What's really warming the world?

[code1211]

There are many factors that are going to influence climate in the short term like solar, volcanic, and oceanic activity. Temperatures don't go in strait lines. Global warming is not a strait line from year to year but a general trend but a general trend over hundreds of years.
View attachment 67187553

From your logic there have been 11 "hiatuses" over a century with a clear warming trend.

Actually, by my logic, there are 60 year cycles that seem to repeat and, if you were to have paid attention to when the last one ended and the next one started, you would have predicted that the warming would have stalled in about the year 2000.

Of course, if you were covering your eyes and repeating na-na-na-na over and over to blot out anything but the "CO2 is the main driver" mantra, this would not have been a consideration.

There are several decadenal oscillations that seem to be pretty consistent.

Here is one:

 

[distraff]

Actually, by my logic, there are 60 year cycles that seem to repeat and, if you were to have paid attention to when the last one ended and the next one started, you would have predicted that the warming would have stalled in about the year 2000.

Of course, if you were covering your eyes and repeating na-na-na-na over and over to blot out anything but the "CO2 is the main driver" mantra, this would not have been a consideration.

There are several decadenal oscillations that seem to be pretty consistent.

Here is one:

I agree that short-term factors like ocean currents are a big reason why we didn't see a lot of warming after 2000. Factors like these are a big reason why temperature does not go up and down in strait lines. Short term variations from the ocean, volcanic activity, and the sun will keep the temperature increase from being strait, but if the CO2 increase is really having such a big impact over the last decade we should see a clear warming trend even if the warming doesn't go in a strait line. That is exactly what we see.

And as I said before climate scientists have shown using basic science that the increases we have seen from CO2 will produce the warming that we have seen. How is my argument in trouble here?

Just to remove confusion here is some things I admit:
In the past other things besides CO2 has changed the climate.
CO2 is not the only thing that has warmed the earth in the last 100 years, and CO2 is not the only thing that changes our climate.
Just because CO2 and temperatures are going up does not mean that one is causing the other.
The hotter temperatures and more CO2 we are seeing have been seen in the past.

 

[distraff]

You should become a politician, or lawyer, with the way you twist the obvious meaning of a person's statement.

Actually I am a software designer. I build real logic. If I misrepresented something it means I mistook its real meaning.

 

[joG]

You mean like the Gauss strength of the suns magnetic field?

There are unknowns we do not know.

 

[Poor Debater]

Actually, by my logic, there are 60 year cycles that seem to repeat and, if you were to have paid attention to when the last one ended and the next one started, you would have predicted that the warming would have stalled in about the year 2000.

Of course, if you were covering your eyes and repeating na-na-na-na over and over to blot out anything but the "CO2 is the main driver" mantra, this would not have been a consideration.

There are several decadenal oscillations that seem to be pretty consistent.

Here is one:

Ocean cycles don't create heat, they just move it around from the surface to the depths and back again. So ocean cycles cannot explain the rise in ocean heat content, which is where 93% of global warming is occurring.

 

[code1211]

I agree that short-term factors like ocean currents are a big reason why we didn't see a lot of warming after 2000. Factors like these are a big reason why temperature does not go up and down in strait lines. Short term variations from the ocean, volcanic activity, and the sun will keep the temperature increase from being strait, but if the CO2 increase is really having such a big impact over the last decade we should see a clear warming trend even if the warming doesn't go in a strait line. That is exactly what we see.

And as I said before climate scientists have shown using basic science that the increases we have seen from CO2 will produce the warming that we have seen. How is my argument in trouble here?

Just to remove confusion here is some things I admit:
In the past other things besides CO2 has changed the climate.
CO2 is not the only thing that has warmed the earth in the last 100 years, and CO2 is not the only thing that changes our climate.
Just because CO2 and temperatures are going up does not mean that one is causing the other.
The hotter temperatures and more CO2 we are seeing have been seen in the past.

Your argument is not in trouble from what the scientists are saying. Your argument suffers when the politicians overstate the effects and attempt to drive the transfer of wealth which they will both administer and become very wealthy stealing from.

The last two of the four points closing your post are interesting.

If the causal link between CO2 and Warming is broken, then the A in AGW is moot and there is no political connection to this topic.

