Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

by Judith Curry

The hiatus lives.

The recent paper by Karl et al., discussed at Has NOAA busted the pause in global warming?, presented a new surface temperature data set that does NOT support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in global surface temperature increase.  Karl et al. found a global trend 2000-2014 to be 0.116C/decade, with an ocean trend of 0.99C/decade.  The paper received a HUGE amount of publicity.

A new paper published by Science is just what I have been waiting for, an integrative look at global ocean data in recent decades:

Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Veronical Nieves, Josh Willis, William Patzert

Abstract.  Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature in the most recent decade. Some of these studies seem to support the idea of internal variability and/or rearrangement of heat between the surface and the ocean interior. Others suggest that radiative forcing might also play a role. Our examination of observational data over the past two decades shows some significant differences compared to model results from reanalyses, and provides the most definitive explanation of how the heat was redistributed. We find that cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the past decade since 2003.

The paper is published in Science [link].

Some excerpts:

The global average surface temperature has been rising since 2003 by +0.001°C/year. Although not zero, it is slower than the century time-scale warming of +0.0064 ± 0.0015°C/year since 1880 (2). The surface warming of the 00s is also substantially slower than the 90s, which warmed at a rate of +0.008°C/year.

JC comment: Referring to the Supplementary Information, I see that they used the NOAA OI SST data set, available since 1985. The methodology includes bias adjustment of satellite and ship observations (referenced to buoys) to compensate for platform differences and sensor biases (hooray – they adjust other biased data sets to the more robust buoys).  While the trend of 0.01C/decade since 2003 is over a different period, this trend value is starkly different from Karl et al. trend from 2000-2014 of 0.099C/decade.  I don’t know why I didn’t think of the OI SST dataset when discussing the Karl dataset, I used to use this dataset a lot.  Is OI SST perfect?  No, but I think the methodology makes a lot more sense for recent decades than the Karl et al methodology.

Our analysis indicates that during the most recent decade, cooling in the top 100 m layer of the Pacific Ocean is compensated by warming in the 100 to 300 m layer of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans with the largest contribution in the tropics. The Southern Ocean plays a secondary role in warming the 100-300 m layer, but this warming is steady over both of the past decades. The Atlantic Ocean does show a switch from warming to cooling, but its area is so small that it cannot meaningfully con-tribute to the hiatus signal in surface temperature over the past decade.

Analysis of deep hydrographic data in comparison with satellite measurements of sea level change indicates a contribution of 0.76 mm/year of sea level rise due to thermal expansion within 700-2000 m. Assuming a thermal expansion coefficient of 1.3 × 10−4 °C−1 for that layer, this implies an average warming of 0.0045°C/year between the mid-90s and mid-00s and between 700 and 2000 m. The WOA pentadal estimate shows a heat content increase of 2.4 × 1021 J/year or about 0.0015°C/year (1993-2002 period, 700-2000 m layer). The latter is consistent with the 0.0013°C/year rate of warming for the 700-1500 m layer as measured by the Argo array in the 00s . Together, these findings suggest no significant increase in the rate of warming below 700 m since 2003.

JC comment:  In plain words, there doesn’t seem to be any observational evidence that Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ is hiding below 700 m.

Interestingly, reanalysis also do not seem to correctly reproduce the ocean warming rates and lie well outside the observation uncertainty at different depths and times. Both the hiatus and the net amount of heat absorbed by the ocean below 700 m are overestimated. Reanalyses are also inconsistent with ocean observations, in terms of the vertical and regional distribution of heating. 

JC comment: Trenberth claimed to have found the ‘missing heat’ in the deep ocean from the ECMWF reanalyses [link].  Looks like this was an artifact of the analysis process.

The observational rate of heat content increase over the 0-1500 m depth range did not change significantly between the 90s (2.0 × 1021 J/year) and the 00s (3.4 × 1021 J/year or 2.53 × 1021 J/year according to the observational average or Argo, respectively). Thus, observational heat content estimates do not reveal any obvious hiatus. This suggests that since the early 90s there has been a steady rate of net ocean heat uptake, and the amount of radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere remained practically unchanged between the 90s and the 00s. This contradicts one recent study  suggesting that the net ocean heat uptake was reduced during the 00s on the basis of changes in surface flux estimates.

JC comment:  The last sentence in the paper is the only statement in the paper that I disagree with.  Their analysis is not sufficient to close the global energy budget or to rule out a change in external forcing or cloudiness in contributing to the hiatus.

JC reflections

This paper is important in clarifying the vertical and horizontal distribution of subsurface temperature changes in the ocean.  And I am particularly glad to be reminded of the OI SST data set, which may be the best SST data set to use for recent decades.  The hiatus clearly lives, both in upper ocean heat content and surface temperatures from OI SST data set.  The Karl et al. ocean data seems inconsistent with the upper ocean heat content measurements (not to mention the OI SST data set).  I am also relieved to see a careful comparison of the ocean reanalyses (e.g. NCEP, ECMWF) with observations, highlighting the deficiencies of the NCEP and ECMWF ocean reanalyses relative to observations.  Rather extravagant and overconfident claims have been made about the ocean reanalyses, which are unjustified based on the actual observations.

This paper lays out a challenge not only for ocean reanalysis, but for also improving model treatment of vertical heat transfer in the ocean.

Well, it will certainly be interesting to see what the media does with this paper, after declaring the hiatus an artifact several weeks ago.  This new paper, published in the same journal as the Karl paper (Science), should have come to the attention of the same journalists as the Karl paper (although I did not see any press release associated with this paper).  I received an advanced copy of the paper from someone in a skeptics organization – no queries from journalists or anything.  It will be interesting to see how (or if) this paper plays out in the mainstream media.

 

 

 

187 responses to “Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

    • David Springer

      How long before the usual suspects get Josh Willis to say he made another mistake and the ocean warming is worse than we thought?

      • They’re tough and really mean. They don’t just twist arms; they twist them off.

      • David Springer

        Willis didn’t put up much of a fight.

        Correcting Ocean Cooling

        On a Thursday evening in February 2007, Josh Willis stood in front of his laptop, his wife cajoling him to get ready to go out to dinner. He looked with a sinking feeling at the map he had just made. Willis, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializes in making estimates of how much heat the ocean stores from year to year.

        In 2004, Willis published a time series of ocean heat content showing that the temperature of the upper layers of ocean increased between 1993-2003. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled.
        Not surprisingly, says Willis wryly, that paper got a lot of attention, not all of it the kind a scientist would appreciate. In speaking to reporters and the public, Willis described the results as a “speed bump” on the way to global warming, evidence that even as the climate warmed due to greenhouse gases, it would still have variation. The message didn’t get through to everyone, though. On blogs and radio talk shows, global warming deniers cited the results as proof that global warming wasn’t real and that climate scientists didn’t know what they were doing.

        Long story short, under pressure from the hockey team, the data was “corrected” so it no longer lent any support to those the NASA articles labels “deniers” .

        Isn’t that just precious?

      • Yes, you’re up against very mean consensus people who can inflict pain and punishment in unimaginable ways. If he had just been as tough as you are he could have maintained being dead wrong just about forever.

      • David Springer

        Yes well he’s in the right place to learn how to be dead wrong forever. Tenured climate scientists have refined it into an art form.

  1. The link you give to the paper still does not work for me (looks like there is no URL attached).

  2. Dr. Curry said… “…with an ocean trend of 0.99C/decade.”

    Seems like some zero’s got left out here…

  3. curryja writes: ” Is OI SST perfect?”

    Smith and Reynolds called it “a good estimate of the truth” about a decade ago:
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C2466%3AIEROS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Cheers

    • PS to curryja: You wrote, “Referring to the Supplementary Information, I see that they used the NOAA OI SST data set, available since 1985.”

