Climate change has NOT affected the abyss: Nasa reveals cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed since 2005
New paper is a huge blow to CAGW: ‘Missing heat’ NOT found in the deep oceans – Published in Nature Climate Change
…LA Times: West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes – Published in PNAS
‘Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.’
…
Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the study, said its conclusions about long-term trends were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable. The results may also reflect the fact that the northeast Pacific is an area of the globe where past studies have shown the “signal” of climate change is low relative to the “noise” of natural variability.
“There is no doubt that regionally, the changes in temperature are dominated by changes in the atmospheric circulation that likely have little or nothing to do with climate change,” Trenberth said. But, he added, “this does not call into question the concept of global warming.”…
Global warming blamed for death of California surfer from lightning strike?! – Lightning at Venice Beach? California faces really weird – and deadly – weather
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2014/07/california-freak-storm…
Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes: Phil Jones 7th May, 2009‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/07/quotable-warming-hiatus-quotes.html
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’__________________Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”__________________Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..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.”__________________Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”__________________Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”__________________Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t untilrecently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”__________________Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”[A] “Yes, but only just”.__________________Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”__________________Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”__________________Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”__________________Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September2011“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows …
Analysis: Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times
Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-ipcc-exaggerates-greenhouse-forcing.html
A new paper finds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth’s “missing heat” from carbon dioxide. Trenberth’s theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year ‘pause’ of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water.
Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world’s oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times.
According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world’s most respected oceanographers,
“A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012).”
Although the paper does not compare these estimates to those of the IPCC, using the “IPCC formula” for forcing from CO2 [which includes alleged positive feedback from water vapor], we find that over the same 19 year period studied by Dr. Wunsch that greenhouse gas forcing allegedly increased by 0.505 W/m2 given the increase in CO2 levels from 356.38 ppm in 1992 to 391.63 ppm in 2011:
5.35*ln(391.63/356.38) = 0.505 W/m2
However, Dr. Wunsch notes above that over the same period the world oceans warmed by only 0.2 ± 0.1 W/m2, or 2.5 times less than the IPCC alleged forcing from greenhouse gases. Note this is assuming that all ocean warming over that period was from greenhouse gas forcing and none from ocean oscillations, solar amplification mechanisms, clouds, global brightening, natural variability, etc. The actual greenhouse forcing on the oceans after feedbacks and natural variability is thus most likely to be a minimum of 2.5 times less than the IPCC claims.
Dr. Wunsch also finds a forcing of 1 W/m2, if continuously maintained, would change global mean ocean temperature by only …
Ocean Heat Content -Another simple evidence based rebuttal of claims that missing heat is being carried down to the bottom of the ocean
Ocean Heat Content -Another simple evidence based rebuttal of AGW
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/06/ocean-heat-content-another-simple.html
By Anthony CoxThe latest funny bit of science from the AGW world has been the assertion that the missing heat is being carried down to the bottom of the ocean. Leading lights of AGW science like England and Trenberth have both suggested the mechanism for this heat transfer to the bottom is wind. The absurdity of those positions are dealt with hereand here.But such obvious rebuttals of the science of AGW does not stop the alarmists from peddling their beliefs and mischief. In a recent online debate this graph was posted:The source of course is Cook’s SKS site and is highly misleading. How misleading it is revealed by Eric Skr on the same thread who has made some excellent points and posted some cogent graphs of Ocean Heat Content [OHC]. Eric noted this well-known NOAA graph was in Joules and not temperature:The vertical axis is clearly marked in Joules. Eric’s comment was: For the sake of discussion let’s accept the graph and all data as accurate. The lowest end of the graph is -10 Joules, the highest is +15 Joules. That gives us a 25 Joule delta. I see that they have scaled it at a factor of 10. 25 Joules converts to 0.01316412691165. We have to factor in the scale so we multiply by 10 and we come up with 0.1316412691165 – one tenth of a degree C between 1955 and 2014. Fabulous 1/10 of a degree over 50 years. Stunning amount of warming there.This is an excellent point and was noted by other astute commentators including Lucia at The Blackboard. Lucia also converted the Joule graph into temperature:That is astounding. Temperature at 2000 meters where England’s and Trenberth’s missing heat is supposed to be has gone up 0.09C since before 1960. Some missing heat. This is why the alarmists always post OHC graphs in Joules which have such bigger and scarier numbers. And that’s assuming the measurements are correct. Eric’s other valid point was that accurate measurements of OHC have really only been around since the ARGO measurements began in 2004.Using 2004 as a base Eric has been busy producing graphs of the OHC in different areas of the world at different levels based on the official ARGO data. The graphs of the ARGO data are simply another complete rebuttal of AGW science. They speak for …
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry levels both barrels against alarmist climate science: ‘There are very few facts in all this’
The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations.
I would also like to comment on the ‘good loser’ issue. I wholeheartedly agree with Dyson. In the annals of climate science, how would you characterize Mann’s defense of the hockey stick? Other good or bad losers that you can think of in climate science? The biggest problem is premature declaration of ‘winners’ by consensus to suit political and policy maker objectives.”…