In the long history of our planet since oxygen became a larger bit of the air, there only abut 3 instances in which the rise of CO2 did not lag the warming by hundreds of years. We are in one right now.

One of those times is now. The other two are as much conjecture as proven since they happened millions of years ago and they are trying to establish a sequence of a few hundred years. The point is, though, that the rise of CO2 has almost always been an effect of rising temperature, not a cause.

The politicians seem to leave this important order of sequence out of their strong statement sof the causal link. Al Gore, in particular, famouslydisplayed this causal link but omitted the mention that the CO2 was the effect of the temperature change during the period of interglacials, not the cause.

 

[code1211]

Ocean cycles don't create heat, they just move it around from the surface to the depths and back again. So ocean cycles cannot explain the rise in ocean heat content, which is where 93% of global warming is occurring.

The ocean warming slowed dramatically when the measurement of the ocean warming became methodical and consistent using the Argo Array of Buoys..

The actual warming of the oceans seems, according to Argo, to have been slight but noticeable even though within the margin of error of the instruments, in the ocean over the period during which the over all warming of the globe had plateaued.

I would think that this share would have been greater than 93%. What period of time are you referencing?

If the period includes the data recorded before the data from the Argo array, it only slightly more reliable than a rumor.

 

[Poor Debater]

The ocean warming slowed dramatically when the measurement of the ocean warming became methodical and consistent using the Argo Array of Buoys..

Utterly false. OHC has accelerated since Argo. The ayatollahs of Denierstan have lied to you again. Why do you still trust those guys?

 

[Unicron]

 

[code1211]

Utterly false. OHC has accelerated since Argo. The ayatollahs of Denierstan have lied to you again. Why do you still trust those guys?

Argo didn't start delivering data until 2003 and then was seriously re-calibrated in about 2005. What you have posted is decidedly not Argo data.

They don't seem to like to make the images of the Argo Temperature Data readily available but here are are some Argo Heat Content Images that expose the deception in your chart:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo

[h=1]Key Figures[/h]Click the thumbnails to view larger sizes

[TABLE="class: views-table cols-2"]
[TR]
[TH="class: views-field views-field-field-key-figures"][h=4]Thumbnails[/h][/TH]
[TH="class: views-field views-field-field-key-figures-1"][h=4]Captions[/h][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: views-field views-field-field-key-figures"][/TD]
[TD="class: views-field views-field-field-key-figures-1"]Time series of global ocean heat content variability calculated from Argo temperature measurements in the 10-1500m depth layer. The average global warming rate accounts for 0.54±0.1 Wm-2 during the years 2005-2010. Contributed by K. von Schuckmann.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]








- See more at: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/c...0-1500m-depth-based-argo#sthash.dS3zbVKa.dpuf

https://www.google.com/search?q=image+of+argo+ocean+data&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=882&tbm=isch&imgil=9JWhJc3HP3amAM%253A%253BQrcYeTHovmbUQM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fclimatedataguide.ucar.edu%25252Fclimate-data%25252Focean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo&source=iu&pf=m&fir=9JWhJc3HP3amAM%253A%252CQrcYeTHovmbUQM%252C_&dpr=1&usg=__x_5JL9jfi7TOdIoJyqBLmt8FF-Q%3D&ved=0CDEQyjdqFQoTCKXohvyi8sYCFQJcPgoddvsAyQ&ei=12axVeWgLoK4-QH29oPIDA#imgrc=RyltP9idITLSuM%3A&usg=__x_5JL9jfi7TOdIoJyqBLmt8FF-Q%3D

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post

If the model misses the mark when hindcasting surely that means the model is crap. Just that the temperature is outside the bounds of the model for at least a third of the time... If that's the best they can do they have it wrong.

The model was in a report from 2007. So the model itself was created before the report was published in 2007. That explains why the model ends around 2000.

You have not answered the point at all. You have talked about an entirely different point.

Either you are being deliberately dishonest, which I do not think is the case, or you are in deep denial. Does the model you posted hindcast succesfully? Answer; No. Thus we can say that the model is crap.

 

[code1211]

Utterly false. OHC has accelerated since Argo. The ayatollahs of Denierstan have lied to you again. Why do you still trust those guys?

Here is the abstract for your paper:

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0?2000 m), 1955?2010 - Levitus - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

<snip>
Abstract

[1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases.