      The Reynolds OI.v2 data actually start in November 1981.

      Cheers

  4. Hi Judith,

    The first link in your recent post is to the blog post I sent you about the ‘green blob’. I think it might be an error.

    Ben.

  5. The other problem and it is a big problem is all the data is being manipulated by AGW enthusiast ,which makes it hard to draw conclusions.

  6. khal spencer

    The Science link is missing, but thanks for this post!

  7. Pingback: Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  8. Bob Tisdale asks a question that seems relevant to many climate papers (short timeframes, don’t use more recent data):

    “Why did Nieves et al. excluded data for 2013 and 2014? They could just as easily have written the paper for the 12 years before and after 2003, instead of using 10 years. Are the results dependent on the start and end years? Considering that ENSO plays large roles in the uptake of heat in the tropical Pacific and its distribution from the tropical Pacific at depth, the results likely depend on the start and end years, especially over such short (decadal) timeframes.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/new-paper-calls-into-question-reanalysis-based-and-climate-model-based-explanations-for-the-slowdown-in-global-surface-warming/

    • Steven Mosher

      ““Why did Nieves et al. excluded data for 2013 and 2014? They could just as easily have written the paper for the 12 years before and after 2003, instead of using 10 years. Are the results dependent on the start and end years? ”

      https://secure.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=LU_xuWh7YnfvQpMWwArwJg&partner=southpark&sourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsouthpark.cc.com%2Fclips%2F255332%2Fbrave-enough-to-ask-questions&embed_age_gate_intro=true

      • Steven,

        If you do not have an answer to Bob’s question, that is OK. There is no need to hide it with humor.

      • The answer is that the paper was written in December 2014 so data for that year was not available

        tonyb

      • Steve Mosher and tonyb, you’re conveniently overlooking the basis for the question: time sensitivity to ENSO. As I wrote in the post:
        “Are the results dependent on the start and end years? Considering that ENSO plays large roles in the uptake of heat in the tropical Pacific and its distribution from the tropical Pacific at depth, the results likely depend on the start and end years, especially over such short (decadal) timeframes.”

        Let me clarify:

        Example 1: Are the results of Nieves et al. dependent on the timing and strengths of individual ENSO events, as represented by NINO3.4 sea surface temperature anomalies?

        Example 2: Or, looking at the depth-averaged temperatures of the tropical Pacific for the depths of 0-700 meters, do the results of Nieves et al. depend primarily on the timing and volatility of the responses of the subsurface temperatures of the tropical Pacific to the 1995/96 La Niña, the 1997/98 El Niño and the 1998-01 La Niña…and the simple decline in subsurface temperatures since 2003?

      • Or maybe you’ve read my post and have elected to misrepresent it…and that would be typical of you, ATTP.

        I haven’t read your post. You’d need to illustrate that you understand the concept of energy conservation before I bothered doing that. I don’t think I’ve ever mis-represented you, or anyone really. Being accussed of that, of course, is pretty much the norm when it comes to people like yourself. Being nasty and insulting is your norm, as far as I can tell.

    • Firstly, that’s just a form of JAQing and, secondly, as Tonyb points out, it’s only mid-2015 now, so it’s probable that the data simply wasn’t available. It’s hard to see why this isn’t obvious.

      • (1). The data for 2013 was probably available. The paper was received in Dec 2014.

        (2). How does your guessing create “obvious” answers?

        (3). To declare asking inconvenient questions to be illegitimate is the kind of thing best left to the Pope. Like declaring those who disagree to be mentally defective, it is too easy an alternative to thinking. Perhaps that is why both techniques are so popular these days. Fortunately they are self-marginalizing (convincing only to your tribe) and hence ineffective.

      • verytallguy

        ATTP,

        according to JC’s moderation etiquette

        Discussing conspiracy ideation is ok, but not accusing an individual commenter here

        so it’s not appropriate to discuss how Fabius’ JAQing fits against Lewandowsky’s taxonomy of conspiracy ideation:

        1. Nefarious Intent or Questionable Motives (QM): Assuming that the presumed conspirators have nefarious, or at least questionable, intentions.
        2. Persecuted Victim (PV): Self-identifying as the victim of an organised persecution.
        3. Nihilistic Skepticism or Over-riding Suspicion (OS): Refusing to believe anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory, which in turn can be any hypothesis that can be described as conspiracy ideation. It doesn’t have to be a grand conspiracy theory.
        4. Nothing occurs by Accident (NoA): Weaving any small random event into the conspiracy narrative.
        5. Something Must be Wrong (MbW): Switching liberally between different, even contradictory conspiracy theories that have in common only the presumption that there is something wrong in the official account by the alleged conspirators.
        6. Self-Sealing Reasoning (SS): Interpreting any evidence against the conspiracy as evidence for (or of) the conspiracy.
        7. Unreflexive Counterfactual Thinking: These included several hypotheses that were “built on a non-existent, counterfactual state of the world, even though knowledge about the true state of the world was demonstrably available at the time”.

        Neither, alas can a list of quotes from denizens remarkable response to this post be categorised against the taxonomy.

        It is, though I hope, acceptable to note that many, perhaps even a majority of early responses include at least one of these, and many several.

      • Fabius,

        The data for 2013 was probably available. The paper was received in Dec 2014.

        So, it’s at best 1 year, not 2.

        How does your guessing create “obvious” answers?

        Well, it seems fairly obvious that doing 12 years before and after would have required a time machine. Okay, they might have been able to do 11, but then the question would probably have been “why didn’t they do 10; maybe they’re trying to hide something?”

        To declare asking inconvenient questions to be illegitimate is the kind of thing best left to the Pope.

        That’s not what I said, nor what what JAQing is. JAQing is asking a question that implies something nefarious probably happened. It’s generally regarded as sub-optimal. You can ask any question you like, but some are generally regarded as weak. In my field typical ones are “why did you do your simulation in 2D rather than 3D?”, “why didn’t you add magnetic fields?”. It’s either an example of someone who just likes asking questions, but didn’t understand the work well enough to ask a sensible one, or someone who just wants to find some reason to criticise.

        If the best that Bob Tisdale can do is ask “why 10 instead of 12” he’s struggling. Okay, he doesn’t understand energy conservation, so that’s no great surprise.

      • ATTP

        As far as I can see we only have abstracts from which it is difficult to derive the answers that some seem to be giving.

        Has anyone provided a link to the complete paper so it can be read before it is commented on? Its presumably around somewhere on this thread but I haven’t been able to spend too much time on it in the last couple of days

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        It’s paywalled, I think. I’ve had a look and they seem to be referring to a hiatus starting in 2003, which may be why they did the decade before and decade after.

      • ATTP

        I don’t know about you but if I am expected to comment on a major paper it seems quite fundamental to be able to read it in full at least once. All this thread appears to be speculation based on a short extract and an article from Bob Tisdale.

        If anyone has a link to the full article perhaps they can point me to it.

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        I agree, which is why I looked through the paper. There’s a link on the Journal site, but I think it is paywalled. Here it is anyway.

      • …and Then There’s Physics says: “If the best that Bob Tisdale can do is ask ‘why 10 instead of 12’ he’s struggling. Okay, he doesn’t understand energy conservation, so that’s no great surprise.”

        Obviously, you, ATTP, haven’t read my post or my comment above…the reply to Mosher and tonyb…because I did far more that ask “why 10 instead of 12”. Or maybe you’ve read my post and have elected to misrepresent it…and that would be typical of you, ATTP.

        The paragraph that Editor of the Fabius Maximus website chose to focus on was a very small part of my post about Nieves et al. Like Steve Mosher and tonyb, you’re conveniently overlooking the basis for that “why 10 instead of 12” question, which was noted in the paragraph Editor of the Fabius Maximus quoted, and that basis was the time sensitivity of the results of to ENSO.

