.
Dr Spenser thinks this is probably a function of sea surface temperature and he says:
I’m sure part of the reason is warm El Nino conditions in the Pacific. Less certain is my guess that when the Northern Hemisphere continents are unusually cold in winter, then ocean surface temperatures, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, should be unusually warm. But this is just speculation on my part, based on the idea that cold continental air masses can intensify when they get land-locked, with less flow of maritime air masses over the continents, and less flow of cold air masses over the ocean. Maybe the Arctic Oscillation is an index of this, as a few of you have suggested, but I really don’t know.
Also, remember that there are always quasi-monthly oscillations in the amount of heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, primarily in the tropics, which is why a monthly up-tick in tropospheric temperatures is usually followed by a down-tick the next month, and vice-versa.
So, it could be that all factors simply conspired to give an unusually warm spike in January…only time will tell.
So keep tuned. To see Spencer’s full post click here.
The Boss called in his science advisor, Galileo. The Boss says “Galileo, I am being asked to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) atmospheric emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels. Should I do it; put in a plan to cutback fossil fuel use? I know I can trust you because you, like your namesake think rationally not just go along with the crowd.”
Galileo responds “You have to decide based on (a) what we know or (b) what climate computers forecast the world will be like in 50 to 100 years if you don’t do something now.”
The Boss says “What’s the difference between what we know now and the computer forecasts?”
“Well Boss” Galileo replied “you know that those who want you to cut back fossil fuel use say that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere will result in an unacceptable increase in global temperature, flooding resulting from ice melt, droughts in some parts of the world and excessive rains in others. Plus famine, war, pestilence and death”
“How do they know these things will happen?” asked the Boss.
“It’s the computers, Boss.”
“OK, then tell me what you meant about what we know now.”
Galileo said “Well despite a continuing increase in atmospheric CO2, the global temperatures have not risen in over ten years and the ocean temperatures have declined since 2003 when the Argo Buoy system was put into service. The Argo buoys are the only credible ocean temperature measurements. Sea level rise has been steady for hundreds of years and in fact there has been a slight decrease in the rate of rise recently. Further more, the most recent studies have decoupled CO2 rise and violent weather. Much of the 4 Horses of the Apocalypse talk is based on un-peer reviewed papers by organizations like World Wildlife Fund that are advocates of the man-made global warming theory.”
“But surely the computers must have forecast this as I have heard of these projections for 20 years, even before I became Boss”
“ Boss, these climate computers are not skillful.”
“Skillful, what does that mean?”
“That is a way of saying they are unable to make accurate forecasts. This is because the globe’s climate is so complex and the computer programmers and the scientist that provide technical data do not fully understanding its complexity. So they backcast and add constants (fudge factors, speaking technically) to model the past. But this is only of limited success when trying to predict the climate in the future. It is my understanding they mostly fiddle with the output until it gives the desired outcome that matches their predisposition.”
“My, my that doesn’t seem ligit.”
“Well Boss, you can see why they do this. The people are unlikely to agree to draconian laws that kill their economies. But if you tell them that the computer says that in 50 to 100 years from now things will be pretty bad here on Earth if they don’t. Even though these computers are woeful at making accurate predictions, the advocates of man-made global warming pretend they are believable else the whole man-made global warming industry would collapse.”
“So Galileo tell me what you think we should do.”
“First I want you to know that I believe the globe is warming and has been since the last Ice Age. But the warming by and large is due to natural forces and does not seem to present any danger of getting out of hand. Right now, for example, the total global ice is increasing, ocean temperatures are on the decline,. I don’t believe we know enough to potentially destroy our economy by restricting the use of fossil fuels.”
“Well said, but maybe the climate computers will be able to predict the future.”
“I have some thoughts on that , Boss. Perhaps more powerful computers and increased knowledge of how the climate works will someday yield accurate forecasts. But how can we know when that happens? I believe climate forecasts must be accurate for 20 or more years into the future. I would have all the best computer programmers and climate scientists set up from 1 to 5 computers, let them make projections for climate in 20 years hence. If any of them are found to make accurate projections after 20 years, then lets use that program to make decisions. It is likely that continuing development of this science will produce new candidates for this test. Every 5 years new entries should be put into this program and we can wait for that computer program’s projection demonstration after 20 years. With out demonstrated performance accuracy, we never should allow computer climate forecasts set policy.”
“In the meantime, we can work on improved energy technologies. We will encourage this effort, but we should not force unproven, unreliable and costly technologies on the public.”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced the creation of a new agency that they say will be “one-stop shopping into the world of climate information.” Rather than that, it is likely that the agency will continue the “science is settled” version of the church of AGW.
Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) editorialized about this new agency saying: “Hoaxes: Despite failures at Copenhagen, the fraud of the IPCC and the farce of Climate-gate, the administration wants an agency to monitor climate change. Why must we fund one-stop shopping for climate charlatans?”
In spite of the Climategate scandals and the many errors in the IPCC Annual Report 4 on climate change, the Obama administration continues to push for legislation that will reduce US CO2 emission by 17% by 2020.
The IBD adds
“Undaunted by facts, U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern gave the U.N. notice on Jan. 26 that this country, ignoring observable data that the globe is cooling, the will of the American people and the failure of Copenhagen, is still committing itself to a 17% emissions cut in carbon dioxide and other gases by 2020 from 2005 levels.
This is an absurd policy based on fraudulent data that will doom the American economy and American workers to Third World status without denting global temperatures by a fraction of a degree.”
Not only can we expect disinformation from this new Agency but it also continues the Obama Administrations build up of government workers while it cannot figure out how to create jobs in the private sector.
To read the complete IBD posting, click here.