We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data.

The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
<snip>

They have used various bits of data and have INCLUDED Argo data, but this shows the deception of including instrument readings with proxy readings.

It's interesting to me that when the ideologues want to demonstrate warming and the land station instrument readings show this better when used exclusively, they use the instruments.

When the instruments show no warming, THEN they combine the instrument readings with the proxies and reduce the weight of the instrument's impact.

These warmist ideologues are very tricky and crafty. They are strongly committed to their ideology, though. You have to give them credit for that.

 

[Poor Debater]

Argo didn't start delivering data until 2003 and then was seriously re-calibrated in about 2005. What you have posted is decidedly not Argo data.

Utterly false, as you would have discovered if you had bothered to consult the cited source (Levitus et al. 2012): "We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data."

FAIL.

They don't seem to like to make the images of the Argo Temperature Data readily available but here are are some Argo Heat Content Images that expose the deception in your chart:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo

Well gee. The chart you posted shows ocean heat content increasing at a rate of 0.54±.1 W/m² for the layer 0-1500 meters, while Levitus shows increase of .63±.1 W/m² for the layer 0-2000 meters. Within each others' error ranges, in other words. The only "deception" here is yours, in claiming that there is a deception.

 

[Poor Debater]

Here is the abstract for your paper:

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0?2000*m), 1955?2010 - Levitus - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So you now admit that your previous statement that "What you have posted is decidedly not Argo data" is, in fact, utterly bogus denier crapola, unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence.

Thanks for that.

They have used various bits of data and have INCLUDED Argo data, but this shows the deception of including instrument readings with proxy readings.

Oh really? Proxy reading for OHC? What a laugh.

Please, oh pretty please, let us all know what proxy readings were used by Levitus et al. for Ocean Heat Content. We would all love to know!

It's interesting to me that when the ideologues want to demonstrate warming and the land station instrument readings show this better when used exclusively, they use the instruments.

When the instruments show no warming, THEN they combine the instrument readings with the proxies and reduce the weight of the instrument's impact.

It's interesting to me that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about, and cannot provide even a single example of the injury you're complaining about. You've been lied to by the ayatollahs of Denierstan, and you've swallowed their stories without checking one word of their accuracy. Kinda like when you said, falsely, that Levitus didn't use Argo data. Same deal: all false accusations, all without evidence.

 

[code1211]

So you now admit that your previous statement that "What you have posted is decidedly not Argo data" is, in fact, utterly bogus denier crapola, unsupported by the slightest shred of evidence.

Thanks for that.


Oh really? Proxy reading for OHC? What a laugh.

Please, oh pretty please, let us all know what proxy readings were used by Levitus et al. for Ocean Heat Content. We would all love to know!



It's interesting to me that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about, and cannot provide even a single example of the injury you're complaining about. You've been lied to by the ayatollahs of Denierstan, and you've swallowed their stories without checking one word of their accuracy. Kinda like when you said, falsely, that Levitus didn't use Argo data. Same deal: all false accusations, all without evidence.

The collection of the warming or heat content data from the ocean is just this side of complete drivel until the Argo Array came on line.

The idea of including any of the other sources of data with this is like mixing raw sewage with fine wine. The previous sources for date were not standardized, methodical, global or regular.

You can try to maintain your view of this, but it just doesn't wash.

Here's another image that disagrees with the one you posted:

Ocean Heating by Global Warming

 

[Jack Hays]

This seems apropos.

The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1 | Watts Up With That?

Introduction
The aim of this article is to provide simple mathematical formulae that can be used to calculate the carbon dioxide (CO2) contribution to global temperature change, as represented in the computer climate models.
This article is the first in a series of four articles. Its purpose is to establish and verify the formulae, so unfortunately it is quite long and there’s a fair amount of maths in it. Parts 2 and 3 simply apply the formulae established in Part 1, and hopefully will be a lot easier to follow. Part 4 enters into further discussion. All workings and data are supplied in spreadsheets. In fact one aim is to allow users to play with the formulae in the spreadsheets.
Please note : In this article, all temperatures referred to are deg C anomalies unless otherwise stated.
Global Temperature Prediction
The climate model predictions of global temperature show on average a very slightly accelerating increase between +2 and +5 deg C by 2100: . . .