        Have a good day.

      • Sorry, put my response in the wrong spot. It’s here.

  9. David Wojick

    When the data is this uncertain and sensitive to adjustments, science has nothing to go on, so nothing to explain.

  10. I think (my opinion) is to much attention and consideration is being given to what the AGW enthusiast crowd has to say as is being evidenced once again by this latest article which is nonsense and is really nothing more then another baseless lame excuse for the lack of global warming called for by AGW theory.

    Our time would be better spent promoting the alternative theories we have come up with and throwing those theories right in the face of AGW theory rather then spending time on what AGW theory promoters have to say. This article being a prime example.

    it is frustrating(very frustrating) because alternative theories which conform to a much greater degree to the historical climatic record and are much more comprehensive then AGW theory are not being focused upon enough.

    My response to this article would be let us see what happens to sea surface temperatures once the solar flux average stays consistently below 100 units and at that time we can take another look at this issue. End of story.

    I am sick of these studies and the manipulation of data not being taken on in a much more confrontational manner by those of us who oppose AGW theory. We are to nice to these arrogant manipulative AGW theory enthusiast.

    • You wrote: Our time would be better spent promoting the alternative theories we have come up with and throwing those theories right in the face of AGW theory rather then spending time on what AGW theory promoters have to say. This article being a prime example.

      Our time would be much better spent studying natural variability in climate than studying AGW theory, for or against.

  11. Oh Oh… someone’s gonna get a strongly worded letter from Naomi!

  12. One part of the paper is a bit sketchy: reconciling thermosteric rise/heat content to SSH measured by satellite altimetry. SSH has two components, ice sheet melt and thermosteric expansion. There is the well know closure problem that altimetry observed SSH does not equal ‘observed’ melt (Greenland plus Antarctica ice loss) plus Argo estimated thermosteric rise. Part of the closure problem lies innthe precision of SSH satellite altimetry. The most recent bird, Jason 2, instrument spec is RMS locational precision to 3mm, random instrument drift <1mm/year. So even though the estimates quoted above reconcile and explain Trenberth's hiding heat as an artifice of ORASIS4 reanalysis, it is on shakey uncertainty grounds. Trenberth is more easily attacked on heat flow grounds. To warm the cold deep, the heat had to be in the warmer upper ocean first. And Argo did not find it.

    The contrast to Karl is starck. Hope the media picks up on it, but doubt they will. Pause explained by ocean circulation is off message for Paris.

    • Danny Thomas

      Rud,
      From what I glean, there’s seemingly a pause in the pause of the pause.

      Did I miss anything?

      • Only that both papers were published recently in Science, they contradict each other, yet the chief editor of Science just editorialized that climate science was settled. So much for McNutt’s editorial. Regards.

      • it is easy to settle consensus science. consensus science is not really science, that is really easy to settle.

      • “So much for McNutt’s editorial. Regards.”

        She won’t be bothered in the least. Seems that distorting the truth….once known as lying…has become accepted practice. Look at Hillary Clinton. The IRS scandal. The VA. President Obama who hasn’t told the truth about anything in a very long time. I don’t see how a country can survive when such corruption exists at the very highest levels.

        (aka pokerguy)

      • Not even close, Danny. What they are saying is energy went into the oceans below the SST measurement, and as soon as the anomalous winds stop, the grill gets hotter than ever.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        Is that what this says?
        “JC comment: In plain words, there doesn’t seem to be any observational evidence that Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ is hiding below 700 m.

        Interestingly, reanalysis also do not seem to correctly reproduce the ocean warming rates and lie well outside the observation uncertainty at different depths and times. Both the hiatus and the net amount of heat absorbed by the ocean below 700 m are overestimated. Reanalyses are also inconsistent with ocean observations, in terms of the vertical and regional distribution of heating. ”

        Then:”The hiatus clearly lives, both in upper ocean heat content and surface temperatures from OI SST data set. The Karl et al. ocean data seems inconsistent with the upper ocean heat content measurements (not to mention the OI SST data set).”

        So the pause that was, Karl declared dead, is now not so dead?
        Sounds like the pause in the pause of the pause to me.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,

        Okay. I’ll split it with ya and will state I was equally as close as you as opposed to your indication that I was “not even close”. Got a copy of the paper after an almost immediate response from Dr. Nieves.
        “Our findings support the idea that the Indo-Pacific interaction in the upper water level (0-300 m depth) regulated global surface temperature over the past two decades and can fully account for the recently observed hiatus. Furthermore, as previously shown for interannual fluctuations (11), the decade long hiatus that began in 2003 is the result of redistribution of heat within the ocean, rather than a change in the net warming rate.”

        So, even though you chose to project and end the the hiatus (via a change in anomalous winds you expect) , I can find no indication of same by the authors within this paper. (Why might it just not slosh back around in the the Pacific from which it’s indicated to have come?) This, and the direct contradiction of Karl, this paper states specifically that there IS a hiatus and it has not ended as of publication.

        So using the definition of the hiatus to mean a pause in the increase in surface temperatures then there was accuracy to my statement, and there was accuracy in yours that the heat appears to have relocated from the Pacific to the Indian in the 0-300 meter range.

        (11. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2513.html)

        Call it a tie?

      • Yeah, pokerguy,
        lies and more damn lies,
        crooked menn and
        crooked styles.

    • Part of the closure problem lies in the precision of SSH satellite altimetry.

      Most definitely. The many other factors left unmentioned (reservoir retention, groundwater mining, mid-ocean range expansion, seismic-related seafloor shifting, wind and wavetop calculations/corrections) also contribute to the uncertainty.

      Absurdly precise estimates of global mean sea level (as with estimates of global mean surface temperature) have, unfortunately, become the baseline for climate policy debates.

  13. As I am not a scientist what makes me wonder is with such gigantic oceans how can such small fraction percentages be derived and how accurate can they be? My second ignorant thought is that even if they are accurate again with such big oceans what kind of an effect could be expected?

  14. “…Veronica Nieves and colleagues present an analysis of data collected over the past 20 years, which shows that Earth’s oceans have absorbed the same amount of heat — and that the planet’s atmosphere has let the same amount of heat through — for the past decade.” – WUWT
    If true this seems to say, flat TOA, flat GAT, flat Ocean Temperatures.
    “We find that cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the past decade since 2003.”
    It’s possible this could reverse, warming surface temperatures. See the recent North Pacific. This does not rule out the possibility in my opinion that the 100-300 meter warmth could dissipate downwards and/or polewards.

    • The temperature differences are smaller than the uncertainties. It is most likely that we will never know if the energy was really there or where it went when they can no longer find it, oops, that is now.

  15. It’s interesting that it took six months from submission to online publication. Bearing in mind the pedigree of the authors that seems a long time. Wonder if it was seen as rather contentious?

    Tonyb

    • Tonyb, I don’t think so. The Marcott hockey stick mess was submitted to Science July 2012, accepted for publication Jan 2013. Six months seems normal turn around.

      • They looked at the hockey stick for six months and still published it.

        Why? In six months, one of them should have read it and realized it was junk.

        Oops, alarmist junk always gets published.

  16. Don’t forget Is the Earth in Energy Deficit?

    https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/28/is-earth-in-energy-deficit/

    • The response, day and night, summer and winter, shows that earth is really always close to being in balance. The max temperature is a few hours after max Solar in every day. The max temperature is a few weeks after the max Solar in every year. There is no Energy Deficit. The major deficit is in actual thinking.

  17. –i.e., the hiatus is nothing more than another non-solar parameterization. No, no, we’re not going to validate that but, does it really matter?

  18. I think a good part of Trenberth’s deep ocean heat is the some of the increased ocean life during warming beginning to decompose. How much of the decreased outgoing SW radiation during the warming period was photosynthetic?

    • Trenberth’s ‘deep ocean heat’ is nothing more than speculation. As the speculation turns into to mainstream thought, to justify why we cannot find all of the ‘missing’ heat, the speculation morphs into the thought that the ‘deep ocean heat’ is simply too small to measure — it’s there… it’s definitely there — our technology is simply too rudimentary to pick it up. So, while we can’t prove it, know that it’s there and be afraid of it; be very afraid!

      • Wag,
        Heat so small one can’t measure ocean temperature increase with current technology and likely to be cycled for 1,000 years on the conveyor. when and if it returns to the surface it can’t heat the air because the 2nd law of thermo says a lower temp can’t transfer heat to a higher temp.

        “be very afraid,” indeed.
        Scott

      • Another observation based on the laws of thermodynamics. The abyssal oceans, where sampled, have temps from 0C to 3C ( seawater freezes at -2C, but I am not certain about pressure corrections. So even if Trenberth were right (he isn’t), the warming is in water close to freezing. In most of the ocean, water above the thermocline is much warmer. There is no way this supposed abyssal ‘missing heat’ could ever re-emerge as global surface warming. So if he is right, CAGW is over. And if he is wrong (no heat went missing, the GCM’s are wrong) CAGW is also over. Its over either way, and he is too wrapped up in warmunism to realize it. He played a heads I lose, tails you win trick. Just doesn’t realize it yet. His paper gets my vote for one of the stupidist ever by warmunists.

      • ristvan,
        I just don’t understand what they are thinking. It is not even plausible. If it (the heat) goes down to the abyss, the 1,000 year cycle will take us out of the fossil age and into the fusion one. Even skeptics can accept we might pass the fusion is 50 years away and always will be in next 50 years another 50. But 1,000 years gives the planet some time. There is a race to fusion with ITER, France, Tokamak, Korea, USA laser fusion, France laser fusion, Japan and a host of searchers incl Lockheed skunk works.

        In the meantime provide electricity, clean water and sewage treatment to the rest of the world using fossil, solar , wind or 3rd gen nuclear.
        scott

      • Scott, in re What were they thinking? It is self evident they are not. Warmunism is a religion, not a climate science. Proponents are so removed from high school science basics they do not even realize this. YET. To quote Dumas’s Count of Monte Cristo in the original French, Revanche!

      • +1 Rud Istvan

        Ok, anaerobic menathogenesis produces methane, co2, and heat.

        Suppose we have an increase in clear skies and a good supply of co2 and other nutrient. The oceans bloom. Then the sun goes away a bit. The big plankton eaters, get lean. The little ones starve, are eaten by predators and scavengers and excreted. Malthus reigns in the ocean. Decomposition releases methane, co2, and heat. Some dissolves immediately into the water, perhaps clathrates form over some. Eventually heat causes the clathrates to release their gas… Point is perhaps the deep ocean isn’t a FILO but a mixture of FIFO and FILO processes. A tiny bit might not of the action might not be on geological time scales.

        Is it plausible? Probably not.

        Next episode…

        Trenberth’s Missing Heat is Carp

        Or…

        Global Warming is in the Tail-Pipeline!!!

        /rockyandbullwinkle

    • SdP, an equally graphic and much simpler to grok example of the recent Maine fiddle is the difference from NOAA’s previous state level climate summary (2013) to the newest version (NClimDiv, 2014). Illustrated in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke, foreword from Judith. Same was true for most other CONUS states (illustrated were California and Michigan to prove Maine was not a fluke).

  19. The first sentence of the Nieves articles is:
    “It has been widely established that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating back to space (1).

    But Stephens et al (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html)
    show that the uncertainty in the energy imbalance over the 2000-2010 decade is >6 times the estimate, meaning we hardly know whether the imbalance is positive or negative:
    “For the decade considered, the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm−2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm−2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12, 15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change(11).”

    If these authors don’t acknowledge that uncertainty, why should we believe their conclusions regarding global warming?

    • Lance, you point toman important paper. But you need to distinguish between TOA and the surface. TOA is (in W/m^2) 0.6+- 0.4. Surface is 0.6+- 17! The Uncertainty Monster revealed.

  20. http://popesclimatetheory.com/page85.html
    You can change the solar in to the north and to the south a huge amount, but it does not change the bounds of the temperatures in the north or in the south enough to see any difference in north and south ice core data.
    The natural climate cycles are very robust. Try to understand the natural cycles. If you don’t understand the natural cycles, you will never be able to determine how much might, or might not be, due to people.

  21. In Table S1, the global SST increases are provided for ARGO, other observational studies and the reanalyses. The 10-year trends in the upper depths (10-300 m) range from 0 to 0.005 degrees C per year. But the 1-sigma uncertainty is given as 0.004 (95% uncertainty thus 0.008) meaning that NOT ONE of the listed slopes is significantly different from zero. This also applies to the ARGO slope for the 300-700-m depth (2003-2012) and to the observational studies for that depth for the 1993-2002 period.

    Needless to say, this footnote in the Supplemental Material does not get mentioned in main text.

  22. At last, we have some evidence-based input from bona fide oceanographers on what’s actually happening to temperatures within the oceans. Alas, the record is far too short to draw any firm conclusions about the driving mechanisms.

  23. In the parallel universe of the Climate Industry, this is the kind of study getting covered in the NY Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/science/bumblebees-global-warming-shrinking-habitats.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

    Warming temperatures have caused bumblebee populations to retreat from the southern limits of their travels in North America and Europe, according to a new study.

    I have a large file of problems blamed on climate change. It has become encyclopedic.

  24. P.S. Here overlooking Lake Michigan in Sheboygan, WI, I just saw my first fly of the year…on July 8th! Why aren’t environmentalists raising money to save the world from fly extinction?

  25. I think the problem with us skeptics is we do not have a united front with a clear counter theory and message. We are all over the place although we do disagree with AGW theory.

    • Having at one long ago point been in the Army as an officer candidate, and having spent half a career in corporate strategy, skeptical present disorganization is on balance a strength. Guerilla warfare at its best.
      Now, that needs to change to massed political/PR other ‘force’ when the time is right. Not yet, but coming soon. Failure of GCF (see new Chinese comtingent commitments to COP21), SCOTUS rejection of CPP, … German or UK or California grid crashing thanks to renewables… Lots of possible triggers. Til then, remain in guerilla warfare mode. It is working.

      • Having been to a few Heartland Climate conferences and done my readings and homework, it became clear to me that “skeptics” don’t have THE answer, but know enough to know the “It’s the CO2, Stupid” argument of the warmists is at best very incomplete and at worst, just wrong. A system as wickedly complex as climate is not going to be simple at any scale or time frame.

      • Rud, Your Guerrilla Warfare thinking is dangerous. This tactic used by Conservatives didn’t work on Obamacare nor Same Sex Marriage. It’s egotistical, not recognizing the possibility of “flip side” PR triggers like super angry El Ninos, a Cat 15 hurricane hitting U.S., etc. If Conservatives don’t have a constructive “AGW Plan” and these PR triggers do occur — that’s how we are gonna end up with liberal top-down policies like a carbon tax, Cap & Trade, Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards.

        Two pro-active AGW approaches consistent with Conservative principles are (1) Fast Mitigation (Smog, Methane, Dark Soot, HFCs); (2) Using International Trade to develop lower carbon economies (like Jon Huntsman was proposing).

        http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-failure-of-conservatives-on-global.html

      • While I get where you’re coming from, this

        Two pro-active AGW approaches consistent with Conservative principles are (1) Fast Mitigation (Smog, Methane, Dark Soot, HFCs); (2) Using International Trade to develop lower carbon economies (like Jon Huntsman was proposing).