 

[Poor Debater]

The collection of the warming or heat content data from the ocean is just this side of complete drivel until the Argo Array came on line.

Citation, please, for anyone who has ever said pre-Argo data is "complete drivel". Or are you just making stuff up again?

The idea of including any of the other sources of data with this is like mixing raw sewage with fine wine. The previous sources for date were not standardized, methodical, global or regular.

Standards have changed over time, but data is data, no matter how much you wish you could ignore it. Have you ever wondered why the ayatollahs of Denierstan are so incredibly insistent that you ignore data, instead of examining it? Have you ever wondered what they're afraid you might find?

Here's another image that disagrees with the one you posted:

Ocean Heating by Global Warming

LMFAO. The image you posted uses as its source for Ocean Heat Content, NOAA's OHC data from Levitus: the exact same source as the data I posted. The only difference is that the graph I posted is 0-2000 meters, and the graph you posted is 0-700 meters.

One also has to wonder why you think the pre-Argo data on this graph, that you posted, is perfectly fine, while the very same pre-Argo data that I posted is "complete drivel". Perhaps you can explain to us all your thinking on that one. If indeed thinking had anything to do with it.

Denier FAIL.

 

[code1211]

Citation, please, for anyone who has ever said pre-Argo data is "complete drivel". Or are you just making stuff up again?


Standards have changed over time, but data is data, no matter how much you wish you could ignore it. Have you ever wondered why the ayatollahs of Denierstan are so incredibly insistent that you ignore data, instead of examining it? Have you ever wondered what they're afraid you might find?



LMFAO. The image you posted uses as its source for Ocean Heat Content, NOAA's OHC data from Levitus: the exact same source as the data I posted. The only difference is that the graph I posted is 0-2000 meters, and the graph you posted is 0-700 meters.

One also has to wonder why you think the pre-Argo data on this graph, that you posted, is perfectly fine, while the very same pre-Argo data that I posted is "complete drivel". Perhaps you can explain to us all your thinking on that one. If indeed thinking had anything to do with it.

Denier FAIL.

Because, as it is obvious to even the most casual observer, this chart relies exclusively on Argo data at the end WHEN THE WARMING SHOWS A PLATEAU. During the same period, your chart showed continued warming at about the same pace.

The data is what exposes the deception of AGW.

I have no idea who the "ayatollahs of Denierstan" might be or why you are obsessed with yet another thing that does not exist.

First you are obsessed with the Theory of AGW which does not exist and now you are obsessed with a group of Middle Eastern Religious leaders that do not exist residing in a country that does not exist.

Have you found that statement of the Hypothesis of AGW including the test to falsify? Just wondering...

As it stands right now, the idea, notion, of AGW is nothing more than a political fund raiser.

Here, let me get you started on finding that statement of the hypothesis:

http://sites.biology.duke.edu/rausher/HYPOTHES.pdf
<snip>
EVALUATING AN HYPOTHESIS
To evaluate the reasonableness of an hypothesis, we use the
following criteria:
1. Is the observation/phenomenon to be explained clearly stated?
2. Is the description of the process(es) hypothesized to cause the
observation/phenomenon clear and logical?
3. Does the hypothesis fail to explain relevant
observations/phenomena?
4. Is the hypothesis inconsistent with other known phenomena?
5. Is the hypothesis falsifiable?
<snip>

 

[Poor Debater]

Because, as it is obvious to even the most casual observer, this chart relies exclusively on Argo data at the end WHEN THE WARMING SHOWS A PLATEAU. During the same period, your chart showed continued warming at about the same pace.

I asked you for a citation for your false claim that pre-Argo data is "complete drivel" (your words) and you provided none. In fact, you avoided the pre-Argo period entirely in your response.

Denier FAIL.

The chart you posted shows Argo data up through 2010, while the chart I posted shows Argo data up through 2015. So your claim of a so-called pause is based on incomplete data.

Denier FAIL again.

The data is what exposes the deception of AGW.

Using complete data exposes the deception of climate denial.

FAIL.

Have you found that statement of the Hypothesis of AGW including the test to falsify? Just wondering...

Sure. Take one spare Earth, and add 1.3 trillion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. The falsifiable AGW hypothesis is: CO2 will cause surface temperatures to rise, and stratospheric temperatures to fall.