        Is no solution.
        What they should do to address AGW, is promote Nuclear as the only viable solution to power a modern society. It’s nuclear or Fossil Fuels, and then you outline all the reasons renewables while not entirely worthless, they aren’t the solution, and then point out how Germany and England had their energy costs double or triple, and they’re both now burning wood pellets and coal because their renewables stink.

      • Mirco6500 Yes, promote Nuclear — just like President Obama and the DOE did in originally proposing ~16 new nuclear power projects under the DOE Loan Guarantee Program (where Congress obstructed this and only 1 project of Georgia Power’s Vogtle was done).

    • “Although we do disagree with AGW theory”.

      Do we? That may be the problem right there.

    • “I think the problem with us skeptics is we do not have a united front with a clear counter theory and message. We are all over the place although we do disagree with AGW theory.”

      yup.

      pen and phone wins

      • So, let’s see, the skeptics need a 98% consensus to win?

      • Being a sceptic (in this context) just means being somebody who doesn’t agree that truly catastrophic AGW is anything more than very unlikely. It says nothing at all about whether or not we hold to an opposing theory.

        So, sceptics = lukewarmers + slayers + God-won’t-let-it-happeners + its-a-Marxist-conspiracy-ites + etc etc.

        Counter theories = lukewarmers OR slayers OR God-won’t-let-it-happeners OR its-a-Marxist-conspiracy-ites or etc etc.

        So of course you will never get a united front from sceptics, although you can expect one from slayers, or whoever.

        I thought this was obvious.

      • davideisenstadt

        Steve..could you point me to some of your work with pen, as it were?
        You know the peer reviewed, published in journals kind of work?
        Maybe your work doesn’t show up when I search for it because youre not the lead author?
        IDK, Im just curious to see what your own efforts look like.

    • stevenreincarnated

      Good idea. Lets imitate the losing side’s strategy.

    • Nah, mensheviks can’t beat bolsheviks. Let’s stay all over the place, not form tribes named after Galileo or whoever. I don’t want to be responsible for loopy ideas that aren’t mine.

      A lot of warmies actually paid money to Al Gore to become his “climate ambassadors”. It wasn’t cheap. Many of them would now shudder at the sight of that bloated plutocrat. Too late.

      Skeps should be wary of a need to belong, of figureheads and of Amway Convention atmospheres. As for opposing “our” science to “their” science…hell, when anybody’s scientists have truly investigated that hot mushy ball called Earth and its deep hydrosphere, they can get back to us.

  26. I should have clarified there are two kinds of skeptics those who do not believe in AGW at all, and those that believe it has some validity but not the catastrophic warming aspect .

    But that is the problem there are all different degrees of how AGW theory is viewed .

  27. Hi Judith,
    I had a post in moderation, that went missing. Was there a problem, or it looks like the whole thread disappeared, was it lost there?
    You should be able to email me if you had some concern with it.
    I thought it was related to changes in cloudiness, that was why I included the data.

    • Hi Micro, I prefer not to post long streams of data, can you post a link to the data, or plot the data? Thx

    • Their analysis is not sufficient to close the global energy budget or to rule out a change in external forcing or cloudiness in contributing to the hiatus.

      This is the annual sum of max temp for stations with at least 360 days of samples per year, just under a total of 73 million samples, divided by surface solar forcing at each station based on the average solar constant.
      Basically the Efficiency incoming Solar had at raising the daily temp.

  28. “Given the fact the Pacific Decadal Oscillation seems to be shifting to a warm phase, ocean heating in the Pacific will definitely drive a major surge in global surface warming,” Nieves said.

    Like I said last time. Almost completely dead. No real hope.

    • NOAA PDO:
      2015 01 1.73
      2015 02 1.54
      2015 03 1.33
      2015 04 0.88
      2015 05 0.29
      2015 06 0.63
      0.63 is a bit low to start the victory parade.

    • The PDO is usually viewed as a 70 year cycle.

      The AMO is about 1/4 cycle out of phase.

      Nieves may be whistling past the graveyard.

      • She’s a little better at this than you are. The PDO, peak to peak, ~1940 to ~1983, 40 to 45 years tops. That’s why I thought the positive phase of the PDO was imminent.

        The BLOB.

      • Well…

        I didn’t invent the PDO and AMO. Much like El Nino they are constructs.

        From the PDO index graphic it is 1928 to 1993 which is about 65 years. What these cycles were doing pre-1900 is anybody’s guess.

        Looked around for a good explanation of PDO and couldn’t find one (if you have one just link it). That makes predicting the PDO less informed than betting on horse racing.

        The PDO/AMO might be related to the PMM and AMM but not TOM.

        Given that the AMO seems in sync with the hemispherical temperatures it would appear the AMO/PDO are due to changes in the meridional currents.

        We’ll see who is the better weather guesser. I predict the PDO will be temporarily positive until the La Nina hits and then it will submarine for a while and stay primarily negative for about 15 years.

  29. Mike Flynn

    Someone, presumably an expert, said –

    “It has been widely established that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating back to space (1).

    Has it been doing this when the CO2 level was much higher in the past? How has the Earth managed to cool, if it has been accumulating heat for four and a half billion years?

    Does “old” CO2 not accumulate heat in the same fashion as “anthropogenic” CO2, or have I misunderstood something? It seems a bit odd, doesn’t it?

    Are all the geophysicists wrong to claim the Earth has actually cooled (that is, radiated away more energy than it has absorbed?)

    • David Springer

      Mike Flynn | July 9, 2015 at 8:13 pm | Reply

      Someone, presumably an expert, said –

      “It has been widely established that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is radiating back to space (1).

      Has it been doing this when the CO2 level was much higher in the past?

      Only until equilibrium temperature is attained. The imbalance is caused by additional GHG in the atmosphere. The imbalance gradually goes away so long as GHG is not increasing.

      How has the Earth managed to cool, if it has been accumulating heat for four and a half billion years?

      It hasn’t been accumulating heat.

      Does “old” CO2 not accumulate heat in the same fashion as “anthropogenic” CO2, or have I misunderstood something? It seems a bit odd, doesn’t it?

      The only odd thing is your lack of understanding of this subject while making ridiculous snarky, mistaken remarks.

      Are all the geophysicists wrong to claim the Earth has actually cooled (that is, radiated away more energy than it has absorbed?)

      No. Only the strawman you created is wrong.

      • David Springer,

        So the “imbalance gradually goes away”. I suppose this is Warmist for “cools”.

        Is that why the Earth cooled in the past, in spite of much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere? As you say, the Earth hasn’t been “accumulating” heat. That’s why it cooled. Don’t you agree?

        If the Earth warmed as a result of CO2 in the atmosphere, it should be a lot hotter than it is now, or did the “imbalance gradually go away”, without anyone noticing?

        Can I take it you agree that the Earth has cooled? If so, what is it that I don’t understand?

        I’m not sure how less CO2 in the atmosphere now, results in heating, whereas more CO2 in the past, resulted in cooling. You might care to explain this seemingly wondrous occurrence.

        In any case, maybe you have overlooked the “hiatus”, “pause”, or “failure of temperature to rise in spite of CO2 levels rising”, however expressed. Sorry if this is an inconvenient truth. Hiding additional “heat” in the ocean won’t work. In a reasonably well mixed ocean, warmer water is less dense water. Less dense water is more buoyant water, and will ascend through colder, denser water. Trying to force less dense water to remain quietly hidden under more dense water, is beyond the ability of even the most devout Warmist.