Result: surface temperatures have risen, and stratospheric temperatures have fallen.

AGW SUCCESS.

As it stands right now, the idea, notion, of AGW is nothing more than a political fund raiser.

Not to mention temperature raiser, and sea level raiser. But don't worry, sea levels will go back down to Manhattan levels in about 5000 years or so.

Here, let me get you started on finding that statement of the hypothesis:

Looks like AGW has passed every test you proposed. Meanwhile, what's your explaination for rising surface temps, and falling stratospheric temps?

Because I'm quite sure that a person as honest as yourself wouldn't ever duck a question that he asks of others.

 

[code1211]

I asked you for a citation for your false claim that pre-Argo data is "complete drivel" (your words) and you provided none. In fact, you avoided the pre-Argo period entirely in your response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
<snip>
History[edit]
A program called Argo was first proposed at OceanObs 1999 which was a conference organised by international agencies with the aim of creating a coordinated approach to ocean observations. The original Argo prospectus was created by a small group of scientists, chaired by Dean Roemmich, who described a program that would have a global array of about 3000 floats in place by sometime in 2007.[5] The 3000-float array was achieved in November 2007 and was global. The Argo Steering Team met for the first time in 1999 in Maryland (USA) and outlined the principles of global data sharing. The Argo Steering Team made a 10-year report to OceanObs-2009[6] and received suggestions on how the array might be improved. These suggestions included enhancing the array at high latitudes, in marginal seas (such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean) and along the equator, improved observation of strong boundary currents (such as the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio), extension of observations into deep water and the addition of sensors for monitoring biological and chemical changes in the oceans. In November 2012 an Indian float in the Argo array gathered the one-millionth profile (twice the number collected by research vessels during all of the 20th century) an event that was reported in several press releases.[7][8] In 2014 the Bio-Argo program is expanding rapidly.[9]
<snip>

 

[Jack Hays]

Follows up on #366.

Carbon dioxide
The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2

Guest essay by Mike Jonas Introduction This article is the second in a series of four articles. Part 1 of the series (Part 1) is here In Part 1, simple mathematical formulae were developed to emulate the carbon dioxide (CO2.) contribution to global temperature change, as represented in the computer climate models.

This article uses the formulae to have a look at the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA).
Note : This article does not say anything new, or claim to find any new results. It has all been said many times before. But by using simple formulae that emulate the internal workings of the computer climate models, it allows the CO2 and non-CO2 components of global temperature change to be quantified using a spreadsheet [10] instead of a sophisticated climate model. . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

Carbon dioxide
[h=1]A co-founder of Greenpeace tells the truth on CO2[/h] Dr. Patrick Moore, who was one of the original founders of Greenpeace who left the organization in disgust of their current political zealotry, and Greenpeace is now trying to have him erased from history for daring to do that. He has now produced this interesting video in conjunction with with Prager University that is sure…

 

[Poor Debater]

I asked you for a citation for your false claim that pre-Argo data is "complete drivel" (your words) and you provided none. In fact, you avoided the pre-Argo period entirely in your response.

Denier FAIL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
In November 2012 an Indian float in the Argo array gathered the one-millionth profile (twice the number collected by research vessels during all of the 20th century) an event that was reported in several press releases.[7][8] In 2014 the Bio-Argo program is expanding rapidly.[9]

So, asked for confirmation that pre-Argo data is "complete drivel", Our Hero points out that Argo collects a lot of data, but fails again to provide one scintilla of evidence that pre-Argo data is bad data.

Denier FAIL.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, asked for confirmation that pre-Argo data is "complete drivel", Our Hero points out that Argo collects a lot of data, but fails again to provide one scintilla of evidence that pre-Argo data is bad data.

Denier FAIL.

Ahem. Since the Argo array was only completed in 2007, and by 2012 had already collected twice the profiles of the entire 20th century, I'd say code's point was made. Thanks for highlighting.:mrgreen:

 

[Poor Debater]

Ahem. Since the Argo array was only completed in 2007, and by 2012 had already collected twice the profiles of the entire 20th century, I'd say code's point was made. Thanks for highlighting.:mrgreen:

And thanks for showing that you cannot tell the difference between a lot of data, and good data.