        Maybe the density “imbalance gradually goes away” and the heat energy which caused it is gradually destroyed – never to be seen again. Unfortunately, you have to ignore the First Law of Thermodynamics to achieve this.

        No problem for a decdicated Warmist, I would guess.

        Thanks for your interest.

      • David Springer

        No it’s not warmist-speak for cooling. It’s a cessation of warming once a new equilibrium point at a higher temperature corresponding to higher greenhouse gas concentration is attained.

        You continue to create straw men. You didn’t get passing grades in math and science before you became a high school dropout, huh?

      • davideisenstadt

        Do you know something about Mr Flynn that the rest of do not know?
        snarky?
        Pot meet kettle.

      • David Springer,

        Your mind reading is inaccurate. I’m not surprised. I am happy to compare my “grades” in mathematics I and mathematics II, physics, chemistry, Latin, French, and Modern History, with yours, at the age of 16 or so.

        We might go on to compare our respective achievements in English, Ancient Greek and one or two others, but it wouldn’t really change the facts, would it?

        You believe the world has been increasing its temperature for four and a half billion years due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        I do not.

        Have fun.

      • David Springer

        ROFLMAO

        Your writing gives away the lie.

      • David Springer

        @eisenstadt

        If you don’t know just from reading his ignorant drivel then you probably rode the same short bus to school with him.

      • David Springer

        One more try using small words and simple concepts.

        The ocean is by far the largest energy reservoir in the climate system.

        The earth is an open system where energy enters and exits at the top of the atmosphere.

        If more energy enters than exits then energy is increased in the climate system. The ocean is the only reservoir large enough to store the energy in a long term imbalance.

        The best instruments we have to measure both the ocean and energy entering and leaving the top of the atmosphere indicate one half watt per square meter more energy entering than exiting.

        This is enough to increase the temperature of the entire volume of global ocean by 0.2C in one hundred years. The energy enters at the top of the ocean so that warms first and faster. Gradually, and no one knows quite how fast, the warmer surface waters mix with the cold deep water and surface temperature is then reduced.

        CO2 is presumed to be the culprit behind the half watt imbalance. If CO2 were to stop increasing and level off then then the ocean warming would slow down and eventually stop. That’s because a warmer ocean emits more energy into the atmosphere. The imbalance at TOA would become zero. The ocean would be at equilibrium temperature.

        The crux of the matter is how fast the top 10% of the ocean, called the
        mixed layer, transfers heat to deeper layers. If that process is exceedingly slow then the same TOA imbalance that can heat the entire volume 0.2C in a century will instead heat the top 10% by 2C in one century.

        The “hiatus” is thought be some to be an unexpectedly fast mix rate between warm surface layer and cold abyss. I think that’s is probably correct if the TOA imbalance is accurate.

        The TOA imbalance is confirmed by independent sources:

        – satellites, particulary CERES http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ but it’s very difficult measuring energy out because the earth is a diffuse, dynamic source. The margin of error is almost ten times the given imbalance of half watt per square meter.

        – ARGO diving buoys. These are quite accurate at measuring the temperature of the top half of the ocean volume over most of its surface. Not complete coverage but enough to use to calibrate CERES anomaly measurement (anomaly is change in radiated energy versus and absolute measure of radiated energy) for greater confidence.

        -Sea Level. Both satellites using radar and tide gauges on shores find that thermal expansion of the ocean is consistent with an energy imbalance at TOA of a half watt.

        Personally I find the consistency of the three independent measures to be compelling enough to presume a half watt imbalance is accurate.

        The problem is that these instruments haven’t been around for very long so it’s difficult to say with any degree of certainty that the cause of the imbalance is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. There are natural, cyclic variations in the earth’s climate that range from decadal to thousands and even millions of years. The longer cycles are poorly understood. There are also random events which can cause both short and long term climate variation ranging from volcanoes to nearby supernovas which all act to change the chemistry of the atmosphere. Sorting out exactly what’s going on in the moment causing a small TOA energy imbalance is difficult to impossible with current technology and available climate history.

      • David, I respectfully disagree. The Satellites lack the accuracy as do Argo, leaving them both to be adjusted based on expectations.
        There is enough surface data to to show there does appear to be an imbalance

      • Sorry, does not appear to be an imbalance.

  30. stevefitzpatrick

    Judith,
    It won’t be interesting at all: both the MSM and the CAGW advocates will ignore this paper and continue to discuss the nutty Karl et al paper. It is all politics.

    • The headline here is that the pause never happened, but the headline on this blog is that the hiatus did. Oddly contrary. Perhaps there is a difference between the pause and the hiatus. It is hard to keep track.

  31. The surface global temperature rose 0.15 C between their 90’s and 00’s decades. This alone accounts for the forcing change of 0.3 W/m2 between those dates, so the imbalance doesn’t have to be increasing, and you don’t need the OHC change to be accelerating, just to be linear as they suggest it is. I am not seeing the relevance to the hiatus because they include the 90’s back to 1993, since which there was a lot of warming. What am I missing?

  32. Oops in moderation! Need ter be more moderate. (

  33. Judith Curry

    “… no queries from journalists or anything. It will be interesting to see how (or if) this paper plays out in the mainstream media.”

    I am not sure why you would have expected an acknowledgement in the mainstream media regarding this paper. Mr. Revkin and others were not told to respond, and, of course they did and will not. The science is settled. Such pronouncements emanate from those of exalted status like Marcia somethingorother newly appointed to head the National Academy of Science.

    In the Amish society, if one ventures outside of the faith, one is shunned. No contact. Complete disavowed, shunned, no acknowledge of any previous familial ties. You never existed.

    Shunning and the mainstream media seem to have taken a page from the Amish social behavioral hymnal. Go off narrative, you are shunned. You never existed.

    I have just one word for such media and associated scientists who shun those who express contrary views: loser.

  34. Another paper that came out in Science at the same time may gain more traction. It talks about how sensitive sea level is to temperature based on paleoclimate. Expect a 20 ft sea-level rise with only moderate warming, for example.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019.abstract?sid=3a9cd4a2-e7ab-4d57-84ce-f772974c3e13

    • Expect a 20 ft sea-level rise with only moderate warming, for example.

      http://epic.awi.de/22783/
      Consequently, the tree line was shifted northward up to todays mainland coast, and probably beyond, thus at least 270 km off its current position. Low net precipitation is shown by steppe plants and beetles. Aquatic organisms such as chironomids, ostracods, gastropods and hydrophytes indicate lake formation as result of thermokarst processes. Many of the lacustrine organisms are very warmth sensitive indicating a mean temperature of the warmest month near 13 °C, which is above the minimum requirement of tree growth and in contrast to modern values of less than 4 °C (Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory, 1980).

      Siberia was 9°C warmer.

      I’m not sure what point the Science Mag article was trying to make, but 9°C isn’t moderate warming.

      • Not the same paper or same period or same place, but otherwise comparable.

      • Well, your CO2 (0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM) has caused about 1.05 W/m2 of forcing. It might do another 1 W if you are lucky.

        The last ice age had a 5-8 meter higher sea level and the Arctic was 9°C warm (33.3 W/m2 more forcing).

        The Pliocene was a different era. There wasn’t an Arctic ice cap and the albedo was higher. The cooling was due to geography.

        The meme that decreasing CO2 caused the cooling is sort of silly. A few watts less CO2 forcing would have helped but it was mostly the build up of the ice sheets that dried out the environment and reduced albedo.

        The declining CO2 level was mostly an innocent bystander.

  35. Judith, your excerpt says “The global average surface temperature has been rising since 2003 by +0.001°C/year,” an alleged accuracy which is surely spurious or an error, your comment on it says “0.01C/decade,” which accepts the figure. Nothing I’ve seen at CE or elsewhere suggests that such accuracy is feasible or achievable. Your view?

  36. This may be a naïve question. I am not a scientist.

    Why don’t we simply use satellites to measure the total amount of electromagnetic energy entering and leaving the earth’s atmosphere? The difference between the two would be the net gain (or loss) of energy.

    I realize that some of that energy is converted to chemical bonds (e.g. hydrocarbons) where it can be stored indefinitely. But wouldn’t that be an exceedingly small fraction of the total daily energy exchange?

    If the earth is emitting as much radiation as it is receiving, wouldn’t that mean that the temperature is stable? It just seems like that would be a lot simpler than attempting to measure surface temperatures and temperatures at various ocean depths.

    Suppose we wanted to know whether Jupiter was heating up or cooling down. Couldn’t we calculate the incident radiation and measure the emitted radiation, and then use the difference as a measure of energy gain or loss? Would we actually need to put thousands of sensors on Jupiter’s surface, and would that really be more accurate?

    • Good question moshannon. However, IMO, it wouldn’t measure energy gain from anthropogenic (or other internal) sources or even what the residual global energy level is at any given time?

    • Why don’t we simply use satellites to measure the total amount of electromagnetic energy entering and leaving the earth’s atmosphere? The difference between the two would be the net gain (or loss) of energy.

      We do. CERES is one satellite that does this. However, it’s very difficult. For example, you have one or two satellites whizzing around taking measurements, which means that it takes quite some time before you’ve passed over enough points to estimate the net energy flux. You’re also having to measure across an entire energy spectrum (incoming is mainly visible, outgoing mainly IR) and determining a small difference between two large numbers (i.e., incoming and outgoing fluxes are hundreds of W/m^2 and the imbalance is tenths of W/m^2). Consequently, there are large uncertainties. The advantage of measuring energy in the oceans is that you can simply drop 1000s of buoys into the oceans that move up and down taking measurements. The overall uncertainties are, therefore, much smaller. The oceans also have – by far – the largest heat content in our climate system. Therefore estimating the change in energy in the oceans is a pretty good way to estimate the net planetary energy imbalance. The satellite measurements are consistent with the ocean heat content data.

  37. On BBC radio this morning, Richard Allan claimed that this new paper showed that warming was continuing “at full pelt”.
    He did not mention any numbers, like 0.001°C/year.
    But he did mention the urgency of coming to a global agreement on emissions in Paris.

    • Paul

      Was he referring to this paper or the Karl one? He was given a very easy ride.

      tonyb

    • We can bet the farm that no MSM will ever mention anything in hundredths or thousandths of a degree. They know the public would laugh them out of the room. At some point, common sense takes over.

    • Just in case, the oceans are on the earth.

    • It would not matter which paper. Anybody who thinks this paper is bad news for burners needs to work up a bucket of cold water and throw it on themselves. This is basically warmed over England.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        Do you have access to the paper? All I’ve seen is paywalled and one can go broke getting instant access. I’ve not yet e-mailed for a full copy.

    • When Richard Allan attempts to explain variations in temperatures-at-depth in such vague terms as “oceans sloshing about,” it’s hard from keep from laughing at his knowledge of oceanic processes. And when he sums up findings showing, at best, COMPENSATORY temperature changes in different oceans as global warming continuing at “full pelt,” the laughter becomes insuppressible.

      The fact of the matter is that the temperature anywhere in the near-surface ocean is perpetually changing due both to advection by currents and to local heating/cooling from variations in insolation, evaporation, mixing and direct transfer to the atmosphere . It is not, as Allan portrays it, simply a matter of a fixed amount of thermal energy being perpetually redistributed spatially on top of a GHG-induced rising secular trend. Even in the context of a BBC interview, the appeal to simplistic unscientific notions is abysmal.

  38. Pingback: Ny forskning bortforklarer manglende global oppvarming | Klimarealistene

  39. annual sum of max temp

    Sorry, it’s the annual sum of the day to day change of max temps.
    Tmx1-Tmx2 + Tmx2-Tmx3 + …. + Tmx364 – Tmx365/ Wsolarforcing1 +Wsolarforcing2 … + Wsolarforcing365

  40. How is the earth retaining heat when the stratosphere is not cooling? How does that happen? I mean if the ocean is gaining heat year on year, why isn’t the stratosphere cooling year on year? How is the same heat heating both places.

  41. What are the odds? If catastrophic global warming has more than a 1% chance of happening, we should stop looking at these graphs and forcings and concentrate on solutions to the problem, which is CO2 emissions. The details don’t reveal the extent of the problem, they just cast doubt in the maze of uncertainty. The chances of AGW are closing in on 100%.

    • Paul, it doesn’t really matter what the odds are, what matters is what is the catastrophe. it is like Pascals wager. If you consider eternal damnation the ultimate of all or an infinite catastrophe, you may as well believe in God. No need for statistics or science in that case is there? Just do it.

      You start and let me know how it works out. Personally, I think the science stuff is pretty interesting.

    • Paul Jay,

      Increased temperatures over the past couple of centuries have been accompanied by improved conditions for humans, who are now bigger, better nourished, healthier and so on. Increased amount of CO2 and H2O have increased food supplies and cooled previously barren areas.

      Do you want to return to the past? Svante Arrhenius hoped for a warmer future. As to solving the problem, I’m with Svante. What problem? It all looks good to me!

    • Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater.

  42. There are several things I have to say about this article that are not really rosy. First, their opening sentence rubs me in the wrong way. They pontificate that “…it has been established that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating back into space.” That is abject nonsense. It is a statement of a totally non-scientific doctrine from the global worming movement. If it were true, you would have to ask when it started. If this has been going on for centuries, why are we still here? If short-term, when and how did it start and what causes it? They know they have no answers but keep pushing it on true believers like these unfortunate authors. Ferenc Miskolczi [1] has established that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains the balance between the absorbed shortwave and emitted long wave radiation by keeping the total flux of optical depth close to the theoretical equilibrium values (best current value 1.87). Secondly, their attempt at explaining the hiatus suffers from the same problem numerous other attempts to prove or disprove it suffer from. Namely, that there is not one but two hiatuses they have to deal with. Two of them makes it hard to argue that they do not exist. That second hiatus you don’t know about took place in the eighties and nineties. I discovered it in 2008 while doing research for my book “What Warming?” [2] and it is shown as figure 15 in the book. I also discovered that it was being covered up by a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” Co-conspirators in this plot are HadCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC. They are connected by common computer processing. Unbeknownst to them the computer left its footprints in all three, publicly available, temperature curves in exactly the same places. That fake warming has been incorporated into all ground-based global temperature data-sets and is part o all IPCC data-saets. Fortunately they still do not control the satellites and anyone can download the original data for this second hiatus from UAH or RSS databases. The correct global mean for this hiatus is shown in my figure 15. Starting from scratch, first use a transparent magic marker to establish the daily temperature curve. Its width should cover most of the fuzz from cloudiness variations in satellite data. Fortunately there is also an ENSO wave train of five El Nino peaks right in the middle of this hiatus. We can use it to determine the exact global mean temperature trend. Put a dot in the middle of each line connecting an El Nino peak with its neighboring La Nina valley. That is the location of global mean temperature at that point in time. If you do it for all five El Nino peaks these dots will line up in a horizontal straight line, indicating absence of warming for 18 years. It is shown as a blue line in figure 15. It is this absence of warming that numerous authors beholden to the global warming dogma have tried to deny. Now they have twice as many hiatuses to deal with and have to dream up additional fantasies to explain them away. They should not bother because Ferenc Miskolczi has had a physical explanation since 2007. The reason you don’t know that is that it got blacklisted almost as soon as it came out. That is because it was seen as a threat to the greenhouse theory of warming, which it is. Greenhouse theory got started when Svante Arrhenius observed in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must absorb infrared radiation and thereby warm the air. His initial estimates were high but the theory eventually got accepted by IPCC as an explanation of global warming, and still is. MGT (Miskolczi Greenhouse Theory) goes beyond that and notes that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and there is ten times more of it in the air than there is of carbon dioxide. They both simultaneously absorb infrared radiation and we need to know their respective roles in this. According to MGT it takes the form of a joint optimum absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide yo the atmosphere it will start to absorb IR just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, the original optical thickness is restored, and no Arrhenius warming takes place. This action by water vapor thus blocks the greenhouse effect that IPCC tells us about from happening. What it means in terms of observables is that increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not cause warming. And that is exactly what we do observe now. It is ahall mark of the hiatus. And it applies to any other hiatus as well. We would have learnt this already in the eighties if the global warming cabal had not covered up that hiatus with their bogus warming. Trying to boost the warming by manipulating sea surface temperature is another waste of time. You have to get used to the idea that most of the time the climate is in a hiatus state and real radical changes happen only when a new hiatus is created. With the knowledge of the hiatus in the eighties and nineties any warming in that period is impossible, especially any greenhouse warming. The the two hiatuses together block out any warming that might have happened in their absence from 80 percent of the total satellite era. The remaining 20 percent includes the super El Nino of 1998 and a short warming that started in 1999. In three years it raised global temperature by one third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. This was the first and the last warming of the entire satellite era if you exclude ENSO. With that, we can say that there never was any greenhouse warming during the entire satellite era starting in 1979. You guess what happened before that.

    • [1] Ferenc Miskolczi “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” Quarterly Journal of Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 2, No. 1, January-March 2007, pp. 1-40

      [2] Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature cxhange” (CreateSpace 2010) figure15

    • Arno, there were also things described in the interview with the author, Nieves, (JC’s link) following the published paper that don’t make sense:

      “Given the fact the Pacific Decadal Oscillation seems to be shifting to a warm phase, ocean heating in the Pacific will definitely drive a major surge in global surface warming,’ Nieves said. Previous attempts to explain the global surface temperature cooling trend have relied more heavily on climate model results…”

      Okay, so she’s referring to models that are inferior for short-term measurements here. She then says of models:

      “These, Nasa says, are better at simulating long-term impacts over many decades and centuries.”

      Did she confirm the models accuracy directly by observing outcomes over the many decades and centuries by utilizing a time-machine?

      The latest study relied on observations, which are better for showing shorter-term changes over 10 to 20 years.

      So models aren’t good according to her for short-term changes of 10-20 years. Obviously this part is true based on direct observation. But this directly leads to the question, where’s the time machine? Stay tuned for the next Science blockbuster.

      “In shorter time spans, natural variations such as the recent slowdown in global surface temperature trends can have larger regional impacts on climate than human-caused warming.”

      So accordingly, forget short-term models again, rely on natural variation as the more likely driver of climate.

      “Pauses of a decade or more in Earth’s average surface temperature warming have happened before in modern times, with one occurring between the mid-1940s and late 1970s.”

      Of course this is the period that began the strong upward momentum of CO2 per hockey stick.

      “In the long term, there is robust evidence of unabated global warming,’ Nieves said.”

      Again, this is proved through the superior performance of modeling for long-term, as she’s stated. Over all, I’m surprised, it seems like the time machine should be the observational focus here.

      • The argument is that you can’t really be confident in the trend in a 15-year window like this
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:2000
        But when you step back and look at the big picture you get a better idea because even a slow forcing trend stands out above the natural variability
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1900
        This is how the picture looks now, and the forcing change going forwards from 2000 to 2100 could be twice to three times what we have seen prior to 2000, so it will dominate the signal even more than this.

      • I’m simply pointing how Nieves has described the unreliability of short-term models, she utilizes natural variability to describe her results; yet she expresses full confidence in long-term models that can’t, with contemporary knowledge, be verified with direct observation to prove their veracity. Nieves portrays absolute faith in long-term models, but not short-term ones. It’s a perfect “having cake and eat it too” analogy.

  43. References:

    [1] Ferenc Miskolczi, “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” Quarterly Journal of Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 2, No. 1, January-March 2007, pp. 1-40

    [2] Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change (CreaterSpace 2019), figure 15

    • Hyperlink to ref [2]?

    • jungletrunks, I am with you.

      JimD, you are trying to defend the indefensible.
      It is not a 15 year window, it is total absence of greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide I am talking about. It follows necessarily from the MGT greenhouse theory. Arrhenius greenhouse theory makes wrong predictions about warming and is thereby proven invalid. With it dies any possibility that greenhouse warming is real and causes global warming. The global warming IPCC still talks about is a fantasy that has caused irrational emission control legislation to be passed that has no influence on temperature but wastes huge amounts of money from national treasuries. IPCC problem is that their physics fails to account for the action of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is one of them and there is ten times as much of it in the air as there is of carbon dioxide. They both simultaneously absorb in the IR and share a joint optimal absorption window whose optical thickness is 1.87. This value is determined from radiosonde measurements. If you now add carbon dioxide to the air by burning, let’s say, some kind of fossil fuel, this will increase the optical thickness of the atmosphere because of the additional absorption it causes. But as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, the original value of optical thickness is restored, and no warming takes place. What an observer will see is that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases but there is no parallel warming that is predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory. This is the situation now and it even has a name – hiatus, meaning stoppage of warming. This has been going on for 15 years as Jim says but the leadership of the global warming movement simply refuses to admit its reality. Not only that, but they have recruited water vapor into their pseudo-science by claiming that it increases greenhouse warming. This is abject nonsense and irresponsible because Miskolczi theory came out in 2007 and is well known to them. They actually denied that water vapor could block warming and blacklisted the theory. No one could talk or publish about it. Now we have a hiatus that experimentally verifies the predictions of MGT. There are simply dozens of worthless articles trying to prove it does not exist, the present one among them. Plus, there is still another hiatus in the eighties and nineties that the temperature dwarfs in the back cave of IPCC have decided to hide from us. But you don’t need their temperature curve, just download one from the satellites.

  44. “We find that cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the past decade since 2003.”

    Surely they must mean Indian and South Atlantic Oceans?

  45. Apparently 70% of the Earth’s geothermal activity occurs beneath the oceans. Gee, who would have thought, considering the percentage of the Earth’s surface that is covered by ocean?

    So, where would all this heat finish up?

    To borrow a Warmist word – “duh”.

    Sorry about that. Well . . . not really!

  46. human1ty1st

    so from this study
    1) heating in the ocean continues at the same pace in the oceans when comparing the 90s to the 00s
    2) there has been a shift of where the oceans warm in terms of ocean basins.
    3) we can forget deep ocean warming ( to the extent that its even measured)
    4) the hiatus is purely an atmospheric phenomenon,
    5) possibly this shift in the distribution of energy in the ocean has led to a shift in the rate of energy exchange between the ocean and air. This is large enough to manifest itself as a rate change in the atmospheric warming in the 00’s but too small to show in the ocean data as a signal
    5) given that most (>90%) of the extra heat is going into the ocean it would be safer to say that global warming continues at the same pace.

  47. Looking at the Indian Ocean upper OHC at a finer scales, the warming events correlate well with negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes.
    The NAO variability is not internal, I have produced solar based forecasts for it since 2008. The last 20 years have been dominated by a decline in solar plasma strength, a meaningful model of the hiatus will have to take account of that.

  48. http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

    As can be shown the current spike of warmth in the PDO is just that a spike within the overall cold phase of the PDO , which has occurred many times in the past as the data in the above verifies.